Congressional Republicans have introduced a 219 page health care bill that does what Americans really want - it lowers health care costs. This bill allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, reduces the cost of prescription drugs and includes serious tort reform to eliminate frivolous law suits. The Republican bill lowers health care costs through free markets and effective changes in insurance regulations. It will not raise taxes and it will lower the cost of insurance premiums. In addition, it will not kill private sector jobs.
Now compare that to the 2,000 plus page monstrosity Nancy Pelosi and the left wing Democrats are trying to jam through congress. The massive Pelosi bill is a $1.25 trillion dollar take over of America's health care system by the Federal government. Americans have repeatedly told the Obama administration that they do not want his big government health care bill. They did this in town hall protest meetings all across the country, they did it in the polls and they did it in the New jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial elections.
The problem is, Pelosi and the Democrats who control congress will not even look at the Republican health care bill. Their only interest is to jam through this big government health care take over bill. A bill that the Wall Street Journal recently called "the worst bill written in recent times". The only good news is that Republicans might be able to stop this horrible, trillion dollar plus bill in the senate. Lets just hope the Republicans and moderate Democrats can kill this monstrosity before it is unleashed on the American people.
Irish Mike
OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The Nobel Peace Prize!
I spit on the Republicans. They were running the whole show not very long ago and where were they with health care reform? Tort reform? Nowhere, that's where they were except maybe in the pockets of the insurance industry. To hell with them, the opportunistic bastards. Sure, they come up with their plan now when they have little say. Not that I care for the Dems either. The truth is they're both horrible.
Howard Beale
---- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> Congressional Republicans have introduced a 219 page health care bill that > does what Americans really want - it lowers health care costs. This bill > allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, reduces the > cost of prescription drugs and includes serious tort reform to eliminate > frivolous law suits. The Republican bill lowers health care costs through > free markets and effective changes in insurance regulations. It will not > raise taxes and it will lower the cost of insurance premiums. In > addition, it will not kill private sector jobs.
> Now compare that to the 2,000 plus page monstrosity Nancy Pelosi and the > left wing Democrats are trying to jam through congress. The massive > Pelosi bill is a $1.25 trillion dollar take over of America's health care > system by the Federal government. Americans have repeatedly told the > Obama administration that they do not want his big government health care > bill. They did this in town hall protest meetings all across the country, > they did it in the polls and they did it in the New jersey and Virginia > Gubernatorial elections.
> The problem is, Pelosi and the Democrats who control congress will not > even look at the Republican health care bill. Their only interest is to > jam through this big government health care take over bill. A bill that > the Wall Street Journal recently called "the worst bill written in recent > times". The only good news is that Republicans might be able to stop this > horrible, trillion dollar plus bill in the senate. Lets just hope the > Republicans and moderate Democrats can kill this monstrosity before it is > unleashed on the American people.
> Irish Mike
> OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The > Nobel Peace Prize!
x:The Republican bill lowers health care costs through free markets and effective changes in insurance regulations. ========================================== republicans(whigs) have never help create any free market, an never had any desire to do so..........
> Congressional Republicans have introduced a 219 page health care bill that > does what Americans really want - it lowers health care costs. This bill > allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, reduces the > cost of prescription drugs and includes serious tort reform to eliminate > frivolous law suits. The Republican bill lowers health care costs through > free markets and effective changes in insurance regulations. It will not > raise taxes and it will lower the cost of insurance premiums. In > addition, it will not kill private sector jobs.
> Now compare that to the 2,000 plus page monstrosity Nancy Pelosi and the > left wing Democrats are trying to jam through congress. The massive > Pelosi bill is a $1.25 trillion dollar take over of America's health care > system by the Federal government. Americans have repeatedly told the > Obama administration that they do not want his big government health care > bill. They did this in town hall protest meetings all across the country, > they did it in the polls and they did it in the New jersey and Virginia > Gubernatorial elections.
> The problem is, Pelosi and the Democrats who control congress will not > even look at the Republican health care bill. Their only interest is to > jam through this big government health care take over bill. A bill that > the Wall Street Journal recently called "the worst bill written in recent > times". The only good news is that Republicans might be able to stop this > horrible, trillion dollar plus bill in the senate. Lets just hope the > Republicans and moderate Democrats can kill this monstrosity before it is > unleashed on the American people.
> Irish Mike
> OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The > Nobel Peace Prize!
"Serious tort reform". I've yet to read the bill, but I can guess. Tort reform means caps on monetary awards, right? So, a jury can not be trusted to award the proper amount, instead we will let the government decide what is fair and equitable. Now I'm confused.
The Republicans have often stated that lower taxes and less government means the individual will have more money, the freedom to choose how to spend the money and the wisdom to spend it correctly. Tort reforms says the individual does not have the wisdom to award money in a fair manner. So which is it?
Bea Foroni
The problem with Capitalism is that eventually a few individuals will own everything.
> "Serious tort reform". I've yet to read the bill, but I can guess. > Tort reform means caps on monetary awards, right? So, a jury can not > be trusted to award the proper amount, instead we will let the > government decide what is fair and equitable. Now I'm confused.
You will often hear right-wingers use "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence, but the truth is that the most common and significant "tort reform" proposals have nothing to do with reducing frivolous lawsuits. There are already civil procedure provisions that deal very effectively with that issue. Medical tort reform is primarily about reducing damage awards to the the victims of the most egregious cases of medical negligence. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
>I spit on the Republicans. They were running the whole show not very long > ago and where were they with health care reform? Tort reform? Nowhere, > that's where they were except maybe in the pockets of the insurance > industry. To hell with them, the opportunistic bastards. Sure, they come > up with their plan now when they have little say. Not that I care for the > Dems either. The truth is they're both horrible.
> Howard Beale
> ---- > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
This reminds me of the non-crazy slogan for the 1968 presidential election:
> Medical tort > reform is primarily about reducing damage awards to the the victims of > the most egregious cases of medical negligence.
Not primarily, 100% about capping damages and zero to do with "frivolous lawsuits". Well, in the eyes of the corporate GOPers ALL lawsuits are frivolous.
> You will often hear right-wingers use "tort reform" and "frivolous > lawsuit" in the same sentence, but the truth is that the most common and > significant "tort reform" proposals have nothing to do with reducing > frivolous lawsuits.
You often hear BillB use "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence without an explanation of what he might mean by either term. You often then hear BillB say that "right-wingers" often use the same two terms in the same sentence but he never seems to explain what he means by his juxtaposition of the two concepts. You often then hear BillB pontificate that the two terms have nothing to do with each other without any more explanation. One must assume what BillB might mean ... other than a rhetorical tern of a slur against those that he seems are properly slighted by the term "right winger."
> There are already civil procedure provisions that deal very effectively > with that issue.
You often hear BillB say something like "that issue" as if this term has been explained. One might presume what Bill might consider "that issue"... but if one guesses incorrectly, the charge of foolishness will be heaped upon the unlucky suspect.
Being the brave soul that I am, I choose to assume Bill means "that issue" to mean "frivolous lawsuits" but I am not sure because there is absolutely no civil procedure to deal with "that" issue. (Well, there is the possibility that absolutely fraudulent lawsuits might ... maybe ... possible be "dealt with" ... but that cannot be assumed from just "frivolous" ... if it turns out that an attorney issued a settlement check to the plaintiff and the check is dated BEFORE the accident giving rise to the lawsuit occurred ... well that is sometimes dealt with.)
I have only practiced for a little over thirty years and I have never seen a frivolous lawsuit dealt with ... not one.
So, maybe Bill is using "that issue" to refer to "tort reform" ... I really do not see how that could make much sense, but perhaps he is pleased with the tort reform already instituted in some states. I have never seen much evidence of that either, but perhaps some details will be forthcoming in the future ... and yet my beath is not held.
> Medical tort reform is primarily about reducing damage awards to the the > victims of the most egregious cases of medical negligence. Anyone who > tells > you otherwise is a liar.
One must really go on a guessing game to discover the meaning of the words of the first sentence. The conclusion about anyone who has the termerity to questions the possible meaning shouted there in the second sentence is pretty clear.
The first sentence makes little sense and any presumptions made to make it make sense makes it incorrect. What to do? There are indeed states that have "capped" pain and suffering claims (general damage awards) in medical malpractice lawsuits. But the term "tort reform" is a much broader concept that just capping general damages in med-mal cases. What to think? And when one limits the scenario to the "most egregious cases of medical negligence" without more ... really, what is one to make of such statements?
If BillB was talking about Canada and Canadian medical malpractice and tort reform in Canada, perhaps he might be a little more specific and a little more forthcoming about his knowledge and since he is apparently somewhat educated about such Canadian matters, one might make some adjustments ... but since he is posting generalities as facts and making specific unclear detailed conclusions and smearing (in advance) anyone who would dare questions his clarity or opinion ... well, it takes a real gentleman not to engage in a name calling contest right along with him.
> .. well, it takes a real gentleman not to engage in a name calling > contest right along with him.
> So instead, you inflict several paragraphs of meandering smugness on > everyone... all while purporting to take the high ground.
> Oh you brave, brave soul. Such a gentleman.
Don't forget meandering ignorance. It's hard to imagine a real lawyer who has been practicing for 30 years (or 30 seconds, for that matter) not knowing the meaning of the term "frivolous lawsuit". It is a very well defined and well understood term by lawyers, judges, and most laypersons. Maybe we can all chip in and get my stalker a law dictionary.
And he doesn't know what right-winger means either? I am finding all this very hard to believe. That term is used almost every day on RGP and everywhere else. I don't think I have ever heard anyone question its meaning before. Does one need to spell out the meaning of every term for this idiot?
I think his obsession with me has officially crossed the line from disturbing to clinically insane.
> Don't forget meandering ignorance. It's hard to imagine a real > lawyer who has been practicing for 30 years (or 30 seconds, for that > matter) not knowing the meaning of the term "frivolous lawsuit". It > is a very well defined and well understood term by lawyers, judges, > and most laypersons. Maybe we can all chip in and get my stalker a > law dictionary.
LOL I just noticed he also said there is "absolutely no civil procedure" to deal with frivolous lawsuits. There is absolutely no way this nutcase is really a lawyer.
> Don't forget meandering ignorance. It's hard to imagine a real lawyer who > has been practicing for 30 years (or 30 seconds, for that matter) not > knowing the meaning of the term "frivolous lawsuit". It is a very well > defined and well understood term by lawyers, judges, and most laypersons. > Maybe we can all chip in and get my stalker a law dictionary.
How do you deal with frivolous lawsuits in your personal practice, Bill?
About fifty percent of the lawsuits I defend are frivolous. There is no solution to the current tort situation in the United States. If you are so smart, why don't you come and save us billions and billions of dollars by applying the civil procedure for dealing with frivolous lawsuits.
Do you still think "tort reform" is limited to med-mal cases?
> LOL I just noticed he also said there is "absolutely no civil procedure" > to deal with frivolous lawsuits. There is absolutely no way this nutcase > is really a lawyer.
Not of the sort that matter ... not any at all.
You still have not pointed out your experience in dealing with frivolous lawsuits? Ever seen one?
> How do you deal with frivolous lawsuits in your personal practice, > Bill?
Do you not understand I have no desire to communicate with you? Have I not made that abundantly clear? You are a bona fide idiot, and a stalker. It is not my job to educate you. Stop following me around. Leave me alone.
>> How do you deal with frivolous lawsuits in your personal practice, Bill?
> Do you not understand I have no desire to communicate with you? Have I not > made that abundantly clear? You are a bona fide idiot, and a stalker. It > is not my job to educate you. Stop following me around. Leave me alone.
Wow, such a temper.
It is not your job to educate anyone. Unfortunately, you continue to act like you are supposed to pontificate but are immune to criticism. You are a funny guy. You seem to think that when I respond to one of your many posts to point out that what you are posting is incorrect, that is some sort of forbidden practice. That is funny. It is not my job to educate you. It is my pleasure to point out some of the more egregious misstatements you make ... especially when they involve the law. Your assumptions are often poorly grounded and your conclusions sometimes do not follow from your premises.
In this particular thread, you seem to imply that your version of the issue of frivolous lawsuits is the only one that has any merit. It is not. As a matter of fact, unless you flesh out your generalities, your specific conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is a bono fide idiot is just ... well, funny.
(It does give me a perverse pleasure to find that you cannot answer a simple question that is direct, to the point and would indicate your expertise in this specific area.)
>"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >news:0q4as6xaf5.ln2@recgroups.com... >>I spit on the Republicans. They were running the whole show not very long >> ago and where were they with health care reform? Tort reform? Nowhere, >> that's where they were except maybe in the pockets of the insurance >> industry. To hell with them, the opportunistic bastards. Sure, they come >> up with their plan now when they have little say. Not that I care for the >> Dems either. The truth is they're both horrible.
>> Howard Beale
>> ---- >> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>This reminds me of the non-crazy slogan for the 1968 presidential election:
>"Nixpn's the one...Humphrey's the other."
I don't think anyone can top Pat Paulsen's slogan when he was running for president.
> If you understood what Bill was saying, why don't you explain it?
Why do I have to explain something written in plain English? You're the one claiming not to understand simple phrases that are commonly used and universally understood. Figure it out.
---- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Re: The Republican Alternative Health Care Bill is exactly what America needs Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2009, 12:08pm From: BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca>
I turned down that job, but now that I see the title in writing, I must admit I am a little jealous. .................................................................
I wrote:
It was all made-up by Cole ("no fuss no muss") dumb. Go ahead, let's see you coordinate something.
|
