In case you have not figured it out

[dogtowner]

I am conservative with libertarian tendencies. I'm Christian, a family man and involved with youth sports. Been rattling around the intetrwebs on this chat board or that as they interest me or they lose interest in me.

Like I tell the kids I coached regarding their sport, 'its supposed to be fun'. I see these things in much the same light. Sure some things regarding politics are serious but its not like any of us are going to change the world but we can enjoy jawing about it just the same.

I did my part of actually trying to change the world in my misspent youth (helped get Vote18 to happen here) and have been knocking around the political world since before I could drive.

So lets have some fun, maybe poke each other with sticks on occasion but still go have the proverbial beer afterward.

Its supposed to be fun, right ?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

dude your kinda late on this lol

As you may have noticed, I am a liberal, but a moderate and member of the Independance Party of MN...I can be have my fun in politics, but there are some lines I will not joke on , and I play hardball on those....As a liberal I am very focused on National Security, have studied Terrorism since I was in JR High) around the OK City bombing....and of course the Envirment...but health care, as someone who had no health care, had many freinds with none, and a very close freind with major health issues...Health care reform is very important to me.

 

[dogtowner]

dude your kinda late on this lol

sue me

As you may have noticed, I am a liberal, but a moderate and member of the Independance Party of MN...I can be have my fun in politics, but there are some lines I will not joke on , and I play hardball on those....As a liberal I am very focused on National Security, have studied Terrorism since I was in JR High) around the OK City bombing....and of course the Envirment...but health care, as someone who had no health care, had many freinds with none, and a very close freind with major health issues...Health care reform is very important to me.

I should have pointed out I an also interested in conservation from way back. Not the ELF variety but the productive kind like Ducks Unlimited (done more to conserve wetlands in NA than all others combined).

I too would like to see health care reforms but that soes not mean ONLY health INSURANCE reform. The main problem is that it costs too damn much. So it follows that insurance costs too damn much, no matter whose insurance it is. First things first.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

sue me



I should have pointed out I an also interested in conservation from way back. Not the ELF variety but the productive kind like Ducks Unlimited (done more to conserve wetlands in NA than all others combined).

I too would like to see health care reforms but that soes not mean ONLY health INSURANCE reform. The main problem is that it costs too damn much. So it follows that insurance costs too damn much, no matter whose insurance it is. First things first.

they are also working on that, Electronic records should cut errors and costs when they get a universal system set up

 

[dogtowner]

they are also working on that, Electronic records should cut errors and costs when they get a universal system set up

I keep reading that but having worked in that biz I'm not buyng it.

Defensive medicine is the biggest problem and being fought tooth and nail by medical providers who will, naturally, suffer the most for it as well as trial lawyers who would also suffer. Fraud, primarily in the Medi's (care and cade), is also massive. I know that there is an answer for rx costs but I do not know what it is, have not heard it yet and not clever enough myself to sort it out.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I keep reading that but having worked in that biz I'm not buyng it.

Defensive medicine is the biggest problem and being fought tooth and nail by medical providers who will, naturally, suffer the most for it as well as trial lawyers who would also suffer. Fraud, primarily in the Medi's (care and cade), is also massive. I know that there is an answer for rx costs but I do not know what it is, have not heard it yet and not clever enough myself to sort it out.

I agree its a issue, and thats one reason I supported Edwards back in the Day, he was pushing for a medical review board to take the place of courts, sorta of a medical court...to help keep things in line more, able to give the big lawsuits when companies need it, but more able to weed out fraud and frivalis lawsuits. Problem is the Right to often things Tort Reform is the fix for it, yet many states have aggressive reform already..one of the biggest ones, Missisispi also has some of the highest health care costs and they actuy went up after it I recall.

 

[dogtowner]

I agree its a issue, and thats one reason I supported Edwards back in the Day, he was pushing for a medical review board to take the place of courts, sorta of a medical court...to help keep things in line more, able to give the big lawsuits when companies need it, but more able to weed out fraud and frivalis lawsuits. Problem is the Right to often things Tort Reform is the fix for it, yet many states have aggressive reform already..one of the biggest ones, Missisispi also has some of the highest health care costs and they actuy went up after it I recall.

tort reform in the form of cap limitations is not the answer.

most cases ever see court and intentionally so. the lawyers file and they settle for far less knowing the the malpractice ins companies will nearly always do this simply because its cheaper. so havng caps is kind of useless.

courts or arbitrators wont matter much as they will never get that far either. same reason. just a new class of judge.

now if you look at tort reform in the form of "loser pays" then you have a reaason for the ins cos to participate. if the loser is forced to pick up the court costs then lawyers will be far more selective about the cases they file. people who have legitimate cases will still get compensation, much as they do today (bonafide cases do not get settled because its a real chance for the lawyer to get a big payday) so nobody loses but the lawyers.

then the caps are gone and the real threat of big time claims remain to encourage the AMA to police itself (like it does not have to do now) and perhaps everyone wins for a change.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

tort reform in the form of cap limitations is not the answer.

most cases ever see court and intentionally so. the lawyers file and they settle for far less knowing the the malpractice ins companies will nearly always do this simply because its cheaper. so havng caps is kind of useless.

courts or arbitrators wont matter much as they will never get that far either. same reason. just a new class of judge.

now if you look at tort reform in the form of "loser pays" then you have a reaason for the ins cos to participate. if the loser is forced to pick up the court costs then lawyers will be far more selective about the cases they file. people who have legitimate cases will still get compensation, much as they do today (bonafide cases do not get settled because its a real chance for the lawyer to get a big payday) so nobody loses but the lawyers.

then the caps are gone and the real threat of big time claims remain to encourage the AMA to police itself (like it does not have to do now) and perhaps everyone wins for a change.

Loser pays has a major flaw

Say I have some Dr Screw up takes out the wrong kidney or something who knows...I sue becuse they practicy killed me and charged my insurance for that operation and the one to fix the mistake...ext....Now I sue....I have to go with me 40,000 a year income to get a lawyer and all that time ( years fighting most likey) against there team of high priced lawyers.....I have a legit case, but I can't risk losing becuse I could not pay for those costs...and even if you are in the right, or have a legit case...does not mean you will win.

 

[dogtowner]

Loser pays has a major flaw

Say I have some Dr Screw up takes out the wrong kidney or something who knows...I sue becuse they practicy killed me and charged my insurance for that operation and the one to fix the mistake...ext....Now I sue....I have to go with me 40,000 a year income to get a lawyer and all that time ( years fighting most likey) against there team of high priced lawyers.....I have a legit case, but I can't risk losing becuse I could not pay for those costs...and even if you are in the right, or have a legit case...does not mean you will win.

the risk is still with your lawyer, the pays part is on him.
and he will not file unless he knows he'll win.

all he loses now if he loses is his time and some incidental costs.

now then, not so bad huh ?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

the risk is still with your lawyer, the pays part is on him.
and he will not file unless he knows he'll win.

all he loses now if he loses is his time and some incidental costs.

now then, not so bad huh ?

so you want to punish lawyers for fighting a case that may not be black and white then? then they end up having insurance to cover lost cases, and then it costs even more to get a lawayer worth his wait in spit

 

[dogtowner]

so you want to punish lawyers for fighting a case that may not be black and white then? then they end up having insurance to cover lost cases, and then it costs even more to get a lawayer worth his wait in spit

it already costs to get a good one, that will never change. but they still take cases on their dime and take their pay as a percentage.

and the injured dont have to settle for a vastly reduced settlement.