(1502 pages)Finance Committee bill has been filed [Archive]

spursncowboys

10-19-2009, 08:51 PM

Finance Committee bill has been filed (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/Finance_Committee_bill_has_been_filed_.html#)

Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read (http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf)the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.

Read (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_091019_additional.html)a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.

Read (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_091019_additional1.html)Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.

The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.

The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.

But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.

The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.

Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN.

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 12:03 AM

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 12:10 AM

The countdown to the destruction of the US economy and founding principles continues...

XAg5KjnAhuU

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:28 AM

The countdown to the destruction of the US economy and founding principles continues...

And a side note..

This one bill is 1502 pages?

The document that founded the entire country was 4 pages.

...and so it goes.Did you ever complain about the number of pages in a bill when the Republicans were in control of the government?

I'll go ahead and say no.

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:35 AM

Did you ever complain about the number of pages in a bill when the Republicans were in control of the government?

I'll go ahead and say no.

Get some sleep, your starting to talk to yourself.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:36 AM

Get some sleep, your starting to talk to yourself.I'm talking to you.

I notice you didn't deny it.

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:39 AM

XAg5KjnAhuU

A kazooeyuke?

Doesn't the destruction of the US economy at least rate brass instruments?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:41 AM

I'm talking to you.

I notice you didn't deny it.

You talking to me? You...talking...to...me!?

Just go ahead and say no...

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:43 AM

You talking to me? You...talking...to...me!?Yes.

Did you ever post a complaint about the number of pages in a bill when Republicans controlled the government?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:43 AM

Yes.

Did you ever post a complaint about the number of pages in a bill when Republicans controlled the government?

Who's complaining?

We're celebrating here!

Grab a kazoo.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:48 AM

Who's complaining?

We're celebrating here!

Grab a kazoo.I'm not asking what you are doing now.

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:48 AM

I'm not asking what you are doing now.

Party pooper

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:52 AM

Party pooperSo did you ever post a complaint about the number of pages in a bill while Republicans were in control of the government?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 03:55 AM

So did you ever post a complaint about the number of pages in a bill while Republicans were in control of the government?

Do you really care...I mean...really?

I'll answer for you, no.

Talking to oneself seems contagious in the wee hours, eh?

back to celebrating the destruction of the US economy! Where'd my Kazooyuke go?

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:57 AM

Do you really care...I mean...really?

I'll answer for you, no.As I guessed.

Talking to oneself seems contagious in the wee hours, eh?I'm talking to you. You don't understand that?

back to celebrating the destruction of the US economy! Where'd my Kazooyuke go?How, specifically, will this bill destroy the US economy?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 04:04 AM

As I guessed.

I'm talking to you. You don't understand that?

How, specifically, will this bill destroy the US economy?

Ok, it's late, I can't sleep...I'll play for a bit here.

Destroying private enterprise, destroys what this country was built upon.

Is this a new concept for you?

"ok..ok...how does govt controlling the health care industry destroy private enterprise?"

How does govt destroy any private enterprise? By socializing it.

Next stupid question?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 04:08 AM

Hurry up here...I'm getting sleepy now that I put the kazooyukey away.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:13 AM

Ok, it's late, I can't sleep...I'll play for a bit here.

Destroying private enterprise, destroys what this country was built upon.

Is this a new concept for you?

"ok..ok...how does govt controlling the health care industry destroy private enterprise?"

How does govt destroy any private enterprise? By socializing it.

Next stupid question?No, really, how does this bill destroy private enterprise?

How does the bill socialize it?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 04:17 AM

Ah, hell. My eye's are shutting, can't...stay...awake...any...longer.

You'll have to continue this..uh..discussion by yourself. But, you shouldn't make it a habit of talking to yourself. So, for your own good, and the good of the community at large...will you stop?

I'll go ahead and say no.

lol...

'nite then :)

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:18 AM

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 04:20 AM

No, really, how does this bill destroy private enterprise?

How does the bill socialize it?

oh goodie, one more stupid question before I go to sleep.

This bill doesn't socialize anything. Govt spending billions and trillions in a sector and telling everyone what to do in that sector...has nothing to do with socializing a thing!

lol

I thought your stupid question warranted an equally stupid answer.

'niters ;)

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:20 AM

oh goodie, one more stupid question before I go to sleep.

This bill doesn't socialize anything. Govt spending billions and trillions in a sector and telling everyone what to do in that sector...has nothing to do with socializing a thing!

lol

I thought your stupid question warranted an equally stupid answer.

'niters ;)And brave Sir Robin ran away.

boutons_deux

10-20-2009, 05:24 AM

With no strong public option (Medicare for everybody, no restrictions), then it's 1502 pages of shit.

"telling everyone what to do in that sector"

that "free market" sector is broken, with the insurers and care providers ripping off sick people, a shit stain on dysfunctional, diseased America.

baseline bum

10-20-2009, 05:43 AM

Destroying private enterprise, destroys what this country was built upon.

Is this a new concept for you?

This country was built on 1) prime land being taken from weak people who had no decent army and 2) the idiot French selling us Louisiana for a song.

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 07:08 AM

This country was built on 1) prime land being taken from weak people who had no decent army and 2) the idiot French selling us Louisiana for a song.
The Indians were fighting each other for each's land way before we showed up. To the victors...
This country was built on a judeo-christian belief and a Protestant work ethic.
What does this have to do with a 1502 page healthcare bill?

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 07:11 AM

that "free market" sector is broken, with the insurers and care providers ripping off sick people, a shit stain on dysfunctional, diseased America.

Wowie!!

Here, have a kazoo.

SouthernFried

10-20-2009, 07:13 AM

This country was built on 1) prime land being taken from weak people who had no decent army and 2) the idiot French selling us Louisiana for a song.

Waking up to the real world? The world that has been divided since day 1 by the use of force.

I'm thinkin' your needing some coffee.

baseline bum

10-20-2009, 07:39 AM

Waking up to the real world? The world that has been divided since day 1 by the use of force.

I'm thinkin' your needing some coffee.

So you agree with my point. I never made a moral judgment on it (nice projection there); I merely talked about the elephant in the room which people like to tiptoe around when discussing what made our nation rich.

jman3000

10-20-2009, 09:50 AM

There was probably a hundred thousand years or so when man was primitive that he lived in peace. He lived for about 25 years then died... but it was in relative peace.

Then came tools and it pretty much all went downhill from there.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 09:51 AM

A kazooeyuke?

Doesn't the destruction of the US economy at least rate brass instruments?

MtSqub3HUYs

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 11:43 AM

xqWGu5ZaQuQ

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 11:45 AM

iB2Z2DY17yQ

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 11:49 AM

The Indians were fighting each other for each's land way before we showed up. To the victors...
This country was built on a judeo-christian belief and a Protestant work ethic.
What does this have to do with a 1502 page healthcare bill?

:lmao

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 12:38 PM

:lmao
Why is us dropping the bomb on Japan a terrorist act??

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 12:40 PM

You put my quote in your signature without even understanding it?

Well, whats the definition of terrorism?

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 12:43 PM

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 01:43 PM

You put my quote in your signature without even understanding it?

Well, whats the definition of terrorism?
I put the quote there because of how ridiculous it is. I don't need to understand a pedophile to know he is sick in the head and should not be in our society. Your way of thinking is too simple. I doubt you hear it around your inner circle of sophisticated intellectuals like yourself. Please I do not need a lesson and would prefer a direct answer to my question.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 02:16 PM

I put the quote there because of how ridiculous it is. I don't need to understand a pedophile to know he is sick in the head and should not be in our society. Your way of thinking is too simple. I doubt you hear it around your inner circle of sophisticated intellectuals like yourself. Please I do not need a lesson and would prefer a direct answer to my question.

You want a direct answer? It fits the definition of terrorism. Its a use of violence intended to incite fear. Its pretty much inline with other US terrorism of WWII such as the fire bombing of Japan.

Why isn't it terrorism when it fits the definition perfectly?

Its funny how you ask for a direct answer when I was giving you one above you just didn't want to go that route. You wanted to get your rant out of the way. Thats why you brought this up in a totally unrelated thread when you could have asked the question when I made my comment in the other thread.

Spurminator

10-20-2009, 02:21 PM

To quote Stephen Colbert... "And there's not even a Quiddich match!"

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 05:01 PM

You want a direct answer? It fits the definition of terrorism. Its a use of violence intended to incite fear. Its pretty much inline with other US terrorism of WWII such as the fire bombing of Japan.

Why isn't it terrorism when it fits the definition perfectly?

Its funny how you ask for a direct answer when I was giving you one above you just didn't want to go that route. You wanted to get your rant out of the way. Thats why you brought this up in a totally unrelated thread when you could have asked the question when I made my comment in the other thread.
Every military engagement involves psychological warfare. In your ridiculously broad definition of it, every military war and battle was terrorism. That depreciates the word terrorism (like libs do to the word racist). The definition I have is from the FBI-
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. What America did was not unlawful.
Truman estimated half a million americans dead if we invaded
Andrew Roberts in his book wrote about this: "Others in the (Japanese) Government argued that the Americans (after the A-bomb on Hiroshima) had no more bombs, and that world opinion would anyhow stop the United States from deploying any more."
Our enemy was hoping on the help of people like you. Just like today.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:07 PM

Re: (1502 pages)Finance Committee bill has been filed

This thread is now two pages long.
Zero posts were on topic.

Carry on.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:08 PM

What America did was not unlawful.According to whom?

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:12 PM

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:12 PM

Could it?

coyotes_geek

10-20-2009, 05:16 PM

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 05:30 PM

Every military engagement involves psychological warfare. In your ridiculously broad definition of it, every military war and battle was terrorism. That depreciates the word terrorism (like libs do to the word racist). The definition I have is from the FBI-
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. What America did was not unlawful.
Truman estimated half a million americans dead if we invaded
Andrew Roberts in his book wrote about this: "Others in the (Japanese) Government argued that the Americans (after the A-bomb on Hiroshima) had no more bombs, and that world opinion would anyhow stop the United States from deploying any more."
Our enemy was hoping on the help of people like you. Just like today.

Not every military action has a psychological goal. The bombing of an munitions depot or the destruction of a tank are examples. In fact, the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals that are not physiological in nature. Your assertion otherwise is simply false.

The problem with using a definition with "unlawful" in it is the objectiveness. What makes something lawful? Do you believe a resident of Hiroshima or Nagasaki believes the use of the bomb was lawful? Do you believe Al-Qeada believes their attacks to be unlawful? Who gets to decide who's laws to use?

Now, here's where your tiny little brain gets tied up in knots. Its funny because no where did I say the use was wrong or bad. I merely pointed out how it fit the definition of terrorism. Yet somehow the enemy was counting on people like me and great Americans like yourself.

This is why I said the nationalism runs deep in your veins. You make stupid assertions that the US keeps the oceans free for trade (so fucking laughable) and you can never honestly critique anything the US does because you're automatically disposed to view it in a glorious light. You even managed to spin America's record of genocide earlier in this thread (they were already killing each other!). You do it all the time.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 05:32 PM

I mean really, why break the streak at this point?

It couldn't really be that the the Senate health reform bill is so much more important than political soothsaying, primitive accumulation, horn sections and relitigating WWII.

Really whats important about an OP who focuses on the number of pages in a bill that has been released out of committee, WH? Its not the final version of the bill in the Senate, and I really couldn't care less how many pages it took.

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 05:40 PM

Re: (1502 pages)Finance Committee bill has been filed

Carry on.:lmao Yeah I noticed that too. I was going to say something but now I am an accomplish and partaker in the melee.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:41 PM

Really whats important about an OP who focuses on the number of pages in a bill that has been released out of committee, WH? Its not the final version of the bill in the Senate, and I really couldn't care less how many pages it took.Sure. I was just wondering, why even have a topic if you're not going to discuss it?

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:41 PM

I guess the answer is, you can have a conversation anyway.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 05:43 PM

Sure. I was just wondering, why even have a topic if you're not going to discuss it?

Well I didn't start the topic so I can't tell you.

What exactly about the bill would you like to discuss?

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:47 PM

I'm not sure there's anything to discuss at this point, like you said. I was just noting the high noise to signal ratio.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:50 PM

Not that anything's wrong with that. I was a serial offender myself.

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 06:04 PM

Not every military action has a psychological goal. The bombing of an munitions depot or the destruction of a tank are examples. In fact, the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals that are not physiological in nature. Your assertion otherwise is simply false. You know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. bombing of an ammo depot is a perfect example of psychological goal in mind. It is to make the enemy ( or for you, the allies) panic. The cavalry was all about psyops. They would flank in hopes the enemy would over reinforce. The Airborne, was created to get behind enemy lines to disrupt the battlefield more that do anything actually beneficial to a battle. So you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear? You need to study your idea a little more. Maybe reread a few HuffPos threads.

The problem with using a definition with "unlawful" in it is the objectiveness. What makes something lawful? Do you believe a resident of Hiroshima or Nagasaki believes the use of the bomb was lawful? Do you believe Al-Qeada believes their attacks to be unlawful? Who gets to decide who's laws to use? Ok so we are not talking lawful. We are talking morals. Let's use our laws. That would make it so much more easier. We are a democracy. But if we want to use their laws, well ok. How did they get their laws? They won, they were the strongest. So to them, might means right. Ok so we use our might. In Al Qeda then that means anything goes.
It is so easy for you to be able sit here and demonize something that gives you the ability to do so. In 1942 there was no guarantee we would win in Japan or Germany. The closest thing to an island invasion that would be like Japan was the battle for okinawa which began on Easter Sunday 1945. The attack on the sixty-mile long and two-toeighteen mile wide island lasted nearly three months. The battle costed the Americans ground forces 7343 killed 31807 wounded and 239 missing or 35% of the entire force. Furthermore 36 ships were sunk, 368 were damaged, 763 aircrafts were lost. 4907 sailors killed or missing and 4874 wounded.

Now, here's where your tiny little brain gets tied up in knots. Its funny because no where did I say the use was wrong or bad. I merely pointed out how it fit the definition of terrorism. Yet somehow the enemy was counting on people like me and great Americans like yourself.

This is why I said the nationalism runs deep in your veins. You make stupid assertions that the US keeps the oceans free for trade (so fucking laughable) and you can never honestly critique anything the US does because you're automatically disposed to view it in a glorious light. You even managed to spin America's record of genocide earlier in this thread (they were already killing each other!). You do it all the time.The US does keep the ocean free from trade. That is just a fact. PRove it wrong if you don't believe it. I don't find us keep markets free that glorious, just a reason why free market is better than all the rest. The others build walls to keep their people in to enjoy their great society.
You are seriously saying the Indians were not fighting each other for the very same land you say we stole from them? I don't think America's history is perfect. But show a country that has better and has done more. I don't know why you have to rewrite history to hate America.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 06:41 PM

You know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. bombing of an ammo depot is a perfect example of psychological goal in mind. It is to make the enemy ( or for you, the allies) panic.

No, I'm going to go ahead and say the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind. I'm not even sure why you're arguing that this isn't the case.

The cavalry was all about psyops. They would flank in hopes the enemy would over reinforce.

That isn't psyops.

The Airborne, was created to get behind enemy lines to disrupt the battlefield more that do anything actually beneficial to a battle.

Yeah, that isn't psyops either. Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about?

Tactical operations have tactical goals in mind even if there may be psychological side effects. That doesn't mean their psyops.

So you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear? You need to study your idea a little more. Maybe reread a few HuffPos threads.

Target Committee meeting notes:

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection
A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
8. Use Against "Military" Objectives
A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

This memo from a meeting with General Marshall and his dissent on target selection (he didn't want to bomb a city) is really interesting.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf

Ok so we are not talking lawful. We are talking morals. Let's use our laws. That would make it so much more easier. We are a democracy. But if we want to use their laws, well ok. How did they get their laws? They won, they were the strongest. So to them, might means right. Ok so we use our might. In Al Qeda then that means anything goes.

You or someone else is going to need to translate this paragraph for me because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey

It is so easy for you to be able sit here and demonize something that gives you the ability to do so. In 1942 there was no guarantee we would win in Japan or Germany. The closest thing to an island invasion that would be like Japan was the battle for okinawa which began on Easter Sunday 1945. The attack on the sixty-mile long and two-toeighteen mile wide island lasted nearly three months. The battle costed the Americans ground forces 7343 killed 31807 wounded and 239 missing or 35% of the entire force. Furthermore 36 ships were sunk, 368 were damaged, 763 aircrafts were lost. 4907 sailors killed or missing and 4874 wounded.

You did manage to read above where I told you I wasn't against the dropping of the atomic bomb in so many words right? What exactly am I demonizing?

The US does keep the ocean free from trade. That is just a fact. PRove it wrong if you don't believe it.

:lol

I don't find us keep markets free that glorious, just a reason why free market is better than all the rest. The others build walls to keep their people in to enjoy their great society.
You are seriously saying the Indians were not fighting each other for the very same land you say we stole from them? I don't think America's history is perfect. But show a country that has better and has done more. I don't know why you have to rewrite history to hate America.

:lol What history am I rewriting? Since when do I hate America? This is hilarious.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 06:44 PM

He uses the word psyops as often as (the real) Alex Jones.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 06:52 PM

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.

FDR in 1939

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 07:05 PM

FDR in 1939
"However regrettable the attendant loss of life restriction on military action by the responsible commanders that in their opinion might militate against the success of Overlord or cause additional loss of life to our Allied forces of invasion."
-Roosevelt writing to Churchill about the bombings of 16000-60000 French civilians before DDay.
Way to use a quote before we entered the war. ALso if FDR was so against Atomic bombs, why was he secretly having them made so quickly?

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 07:54 PM

No, I'm going to go ahead and say the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind. I'm not even sure why you're arguing that this isn't the case.
Me-What is terrrorism?
You-Its a use of violence intended to incite fear.
You-the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals.
Me-you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear?
You-No-the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind.
:lol

That isn't psyops. touché. It is more psychological warfare.
I should have spent the time and written it out.

Yeah, that isn't psyops either. Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? I am positive you don't know what you're talking about. I got lazy and thought I had an abbreviation that worked. You're just simple.

Tactical operations have tactical goals in mind even if there may be psychological side effects. That doesn't mean their psyops. covered. I am glad you googled psyops. I hope you actually read what I put and didn't try and be a lawyer the whole time.

Target Committee meeting notes:

This memo from a meeting with General Marshall and his dissent on target selection (he didn't want to bomb a city) is really interesting.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf) I heard that argument. Real interesting huh. After Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender. So we hit them again. The Japanese Commanders still didn't surrender. The only one who did was the Emperor. So if we hit them in some field, killed all the farmers, wouldn't that have been a pure civilian target and more immoral in your "never been to war" eyes? Then they don't surrender and we hit them with the second. Then we are out, and have to invade.
This argument would fit your childish definition of terrorism more than the actual events.

You or someone else is going to need to translate this paragraph for me because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey:lol

You did manage to read above where I told you I wasn't against the dropping of the atomic bomb in so many words right? What exactly am I demonizing?
In so many words. Way to ride the fence. Go read some more philosophers to find a title you don't want to be.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 08:43 PM

This country was built on 1) prime land being taken from weak people who had no decent army and 2) the idiot French selling us Louisiana for a song. Christ you wanna loosen the tinfoil hat a little

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 08:49 PM

1052 pages long eh...lots a pages there...........This goverment is a fucking joke. In a more civilised time the jerk offs who came up with nonsense like this would have been tarred and feathered.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 08:52 PM

Me-What is terrrorism?
You-Its a use of violence intended to incite fear.
You-the vast majority of military operations have specific tactical goals.
Me-you are saying the specific tactical goal of dropping the Abomb was incite fear?
You-No-the purpose of any tactical bombing is not in fact to incite panic but to destroy an enemy resource of some kind.
:lol

I know you think you stumbled on to some kind of ownage here but....

You do realize that the the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not tactical right? They were strategic bombings.

I am positive you don't know what you're talking about. I got lazy and thought I had an abbreviation that worked. You're just simple.

Hmm ok, I'm simple yet you're the one using incorrect terms.

covered. I am glad you googled psyops. I hope you actually read what I put and didn't try and be a lawyer the whole time.

Lawyer huh? This is a message board where the only thing I have to go off of is what you type. If you mean something else, then type it out because there is no mind reading here. Nice job of trying to turn your fuck up into mine though.

I heard that argument. Real interesting huh. After Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender. So we hit them again. The Japanese Commanders still didn't surrender. The only one who did was the Emperor. So if we hit them in some field, killed all the farmers, wouldn't that have been a pure civilian target and more immoral in your "never been to war" eyes? Then they don't surrender and we hit them with the second. Then we are out, and have to invade.
This argument would fit your childish definition of terrorism more than the actual events.

You are so god damn dense dude. Let me tell you once and for all (even though I thought I did above):

I do not have a problem with the way the bombs were used.

Its ironic because what you just posted does nothing but support what I've been posting all along. You just can't seem to grasp the concept that I believe the attacks to be terrorism and I don't have a problem with them.

Jesus fuck its like talking to a wall.

In so many words. Way to ride the fence. Go read some more philosophers to find a title you don't want to be.

There's no fence writing there was just the mistake believing you didn't have to be explicitly explained something that you might be able to infer. Obviously I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit. Yeah, I'll go read more. Using this as an insult is simply mind boggling. "You go read what people smarter than you and me thought! YEAH I TOLD YOU!! PWNED!!!!"

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 08:53 PM

1052 pages long eh...lots a pages there...........This goverment is a fucking joke. In a more civilised time the jerk offs who came up with nonsense like this would have been tarred and feathered.

I'll ask you too, micca. Did you ever comment on the number of pages in a bill when the Republicans were in control of the government?

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 08:55 PM

"However regrettable the attendant loss of life restriction on military action by the responsible commanders that in their opinion might militate against the success of Overlord or cause additional loss of life to our Allied forces of invasion."
-Roosevelt writing to Churchill about the bombings of 16000-60000 French civilians before DDay.
Way to use a quote before we entered the war. ALso if FDR was so against Atomic bombs, why was he secretly having them made so quickly?

I never said he was against the weapon. I gave you a quote on his views of that type of bombing.

Why should his views on it have changed after he entered into war? Do those engaged in fights have some higher level of objectivity? Thats a rather interesting proposition if thats indeed what you are proposing.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 09:03 PM

I'll ask you too, micca. Did you ever comment on the number of pages in a bill when the Republicans were in control of the government? Yeah Mc cain's immigration bill I thought it only needed four words.....get the fuck out, but oh no he droned on and on, the Mc cain campaign finance reform bill I thought it was a long winded bunch of bullshit to make sure the incumbents stayed in power.So Chimp you think this is resposible legislation? no no let me answer for you......OH HELL YES>

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 09:05 PM

Yeah Mc cain's immigration bill I thought it only needed four words.....get the fuck out, but oh no he droned on and on, the Mc cain campaign finance reform bill I thought it was a long winded bunch of bullshit to make sure the incumbents stayed in power.So Chimp you think this is resposible legislation? no no let me answer for you......OH HELL YES>I don't know. I haven't read it.

What part do you consider irresponsible?

Do you have page numbers?

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 09:06 PM

I never said he was against the weapon. I gave you a quote on his views of that type of bombing.

Why should his views on it have changed after he entered into war? Do those engaged in fights have some higher level of objectivity? Thats a rather interesting proposition if thats indeed what you are proposing. You got spanked manny move along.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 09:08 PM

You got spanked manny move along.Nah, if he got spankes he'd be trying to change the subject like you do when you can't answer a question.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 09:19 PM

Nah, if he got spankes he'd be trying to change the subject like you do when you can't answer a question.
Chimp what you gotta understand here, is that it's not that people don't wanna answer your questions. it's they're just ignoring you, like say when you get a pimple on your ass annoying but of no real consequence.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 09:22 PM

Chimp what you gotta understand here, is that it's not that people don't wanna answer your questions. it's they're just ignoring you, like say when you get a pimple on your ass annoying but of no real consequence.Nah, if you were ignoring me you wouldn't be responding with ad hominems.

So what part of the bill do you consider irresponsible?

Do you have page numbers?

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 09:39 PM

:sleep
Nah, if you were ignoring me you wouldn't be responding with ad hominems.

So what part of the bill do you consider irresponsible?

Do you have page numbers?:sleep

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 09:40 PM

Yep, keep responding without answering the question.

It's gold.

SouthernFried

10-21-2009, 12:24 AM

Here's an "on topic" discussion of this bill.

It fucking Sucks.

Any Bill congress puts out that gets involved in our health care...fucking sucks.

There. On topic, to to the point, concise...and absolutely correct.

TDMVPDPOY

10-21-2009, 01:02 AM

i had to
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/G/d/2/obama-matrix-economy.jpg

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-3.gif

seems like not doin much besides talking and keep introducing legislation bills kick in will not get results atm to fix things...just fkn patching shit up until it falls agains

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 01:04 AM

i had to
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/G/d/2/obama-matrix-economy.jpg
Are you sure he's not going to try to save the Galaxy in Orion's belt?

SouthernFried

10-21-2009, 01:15 AM

Are you sure he's not going to try to save the Galaxy in Orion's belt?

Probably cost us less than the healthcare bill will.

Damn, On topic yet again!!!

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 02:25 AM

I just figured because what Obama and the democrats wants is fiction, and will destroy the USA as the leading nation, it applied.

I couldn't find a clip in English, but for the rare few who don't get the reference, Orion is a cat in "Men in Black." Our solar system is in the Orion Belt of the Milky Way (our galaxy.) This is contrary to what the dying alien said, "the galaxy is located in Orion's belt." Their mission was to save the galaxy, which turned out to be the marble like sphere around Orion's neck, that contains our galaxy!

qwaPRvpXjDQ

The democrats making anything better like health care is pure fiction.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 03:08 AM

How many of you may lose there employer health care before this legislation can go into effect. Part of the way they get by with scoring the cost, is relying on things remaining the same. How many employers will reduce or drop coverage? I'm sure that my insurance costs my employer more than the $8,000 annually, and therefor subject to a 40% tax on it. Section 6001 places that 40% excise tax on likely most health care plans offered by corporations and small businesses. The level is $8,000 for individual plans and $21,000 for family plans. It won't hurt as many of the family plans, but those who are single could get screwed.

How about the rest of you? Do any of you realize just how much your employer pays for your health care?

ElNono

10-21-2009, 09:03 AM

How about the rest of you? Do any of you realize just how much your employer pays for your health care?

I know mine pays zero. But I'm in the minority here...

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 09:09 AM

I know mine pays zero. But I'm in the minority here...
So you have no employer health care?

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 09:11 AM

chimp what you gotta understand here, is that it's not that people don't wanna answer your questions. It's they're just ignoring you, like say when you get a pimple on your ass annoying but of no real consequence.
+1

ElNono

10-21-2009, 09:11 AM

So you have no employer health care?

Yeah

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 09:19 AM

Yeah
I have socialized healthcare already. I love it. If I need to go to the ER, I expect 8 to 15 hour wait. If I need to see my doctor, I have to call an appointment line and get an appointment. After a few months I get to see the doctor to get a referral to see a real doctor(another appointment and a few months later) and I get the doctor on call. He prescribes me what is in the pharmacy.

ElNono

10-21-2009, 09:32 AM

I have socialized healthcare already. I love it. If I need to go to the ER, I expect 8 to 15 hour wait. If I need to see my doctor, I have to call an appointment line and get an appointment. After a few months I get to see the doctor to get a referral to see a real doctor(another appointment and a few months later) and I get the doctor on call. He prescribes me what is in the pharmacy.

That's funny, because I just came back from a country with socialized healthcare (I actually went there to do a treatment my wife's insurance didn't want to pay for, and we couldn't afford otherwise).The entire treatment time was exactly the same as here in the US. We also could reach the doctor's assistants by phone at any time. Our longest wait time was about 15 minutes. We paid out of pocket. It cost 1/3 of the price of the treatment here in the US, including plane tickets and drugs. Funnily enough the drugs were imported from the US and UK and yet they cost 1/3 of what they cost here in NJ.

Now, that doesn't imply that this thing they're trying to pass will do that for us. But I wanted to relay the experience for guys like you that talk out of their asses without having experienced anything other than the current system.

:toast

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 09:36 AM

Yeah
Sorry to hear that, but that's between you and your employer. The public should not be forced to give you more than basic needs.

ElNono

10-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Sorry to hear that, but that's between you and your employer. The public should not be forced to give you more than basic needs.

The thing is, both you and I most likely do not agree what 'basic needs' is.
It's what most of this debate centers around.

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 09:46 AM

That's funny, because I just came back from a country with socialized healthcare (I actually went there to do a treatment my wife's insurance didn't want to pay for, and we couldn't afford otherwise).The entire treatment time was exactly the same as here in the US. We also could reach the doctor's assistants by phone at any time. Our longest wait time was about 15 minutes. We paid out of pocket. It cost 1/3 of the price of the treatment here in the US, including plane tickets and drugs. Funnily enough the drugs were imported from the US and UK and yet they cost 1/3 of what they cost here in NJ.

Now, that doesn't imply that this thing they're trying to pass will do that for us. But I wanted to relay the experience for guys like you that talk out of their asses without having experienced anything other than the current system.

:toast WHat country? Did you make plans ahead of time? If so how long. Obama needs to study that country. That is funny how I can (or could) buy meds from Canada or Mexico and with all the s&h, it is ridiculously cheaper. I wonder why that is.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 09:57 AM

ElNono

10-21-2009, 10:02 AM

WHat country? Did you make plans ahead of time? If so how long. Obama needs to study that country. That is funny how I can (or could) buy meds from Canada or Mexico and with all the s&h, it is ridiculously cheaper. I wonder why that is.

Argentina actually. We made plans about 10 days before going, once we found out about the prices. Actually getting plane tickets at a reasonable price was more complicated than getting an appointment with the doctor.

I don't think Obama needs to study much, considering that's how healthcare works in pretty much in the rest of the world (and this is a 3rd world country I went to). Perhaps you're the one that needs to do the studying?

And FWIW, we ran across 2 more american couples while we were there doing the same thing...

ElNono

10-21-2009, 10:05 AM

I'll bet they don't have trial lawyers with ridiculous payouts...

My cousin is a lawyer there, so I can tell you we do have them... the ridiculous payout part is where you might be onto something.

The one other thing is that access to healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 12:05 PM

I'll bet they don't have trial lawyers with ridiculous payouts...You know, we've had medical tort reform for awhile in Texas. Maybe you guys could tell me how much it has reduced health care costs.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 12:35 PM

You know, we've had medical tort reform for awhile in Texas. I mentioned this to WC the other day. He says we did it wrong.

The AMA opinion: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/edsa0915.htm

There are more doctors and more specialists practicing in Texas now, and for them, liability insurance costs have come down.

I'm still looking for a source that verifies doctors have passed on their reduced cost of doing business to Texans....

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 12:38 PM

This article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik1-2009oct01,0,7502095.column) suggests that singling out malpractice litigation as a big cost driver is mistaken.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 12:47 PM

Indeed, lost in this debate is the actual cost of the malpractice itself, not the cost of defending lawsuits or defensive medicine. The cost of malpractice I am referring to is the increased health care costs associated with medical error. Is the Congressional Budget Office adding up the medical bills of patients sentenced to a lifetime on ventilators, in wheelchairs, or in need of expensive surgeries due to medical malpractice? If 98,000 Americans die each year due to preventable medical error, how many of them endured high cost medical interventions as a result of the medical mistakes? How many more Americans survived the malpractice only to find themselves facing a lifetime of exorbitant medical costs due to the catastrophic injury they never would have suffered but for medical malpractice? According to a recent Harvard study, only 12% of injured patients or their families sue. This suggests that most often (88% of the time), private insurance or the government is left to foot the bill for the astronomical, unnecessary costs hoisted upon malpractice victims.http://healthnewsdigest.com/news/Guest_Columnist_710/Tort_Reform_s_True_Colors_Higher_Costs_Lower_Quali ty_More_Money_for_Wrongdoers_printer.shtml

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 01:16 PM

I mentioned this to WC the other day. He says we did it wrong.

The AMA opinion: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/edsa0915.htm

There are more doctors and more specialists practicing in Texas now, and for them, liability insurance costs have come down.

I'm still looking for a source that verifies doctors have passed on their reduced cost of doing business to Texans....
There was a WSJ article about a year ago, that talked about all the benefits Texas has compared to TN for having this reform. How we have more Dr.'s here, in which brings more choice and competition which lowers cost, etc. All benefits toward us the consumer. I will try and find it but do not have a subscription anymore so probably won't get it. It was pretty good.

George Gervin's Afro

10-21-2009, 01:30 PM

You know, we've had medical tort reform for awhile in Texas. Maybe you guys could tell me how much it has reduced health care costs.

This is a question that is always ignored..that's weird.

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 02:05 PM

This is a question that is always ignored..that's weird.I know, the only thing we get is that there are now more doctors in Texas who are less afraid to be sued -- if that is in fact a good thing -- and that greater supply must mean lower costs.

I'm just asking if it actually has lowered health care costs for consumers.

Surely the proponents of tort reform have been following the Texas case closely to bolster their arguments to do the same elsewhere.

George Gervin's Afro

10-21-2009, 02:41 PM

I know, the only thing we get is that there are now more doctors in Texas who are less afraid to be sued -- if that is in fact a good thing -- and that greater supply must mean lower costs.

I'm just asking if it actually has lowered health care costs for consumers.

Surely the proponents of tort reform have been following the Texas case closely to bolster their arguments to do the same elsewhere.

crickets..

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 02:49 PM

There was a WSJ article about a year ago, that talked about all the benefits Texas has compared to TN for having this reform. How we have more Dr.'s here, in which brings more choice and competition which lowers cost, etc. I couldn't find any source that says cost to the health care consumer in Texas has come down post tort reform.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 02:55 PM

I couldn't find any source that says cost to the health care consumer in Texas has come down post tort reform.
Wouldn't it be hard to say?

Costs are going up and up and up. How would you tell if it went up less than it otherwise would, in such a chaotic market? Tell me, at such drastic increases, you didn't actually expect costs to come down? I think raising less than otherwise is a win, but again, how do you know?

Apparently, tort reform did help some in Texas. After-all, it was passed partially for the need to bring specialties back that have left. It apparently made that goal.

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 02:59 PM

Wouldn't it be hard to say?

Costs are going up and up and up. How would you tell if it went up less than it otherwise would, in such a chaotic market? Tell me, at such drastic increases, you didn't actually expect costs to come down? I think raising less than otherwise is a win, but again, how do you know?

Apparently, tort reform did help some in Texas. After-all, it was passed partially for the need to bring specialties back that have left. It apparently made that goal.It was mainly passed to bring consumer health care costs down.

Did it make that goal?

And it should be pretty easy to compare the the costs in Texas to the costs in other states that did not enact tort reform over the same period.

If you can't see that, you're an idiot.

So, how have health care cost increases in Texas compared to those in other states since Texas tort reform?

101A

10-21-2009, 03:02 PM

Wouldn't it be hard to say?

Costs are going up and up and up. How would you tell if it went up less than it otherwise would, in such a chaotic market?

Obama has a calculator that does that; he uses it for "Jobs Saved" - I'm sure it could do this for us, too.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:02 PM

Wouldn't it be hard to say?If tort reform does not have a noticeable effect on the cost to the consumer, perhaps its importance is overhyped.

I wouldn't say negligible, but maybe it has been exaggerated.

Apparently, tort reform did help some in Texas. After-all, it was passed partially for the need to bring specialties back that have left. It apparently made that goal.Sure. It has attracted more doctors to Texas. I hope it means rural Texans have more access to specialists now; that would be a real plus.

But tell me WC, have doctors passed on their cost savings to Texans yet?

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 03:05 PM

Obama has a calculator that does that; he uses it for "Jobs Saved" - I'm sure it could do this for us, too.How does the rate of increase of consumer health costs in PA compare to that of TX since tort reform was passed in 2003?

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 03:07 PM

But tell me WC, have doctors passed on their cost savings to Texans yet?
I have no way to answer that. If it only brought profits back to a reasonable level for a doctor, then I would say likely not. There would have to be enough extra profit for doctors to start to compete for business, before seeing market controlled pricing.

Any idea how much it reduced insurance for doctors? My point about it being the wrong type of tort reform is that it capped liability rather than defining what liability can be. Capping the payout I guess limits the chances a trial lawyer will take. Capped at $250k(?), and at 30% of the take, a lawyer has to win more cases than if he can take 30% of $5,000,000. Maybe they now only take cases with real cause rather than shooting the dice for a win or settlement.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:11 PM

Any idea how much it reduced insurance for doctors?According to the AMA op-ed I posted above, liability insurance for doctors in Texas went down 25%.

101A

10-21-2009, 03:32 PM

How does the rate of increase of consumer health costs in PA compare to that of TX since tort reform was passed in 2003?

Unfortunately, my company is not big enough for me to be able to identify a real trend; sorry - in group insurance, it is very hard to do an apples to apples comparison; because no two groups are alike.

I'll tell you this; tort reform didn't change the book rates for insurance carriers in Texas one bit; the trend didn't adjust as far as I could tell.

The docs might have saved some money; it wasn't passed along - it certainly was not a revelation of savings.

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 03:33 PM

Unfortunately, my company is not big enough for me to be able to identify a real trend; sorry - in group insurance, it is very hard to do an apples to apples comparison; because no two groups are alike.

I'll tell you this; tort reform didn't change the book rates for insurance carriers in Texas one bit; the trend didn't adjust as far as I could tell.

The docs might have saved some money; it wasn't passed along - it certainly was not a revelation of savings.Thanks. I thought you may have had a line on some general statistics, but what you said is helpful all the same.

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 03:37 PM

Thanks. I thought you may have had a line on some general statistics, but what you said is helpful all the same.
OH really. No "link" post now that it agrees with your viewpoint?

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 03:43 PM

OH really. No "link" post now that it agrees with your viewpoint?This is his business. I didn't get the exact answer I was looking for, but I am content to take his word for his personal experience in the course of his work.

I welcome any statistics from you regarding the effect of Texas tort reform on consumer health costs, and would appreciate a link to them as well.

If you merely want to make this about me again, that's your prerogative.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:43 PM

I'll tell you this; tort reform didn't change the book rates for insurance carriers in Texas one bit@SnC: I doubt 101A is talking out of his hat on this one. He's in the biz, a rock-ribbed conservative and a vocal opponent of Obamacare.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 03:43 PM

According to the AMA op-ed I posted above, liability insurance for doctors went down 25%.
Well, at the higher specialty rates of about $250 k annual, that would be a 62.5k savings, then after federal tax, a $40,625 profit. That's about $20 per hour at best he can reduce his cost for a patient.

Now realistically, this helps physicians who are lawsuit targets. The insurance cost is likely not as large a reason as the time and associated income lost when a doctor has to be in court. Any real reduction in lawsuits is where the incentive is. I'll bet that doctors in lawyer targeted specialties left because they couldn't turn a profit when in the courtroom, or left for fear of that happening.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:45 PM

Well, at the higher specialty rates of about $250 k annual, that would be a 62.5k savings, then after federal tax, a $40,625 profit. That's about $20 per hour at best he can reduce his cost for a patient.Yet more evidence that the importance of tort reform is overhyped. :tu

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 03:46 PM

@SnC: I doubt 101A is talking out of his hat on this one. He's in the biz, a rock-ribbed conservative and a vocal opponent of Obamacare.
I'm not questioning 101A. I'm just flabbergasted that Chump will take someone's personal statement and not ask for a link. And yes I wrote flabbergasted. It just happened.

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 03:49 PM

Yet more evidence that the importance of tort reform is overhyped. :tu
Isn't this year a bad year to rate anything? With the change of policy, and all the talk of socializing our healthcare. It would be like judging new policies if they were enacted in 1929.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:49 PM

I'm just flabbergasted that Chump will take someone's personal statement and not ask for a link. And yes I wrote flabbergasted. It just happened.Yeah it did.

Do you find some posters to be more reliable/trustworthy than others, SnC?

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:50 PM

Isn't this year a bad year to rate anything? With the change of policy, and all the talk of socializing our healthcare. It would be like judging new policies if they were enacted in 1929.We've had medical malpractice tort reform in Texas since 2003.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 03:52 PM

Yet more evidence that the importance of tort reform is overhyped. :tu
But do you agree or disagree with a lawyer taking on bad cases when there is a chance he can get a settlement out of it? With a cap, those odds change for taking on cases with little or no merit. Isn't that a plus?

I never thought the cap would help because I believe in limiting what can be considered liable. If a doctor or hospital is actually guilty, I don't think there should be a cap. However, I'm beginning to believe the cap has more good than bad, just by reducing the payoff to the lawyer. makes sense to me he's not as willing to roll the dice on something he might not get paid for. only needed one multi-million dollar suit to win or settle in a year to be fat in ash. $30% of $250k requires allot more wins. cannot afford to waste time on loser cases any more.

Wild Cobra

10-21-2009, 03:54 PM

I'm just flabbergasted that Chump.....
'nuff said. It's best just to ignore Chump...

ChumpDumper

10-21-2009, 03:56 PM

'nuff said. It's best just to ignore Chump...Concentrate on the Cylons.

Winehole23

10-21-2009, 03:57 PM

However, I'm beginning to believe the cap has more good than bad, just by reducing the payoff to the lawyer.And to the injured patient.

spursncowboys

10-21-2009, 03:57 PM

found the article...

When Sam Houston was still hanging his hat in Tennessee in the 1830s, it wasn't uncommon for fellow Tennesseans who were packing up and moving south and west to hang a sign on their cabins that read "GTT" – Gone to Texas.

Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee.

Why? Two words: Tort reform.
In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.
The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.

But if tort reform has been a boon – and it is likely one of the reasons the state's economy has thrived in recent years – it was not easy to enact.
In one particularly grueling fight in the legislature in 2003, an important piece of a reform bill went down to a narrow defeat in the state Senate after a single Republican switched his support to vote against it. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was so incensed that he bolted out of his office in the Capitol, sprinted into the Senate chamber, and vaulted a railing to come face to face with the defecting senator.

That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.

This has allowed doctors and hospitals to cut costs and even increase the resources devoted to charity care. Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.

The second 2003 reform cleaned up much of the mess surrounding asbestos litigation by creating something called multidistrict litigation (MDL). This took every case in the state involving a common injury or complaint, like silicosis or asbestosis, and consolidated it for pretrial discovery in one court.

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

More change sailed through the legislature in 2005; tort reform had become popular with voters and lobbying against it was ineffectual. The 2005 reform created minimum medical standards to prove an injury in asbestos and silica cases. Now plaintiffs must show diminished lung capacity in addition to an X-ray indicating disease.

In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer.
No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.

In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.

Before the asbestos and silica MDLs were created, nonmalignancy plaintiffs settled with defendants for anywhere between $30,000 to $150,000 per case. No one knows how many bogus cases were settled in the state with large cash payments. Lawyers who specialized in defending those cases say there were tens of thousands.

The full costs of large settlements and runaway malpractice suits may never be known. But it is clear that the costs were paid for by consumers through the increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices, and by workers through lost jobs. Another group often overlooked is those who are priced out of health care, or who didn't receive charity care because doctors were squeezed by tort lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits hit the uninsured the hardest.

Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California. Things are trending well for the Lone Star State. Anecdotally, we can see that while doctors are moving in, trial lawyers are packing up and heading west. They're GTC -- Gone to California.

Mr. Nixon, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives, is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html