Reply With Quote
Who the is Katherine Sebilius?
I'm offended that you're trying to talk and you don't even know her damn name.
Tort Reform.
Katherine Sebilius will look into it.
Who is she?
I don't know.
Kathleen Sebilius will look into it.
Now who is she?
Only the former Chief Lobbyist for the Trial Lawyers Association of Kansas.
Last edited by BadMoodBob; 09-10-2009 at 06:12 PM.
Who the is Katherine Sebilius?
I'm offended that you're trying to talk and you don't even know her damn name.
I google imaged itShe looks like a Katherine.
HHS chief?
I'll go look it up.
Where's epic fail troll when ya need him?
Tort Reform, another perennial Repug/business RED-HERRING.
100K deaths PER YEAR from avoidable medical errors.
iow, 30+ WTCs every year killed by US medical system.
Many 1000s dead from food poisoning every year, and millions sickened by food poisoning, and the corps and FDA/USDA don't do anything.
Haven't you heard? It lowered the cost of medical coverage in Texas when tort reform was passed...oh wait it didn't...
It helped so much in Texas that the state ranks last in with the most uninsured people in the country.
5,4,3.. it's the messicans fault..
Jewish Liberal Media lies!
Point is, real health care reform begins with real tort reform. Otherwise, it will only get worse. She has been a chief lobbyist for trial lawyers.
Can anyone say "Conflict of Interest?"
WC, weren't you defending a scientist who had ties to the oil industry? Shouldn't you judge Sebelius by what she does?
Also, I think there's a good chance tort reform might get into the bill.
Do you think that an employee of a corporation where they can make money from their skills is remotely close to being a paid pundit for a cause?
The science is pretty well founded. Most geoscientists find work in the energy field, and they are the experts. You don't dismiss them just because they have worked in the energy industry. Most who are good will have at least oncvev in their life. To believe climatologists or political organizations like the IPCC... That is laughable.
Haven't you ever asked why HB 3200 doesn't address tort reform at all? My answer is because democrats are in bed with trial lawyers.
It needs to be serious tort reform to do any good, and the democrats will never go for that.
You would first have to prove that Sebelius is a paid pundit. As it stands now, she has as much 'conflict of interest' as one who works for oil companies would most likely have to say, "Hey, this climate change isn't so bad."
Even if EVERYTHING the scientist said is true, and backed up by research, there's still a slight 'conflict of interest', in the sense that he might be tempted to leave out opposing viewpoints.
But you are willing to dismiss Sebelius because she's worked with trial lawyers? That doesn't seem fair.
I could be wrong, but didn't Obama mention it yesterday in his speech in a non-negative light? *shrug*
Early Political Career:
She was actually more that just a pundit.Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977-1986. She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state Insurance Commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning – the first time a Democrat had won in more than 10 years. She refused to take campaign contributions from the insurance industry and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. Sebelius's decision marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.
Well, she convinced a deep crimson Kansas. Maybe there's a good reason they elected her governor.
I meant in the present. Is she working for them NOW?
Also, did you closely read what you posted?
That doesn't sound like someone out to grease the hands of insurance people. In fact, it runs counter to that. I would think that would mean she'd be on the side of tort reform, if anything; I could be wrong about that though.Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977-1986. She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state Insurance Commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning – the first time a Democrat had won in more than 10 years. She refused to take campaign contributions from the insurance industry and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. Sebelius's decision marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.
WTF? I'n talking trial lawyers, not insurance companies.
Trial lawyers take money from insurance companies and drive up insurance costs.
We need serious tort reform. Screw the trial lawyers.
When you need one, you'll change your tune.
Why is it a all or nothing deal with you?
I don't mean to eliminate them. We simply need serious tort reform. We have discussed this before, and is a separate issue. There are legitimate times for lawyers and suing health care providers. I just want to stop the silliness.
Again, it is pointless to discuss health care reform without serious tort reform. Not the water downed version you guys did in Texas.
Malpractice awards are capped at 250k in Texas now. What this means is that doctors who up in Texas are not accountable, because it's no longer cost effective for law firms to sue them.
Has the cost of insurance or health care in Texas come down on this account?
No.
The serious reform ought to be the normal remedy for frivolous actions -- let the appellant bear the costs, trebled.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-11-2009 at 12:19 AM.
Point is, maybe he didn't up.
There is a risk in any medical procedure. Just because there is injury doesn't mean there is fault. I want those types of lawsuits to go away. I do not believe in capping the compensation. Caps can keep the truly injured party from receiving what they need.
What Texas did was absolutely stupid and wrong.
Did it really help enough? No. It was just a "feel good" law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
