Health Care Thread

L

Lemeran

Lord Nagafen Raider
77
10
Tort reform is republican bs protecting big business from paying out what a jury awards someone. They lobby for tort reform calling themselves "citizens for" or "Americans for" when it's a handful of insurance companies and corporations not any citizens. They spew rhetoric about "frivolous lawsuits" when tort reform doesn't distinguish between legit lawsuits and "frivolous" it screws them both equally, and limits the power of a jury which is what a corporation fears more than anything.

Then you have judges who's seats were paid for by big business campaign donations and they reverse and lower damages a jury has awarded. Shit is unamerica but you never hear about it.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
LOL @ Lawyers wanting tort reform from someone I know would trump up the figures of doctors dropping Medicare/Medicaid because it limits their payments.

Can't make this stuff up folks.
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Vaclav_sl said:
LOL @ Lawyers wanting tort reform from someone I know would trump up the figures of doctors dropping Medicare/Medicaid because it limits their payments.

Can't make this stuff up folks.
Click to expand...
Are you confused? Where has anyone stated that lawyers want tort reform?

Are you going to admit you were wrong about trial lawyers donating almost exclusive to Democrats or are you just going to ignore it and try to change the subject?
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
70% in your article. That's not nearly all. That's a mild preference.

Never mind the fact that Republicans tend to want simpler less ambiguous laws that make lawyers less necessary to fight over minutiae, among other factors. (i.e. with Ted Cruz speaking of killing income tax, I'd expect he doesn't get much from accountants - since his concepts in place would limit their opportunities to work)

Your own link has shown it to be about a 70% split eternally, well before the ACA - does the ACA involve a DeLorean hitting 88.8 or what is your explanation for the ACA years not really changing the historical numbers.

I'm really anxious to hear this batch of circular reasoning....
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Vaclav_sl said:
70% in your article. That's not nearly all. That's a mild preference.

Never mind the fact that Republicans tend to want simpler less ambiguous laws that make lawyers less necessary to fight over minutiae, among other factors. (i.e. with Ted Cruz speaking of killing income tax, I'd expect he doesn't get much from accountants - since his concepts in place would limit their opportunities to work)

Your own link has shown it to be about a 70% split eternally, well before the ACA - does the ACA involve a DeLorean hitting 88.8 or what is your explanation for the ACA years not really changing the historical numbers.

I'm really anxious to hear this batch of circular reasoning....
Click to expand...
I can't determine if I should classify you as smart and just being dishonest because you don't want to admit I was correct or if you are too dumb to figure it out for yourself. Your grammar skills are pretty good so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

The 70% going to Democrats was just for the 2014 election cycle when tort reform was not a concern due to Obamacare already being in place plus a Democrat as president.

Take a look at all the elections going back to 1990 and you will see that trial lawyers were the #1 source of political donations in pretty much every election until Obamacare was passed. The election where they donated the most money was 2008 (almost $250 million) and 77% of that went to Democrats.

I have already given you guys enough information to figure it out for yourselves plus I have given you a clue by asking a rhetorical question to which I already know the answer. I've just been waiting to see if anyone, especially those who have called me a fool, moron etc, were going to be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure it out for yourselves.
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Ok "trial lawyers" give 70% of their money to democrats and give a lot money overall (1-3 over the last 25 years ranked by industry). This is due to not wanting tort reform because that's against their interests. Go on.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Rescorla_sl said:
The 70% going to Democrats was just for the 2014 election cycle when tort reform was not a concern due to Obamacare already being in place plus a Democrat as president.
Click to expand...
a) At the same percentages +/- a few % - highest deviation looks about 7-8% - if they cared so much one sided about it, why wouldn't it have gone more lopsided?
b) During an election year where many felt like House and Senate members up for reelection would be punished by the poor reception to Obama as a whole. When things are a slam dunk, there's no real need to spend money of helping candidates campaign - there's more need when things are contentious.

See he's the problem with you and your "reasoning" as a whole - you like to see something where another thing is likely an INFLUENCE on something, but then you trump it up to be the end all be all explaining something. THIS IS NOT HOW REALITY OPERATES.

I'm more than willing to admit that likely SOME extra money from them was because of the ACA (Although do note, at least two of those groups publicly helped financing for a public option, something quite different from the ACA)

Dozens of things happened in 2008 - including the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN which increased donations drastically by itself. Saying it's all one thing is nice for a soundbite, but it's hardly accurate.
 
Cad

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Not to mention I'm not aware of any connection between the ACA and tort reform in the first place, aside from the ACA is promoted by democrats and tort reform is opposed by the same guys.
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Tort reform was the only response repubs mustered against the aca as i recall. That's all they wanted to do. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest medical malpractice insurance/lawsuits have been an increasing concern and there is definitely some cash flow from that arena and it was one of the very few aspects of healthcare untouched by the aca, so it's reasonable to suggest lawyers successfully bought some democrats. Is that the punch line?
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Vaclav_sl said:
a) At the same percentages +/- a few % - highest deviation looks about 7-8% - if they cared so much one sided about it, why wouldn't it have gone more lopsided?
b) During an election year where many felt like House and Senate members up for reelection would be punished by the poor reception to Obama as a whole. When things are a slam dunk, there's no real need to spend money of helping candidates campaign - there's more need when things are contentious.

See he's the problem with you and your "reasoning" as a whole - you like to see something where another thing is likely an INFLUENCE on something, but then you trump it up to be the end all be all explaining something. THIS IS NOT HOW REALITY OPERATES.

I'm more than willing to admit that likely SOME extra money from them was because of the ACA (Although do note, at least two of those groups publicly helped financing for a public option, something quite different from the ACA)

Dozens of things happened in 2008 - including the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN which increased donations drastically by itself. Saying it's all one thing is nice for a soundbite, but it's hardly accurate.
Click to expand...
I am fairly confident my reasoning is based completely on reality.

Background | OpenSecrets

All of those 2008 campaign donations to Democrats bought something. Surely you can figure it.
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Cad_sl said:
Not to mention I'm not aware of any connection between the ACA and tort reform in the first place, aside from the ACA is promoted by democrats and tort reform is opposed by the same guys.
Click to expand...
Are you going to tell us what kind of lawyer you are? I was holding off until you provided the info. If you aren't willing to answer the question that's fine.
 
Cad

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Rescorla_sl said:
Are you going to tell us what kind of lawyer you are? I was holding off until you provided the info. If you aren't willing to answer the question that's fine.
Click to expand...
I do commercial and patent litigation at a national firm. Nothing to do with healthcare or personal injury in any way.
 
R

Rescorla_sl

shitlord
2,233
0
Cad_sl said:
I do commercial and patent litigation at a national firm. Nothing to do with healthcare or personal injury in any way.
Click to expand...
OK reason I asked is because it was you who linked to the wiki article about the single payer legislation and asked why it was not passed when the Democrats came to power. I then asked if Canadian doctors could get sued for medical malpractice. I already knew the answer but was curious to know if anyone else knew. The answer is Yes they can get sued but they rarely do. It's one thing the Canadians got right.

Medical Malpractice Liability: Canada | Law Library of Congress

In Canada, the government pays most of the doctors medical malpractice insurance. Also, their legal system has already implemented tort reform and put a cap on liability awards. My guess is that a career as a personal injury lawyer in Canada is nowhere close to being financially lucrative compared to the US.

As you should be able to figure out by now, the answer to why the Democrats did not pass a single payer healthcare plan when they had a filibuster proof majority is fairly obvious: their historical biggest source of campaign donations would disappear. If trial lawyers are not making millions of dollars on medical malpractice lawsuits, they would not have the money to donate to Democrats to continue to thwart tort reform.

If you are going to copy Canada's single payer system, that means the US would have had to also implement tort reform and put a cap on liability awards. The personal injury trial lawyers are NEVER going to allow that to happen. If/when tort reform becomes a risk to them again, you will see them donating $260 million dollars to candidates like they did in 2008.
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,802
Rescorla_sl said:
OK reason I asked is because it was you who linked to the wiki article about the single payer legislation and asked why it was not passed when the Democrats came to power. I then asked if Canadian doctors could get sued for medical malpractice. I already knew the answer but was curious to know if anyone else knew. The answer is Yes they can get sued but they rarely do. It's one thing the Canadians got right.

Medical Malpractice Liability: Canada | Law Library of Congress

In Canada, the government pays most of the doctors medical malpractice insurance. Also, their legal system has already implemented tort reform and put a cap on liability awards. My guess is that a career as a personal injury lawyer in Canada is nowhere close to being financially lucrative compared to the US.

As you should be able to figure out by now, the answer to why the Democrats did not pass a single payer healthcare plan when they had a filibuster proof majority is fairly obvious: their historical biggest source of campaign donations would disappear. If trial lawyers are not making millions of dollars on medical malpractice lawsuits, they would not have the money to donate to Democrats to continue to thwart tort reform.

If you are going to copy Canada's single payer system, that means the US would have had to also implement tort reform and put a cap on liability awards. The personal injury trial lawyers are NEVER going to allow that to happen. If/when tort reform becomes a risk to them again, you will see them donating $260 million dollars to candidates like they did in 2008.
Click to expand...
I believe tort reform has already passed in Texas.. Or at least my stepdad mentioned awhile back that the formerly ridiculous payout limits had been capped.

In Canada suing over medical issues or car accidents rarely happens. There's also no fault insurance in many provinces that have fixed amount payouts depending on your car injury, so you can't sue other drivers period. The "suing" culture that exists in the US simply doesn't exist in Canada, because besides literally not being allowed to for certain things (like car accidents) the criteria for damages is far more stringent than it is in the US. Oh yeah, lawyers are not allowed to advertise outside of the internet or phone book. Stupid TV commercials or billboards featuring slimeball ambulance chasers simply don't exist. The big money for lawyers in Canada are tax lawyers, family law and IP.
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,641
32,000
Well the FDA approved gay men donating blood now, if they hadn't had sex in a year. I don't even know where to begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.