 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
It may be true that both parties have ties to the trial lawyers but it's only the democrat party trying to ram down our throats this noxious healthcare bill. The democrats are permanently attached to the lawyers and we'll never get tort reform from them because democrats don't ever want to piss off the trial lawyers. It's much easier to screw the public with a multi-trillion dollar piece-of-crap healthcare bill. BOHICA!
Lucifer was a lawyer.
In the past 10 years or so there have been significant victories and efforts at tort reform; both at the state and Federal level. To pretend this issue just appeared on the GOP's radar, or that they didn't do anything about tort reform during their tenure at the helm is as weak as trying to give the impression that Republicans are neck-deep in trial lawyer money, too. The Democrats get more trial laywer money than Republicans by a 4:1 margin (which is a huge disparity when you consider that most industry lobbies make an effort to spread the wealth a little more equitably). Speaking of 4:1...that's also the ratio that the trial lawyers outspend Big Oil on political contributions. As I recall, trial lawyers are the #1 political contributor in the country. Suppose they're getting any bang for their buck?
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
It's true, both parties are guilty of jumping in bed with trial lawyers. That's sad.
But the party the trial lawyers support overwhelmingly with campaign contributions is the same party that promised and CAMPAIGNED ON change, accountability, transparency, NOT government as usual.....
Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.
Care to support your statistics?Originally Posted by Hew
Here's the stats on trial laywer political contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01
Here's the stats on oil/gas contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
What significant victories and efforts? I'm not saying dems aren't deeper in bed with lawyers, I just pointed out that with republicans in the whitehouse, house and senate, and a Surgeon majority leader, I expected better, but got next to nothing.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Most of the federal tort reform legislation that passed had to do with tort issues unrelated or not directly connected to the health industry...class action lawsuits, legal protections for volunteers and educators, protections for the telcoms against ambulance chasers over wiretapping, protections for gun/ammo makers, etc. Other legislation passed the House but stalled in the Senate. More significant gains were made at the state level as many states passed versions of tort reform. So there were gains and efforts...but even with control of the WH and Congress, it's hard to swim against the inertia and money of the biggest political contributors in Washington: trial lawyers.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
Yes, there has been quite a bit of tort reform that mostly protects business and industry from customers and citizens over the years. Some probably needed and some a bit too much in favor of industry IMHO. Just as trial lawyers are generally against tort reform, most all industries want to be insulated from lawsuits and their lobbying efforts and dollars can be combined.
Regarding health care, it seems you are indicating that a state by state approach to tort reform is Ok since the repubs didn't get it done at the federal level during their 6 year reign. Isn't that exactly what President Obama proposed in his speech? A state by state approach to see what works best.
As has been asked here before, since tort reform has been done in several states, what are the results? Here is a good overview on the results of some studies http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ice_09-25.html . A similar perspective is here http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009...ical-practice/ Mixed results on any cost savings.
I have no doubt that tort reform is needed regarding health care but the notion that some here have that it is the big answer to reduce costs is an overly simple point of view. The goal should be to stop frivolous suits which should reduce malpractice premiums and reduce the amount of defensive medicine.
I agree completely.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
We better both write this day down.
Perhaps the end of days is near?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote