#Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
reconciliation/
Dean says kill the Senate health bill: report
By Sahil Kapur
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 -- 4:14 pm
Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare buy-
in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health
care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill is no longer worth
supporting.
"This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United
States Senate," former Gov. Howard Dean told political reporter Bob
Kinzel of Vermont Public Radio. Kinzel relayed the news to The Plum
Line's Greg Sargent, and the full VPR interview will air at 5:50 pm today.
"Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back
to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51
votes and it would be a much simpler bill," he said.
Dean has been an outspoken champion of the public insurance option,
describing it as the central component of the legislation. A health care
bill without it, he has said, is not worth supporting.
Dean lifted the spirits of dismayed progressives after the public option
was compromised in favor of the Medicare buy-in provision. He said last
Wednesday that it was a "positive step forward," and that expanding
existing government-run insurance programs can achieve the same goals of
lowering premiums and extending coverage.
Story continues below...
But now that the Medicare compromise has also been scrapped, Dean no
longer thinks the bill will meet these goals. According to him, it's time
for Democrats to pull the plug and start over using the parliamentary
procedure known as reconciliation, through which a bill can be passed
with a 51-vote majority.
While some progressives agree with Dean, others say the bill still
improves the current system.
"The public option and its compromised iterations were a battle that came
to seem like a war," Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote on Wednesday.
"But they weren't the war. The bill itself was."
"On its own terms, the bill is the most important social policy
achievement since the Great Society. It will save a lot of lives and
prevent a lot of suffering," he added.
"Political change isn't easy," wrote Josh Marshall of Talking Points
Memo. "It includes tons of reverses and inevitably involves not getting a
lot of what you wanted, at least not at first... People don't agree on
things. That's life. But that's different from cashing out of the process
if you don't get just what you want."
"I understand that most of the liberal skepticism over the Senate bill is
well intentioned," Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote on Wednesday.
"But it has become way, way off the mark."
Dean's declaration comes on the same day that President Obama gave a
speech signaling that positive health reform will pass. Obama warned that
inaction will create many more problems. "If we don't get this done, your
premiums are guaranteed to go up," he said.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
edi...@netpath.net
are 1/3 of Senate members. Obamacare's chances - no matter how it's
handled in Congress - drop hourly as congressmen get much more worried
about not alienating voters who don't want Obamacare.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:35:31 -0600, 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
said about:
#Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/howard-dean-kill-senate-health-bill-start-
> reconciliation/
>
> Dean says kill the Senate health bill: report
>
> By Sahil Kapur
> Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 -- 4:14 pm
>
> Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare buy-
> in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health
> care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill
> is no longer worth supporting.
Damn right!
>
> "This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United
> States Senate," former Gov. Howard Dean told political reporter Bob
> Kinzel of Vermont Public Radio. Kinzel relayed the news to The Plum
> Line's Greg Sargent, and the full VPR interview will air at 5:50 pm today.
>
> "Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back
> to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51
> votes. And it would be a much simpler bill," he said.
Let's try a more complete quote:
(Dean) �This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in
the United States Senate. And, honestly, the best thing to do
right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and
start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes.
And it would be a much simpler bill.�
>
> Dean has been an outspoken champion of the public insurance option,
> describing it as the central component of the legislation. A health care
> bill without it, he has said, is not worth supporting.
>
> Dean lifted the spirits of dismayed progressives after the public option
> was compromised in favor of the Medicare buy-in provision. He said last
> Wednesday that it was a "positive step forward," and that expanding
> existing government-run insurance programs can achieve the same goals of
> lowering premiums and extending coverage.
Yep. We tried. That was yesterday.
> But now that the Medicare compromise has also been scrapped, Dean no
> longer thinks the bill will meet these goals. According to him, it's time
> for Democrats to pull the plug and start over using the parliamentary
> procedure known as reconciliation, through which a bill can be passed
> with a 51-vote majority.
Yep. (But but it couldn't be a full bill that way,
since it can only be a budget bill. It would need
patching. No biggy. And Repubs would squeal like
sodomized peacocks...utterly no changes there, nobody
but them would notice that.)
>
> While some progressives agree with Dean, others say the bill still
> improves the current system.
Huh!? So what!? Repubs had their chance to compromise,
but they refused. We tried. Obama tried. They have proven
they come to the table without good faith. They lose.
What is this �compromise� of which we speak?
Liberals wanted single payer. Compromised out!
Liberals wanted strong Public Option. Compromised out!
Liberals wanted weak Public Option. Compromised out!
Liberals wanted Medicare Buy in. Compromised out!
Liberals didn�t want Coops or triggered Public Option and even
that was compromised out!
I agree with Dean for more reasons than I can list. As it stands
now, it's been written by industry lobbyists as a balance to the
real reform it once included.
But that reform is gone and all that remains is one of the
largest examples of corporate welfare ever devised, including 55
million mandated new insurance customers.
The list of corporate welfare freebies is looong.
As it stands now, everybody but industry will hate the bill.
It would last about ten minutes before getting gutted.
I've been thinking all along that the only way to git er done
is via reconciliation.
> "Political change isn't easy," wrote Josh Marshall of Talking Points
> Memo. "It includes tons of reverses and inevitably involves not getting a
> lot of what you wanted, at least not at first... People don't agree on
> things. That's life. But that's different from cashing out of the process
> if you don't get just what you want."
Fuck off girlyman. Let's get a real bill passed.
Dean: �The American people don�t care how we get this, as long
as we get a decent process. The Republicans in the Senate will
moan and groan, but they�re very out of touch with where America
really is. You have the vast majority of Americans want the
choices, they want real choices.
They don�t have them in this bill. This is not health care
reform. And it�s not close to health care reform.�
Damned right! It's another fascist coup, that's what it is.
(Kinzel:) Dean says there are a number of good elements in the
current Senate bill, like more money for community health
centers, which should now be passed on their own:
(Dean:) "There are some good things in this bill, but they're
small, and let's have a small bill for this $32 billion.
Doesn't sound like a small amount, but compared to a trillion
dollars - 27 percent of which is going to go to the insurance
companies' pockets, it's a small price to pay to help community
health care centers and prevention and wellness programs."
>
> "I understand that most of the liberal skepticism over the Senate bill is
> well intentioned," Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote on Wednesday.
> "But it has become way, way off the mark."
Fuck off corporateman. You had yer chance.
> Dean's declaration comes on the same day that President Obama gave a
> speech signaling that positive health reform will pass. Obama warned that
> inaction will create many more problems. "If we don't get this done, your
> premiums are guaranteed to go up," he said.
Piss off. Let's git er done!
- Political Economics:
- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
- Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
- Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
- Republicans: fear government but trust corporations.
- Democrats: fear both.
- "Fascism...is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini
So? How might that merger happen in America?
Well in this case, what's the difference between merger
and government's deregulation of corporations?
Not much that I can see. Voila!
Corporations are now super people protected by the Constitution.
But it hasn't always been that way.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law.
To their everlasting glory, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
For 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, various governmental entities led corporations around on leashes, like obedient puppies, canceling their charters promptly if they compromised the public good in any way.
The leashes broke in 1886, the puppies got away, and the public good was increasingly compromised until it was finally displaced altogether.
Today, the First Amendment protects the right of corporations-as-persons to finance political campaigns and to employ lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations.
Democracy has been transformed into a crypto-plutocracy, and public policy is no longer crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead to maintain, protect, enhance or create opportunities for corporate profit.
Isn't that the root of the rot?
more info:
End Corporate "Personhood"
The Supreme Court's ruling is set to either expand the doctrines
of corporate personhood and corporate rights by expanding the ...
www.change.org/ideas/view/end_corporate_personhood
Corporate Personhood
Unequal Protection may prove to be the most significant issue in the history of corporate personhood, a doctrine which dates to 1886. ...
www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm
David Hartung
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:35:31 -0600, 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> said about:
> #Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
>
>
>> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/howard-dean-kill-senate-health-bill-start-
>> reconciliation/
>>
>> Dean says kill the Senate health bill: report
>>
>> By Sahil Kapur
>> Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 -- 4:14 pm
>>
>> Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare buy-
>> in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health
>> care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill
>> is no longer worth supporting.
>
> Damn right!
Health care reform in its current form never was worth supporting. Scrap
both bills, and push for some rational tort reform, and leave it at that.
Both the House bill, and the Senate bill are complete abominations.
lorad
Tort reform??
What the hell for?
So that the profit making 'health providers' could kill more people
and not have to feel bad about it?
That's crazy neocon crap.
Dean via Bashford is right... the Lieberman and Lautenburg squatted
upon bill has become all crap.... just another neocon give away for
the insurance companies and big pharma.
Two months ago, I said that I could support the bill *only if it
included the public option*.
It no longer does and so I can't
Sueki Tartridge
then buy energy guzzling,carbon spewing mansions. You should HATE men
like Edwards. He's WHITE,RICH and better looking than you.
> Dean via Bashford is right... the Lieberman and Lautenburg squatted
> upon bill has become all crap.... just another neocon give away for
> the insurance companies and big pharma.
>
> Two months ago, I said that I could support the bill *only if it
> included the public option*.
> It no longer does and so I can't- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
In
<dc0b199f-08bf-41ef...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:54:55 -0800 (PST), lorad said about:
Re: #Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
> On Dec 16, 3:44=A0am, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug Bashford wrote:
> > > =A0in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
> > > =A0On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:35:31 -0600, 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> > > said about:
> > > =A0#Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
> >
> > >>http://rawstory.com/2009/12/howard-dean-kill-senate-health-bill-start-
> > >> reconciliation/
> >
> > >> Dean says kill the Senate health bill: report
> >
> > >> By Sahil Kapur
> > >> Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 -- 4:14 pm
> >
> > >> Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare b=
> uy-
> > >> in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health
> > >> care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill
> > >> is no longer worth supporting.
> >
> > > Damn right!
> >
> > Health care reform in its current form never was worth supporting. Scrap
> > both bills, and push for some rational tort reform, and leave it at that.
> >
> > Both the House bill, and the Senate bill are complete abominations
>
> Tort reform??
> What the hell for?
> So that the profit making 'health providers' could kill more people
> and not have to feel bad about it?
> That's crazy neocon crap.
>
> Dean via Bashford is right... the Lieberman and Lautenburg squatted
> upon bill has become all crap.... just another neocon give away for
> the insurance companies and big pharma.
>
> Two months ago, I said that I could support the bill *only if it
> included the public option*.
> It no longer does and so I can't
Yep.
===========
The Associated Press - 17 minutes ago
Dean urges defeat of emerging health care bill
WASHINGTON � Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean
argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape
in the Senate further empowers ...
"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a
fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company
bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said
the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line
beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."
"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic
presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble,
and it's a shame."
Dean asserted that the Senate's health care bill would not
prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for
preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the
industry to charge older people far more than others for
premiums.
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irPOJsLck6oxp2-eAE8h9-xaJcZQD9CKEC3O0
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, David Hartung said about:
Re: #Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
> Doug Bashford wrote:
> > in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:35:31 -0600, 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> > said about:
> > #Dean: Kill the Senate health bill
> >
> >
> >> http://rawstory.com/2009/12/howard-dean-kill-senate-health-bill-start-
> >> reconciliation/
> >>
> >> Dean says kill the Senate health bill: report
> >>
> >> By Sahil Kapur
> >> Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 -- 4:14 pm
> >>
> >> Following the jettisoning of both the public option and the Medicare buy-
> >> in provision, one of the nation's leading progressive voices on health
> >> care reportedly said Tuesday that the Senate bill
> >> is no longer worth supporting.
> >
> > Damn right!
>
> Health care reform in its current form never was worth supporting.
That's right.
> Scrap
> both bills, and push for some rational tort reform, and leave it at that.
"tort reform" is a funny thing.
To some it means giving "We the people" more power,
but to some it means giving "We the people" less power
and more protection of the monied interests..
Libertarians often argue for stronger tort laws and
thus weaker regulations. ....No need to make say,
pollution a crime, just have indidividual pollution
victims sue the polluters ass off. But the Corporate
apologists want weaker or capped tort laws. (And weaker
regulations.)
The vested pundits love muddying the waters:
"It's too complicated!"
I say it's simple: NEVER give away ANY of your rights
or powers.
Ya never know when ya might need one.
Easy, huh?
Phlip
> Every House member is up for reelection in under a year now - and so
> are 1/3 of Senate members.
And we now know who to throw out.
Phlip
> So John Edwards can't troll for doctor's to sue for $MILLIONS and
> then buy energy guzzling,carbon spewing mansions. You should HATE men
> like Edwards. He's WHITE,RICH and better looking than you.
So HMOs can't kill you by delaying your paperwork, then enjoy complete
immunity from lawsuits.
So go ahead and argue against your own rights to sue big companies who
take your money and give nothing. There's a good corporate slave!
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
And I bet you don't know what's in either of them.
Gotta love what this little monkey on a stick proposes on behalf of
his corporate masters: litigation of all forms contributes less than
3% of the overall cost to a medical system that costs nearly twice as
much as anyone else in the world pays for theirs, so what's Dave's
answer? Tort Reform! Which is code for "strip patients of their
right to redress!" Don't improve the system. Just make it
unaccountable instead!
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Poor little right wing trash is getting desperate. Not only is he
telling the usual lies, but he's using class warfare and race in hopes
it will help him.
BTW, Edwards made his money from a class action suit against a company
that willfully and negligently made fuel pumps without safety gratings
or cutoffs. The modifications would have added less than 10% to the
price. Edwards represented dozens of people injured by those devices,
including a child whose intestines had been sucked out her asshole by
one.
You don't want to help people like that; you just want to change the
law so they can't sue when negligent manufacturers maim and kill them.
You're a despicable little toadie.
David Hartung
Where has anyone propose eliminating any sort of "right" to sue?
David Hartung
> Gotta love what this little monkey on a stick proposes on behalf of
> his corporate masters: litigation of all forms contributes less than
> 3% of the overall cost to a medical system that costs nearly twice as
> much as anyone else in the world pays for theirs, so what's Dave's
> answer? Tort Reform! Which is code for "strip patients of their
> right to redress!" Don't improve the system. Just make it
> unaccountable instead!
Interestingly enough, all I did was tp post the words "tort reform" and
with no more knowledge than that Bryan thinks he knows what I am talking
about, yet he is accusing me of willful ignorance.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, David Hartung said about:
Where has anyone claimed that our right to sue would be
eliminated, you simple bifurcating dumb ass? We are talking
corporate apologists wanting to weaken our rights and powers to
sue the wicked, and to be made whole again.
maxw...@my-deja.com
What worries most is they aren't sure if they can trust the govt.
to do something that goes against a patients claims.
If such reform were to be done it would have to be responsible
in the sense that if a doctor did A, B, C, and D that there could
be a limit or cap on claims. Obviously we don't live in a perfect
world and things happen, but on the other hand if say a doctor
was grossly negligent then there should be no cap. No different than
if say your neighbor ran you over in your driveway thinking he was
parking in his own driveway.
Also what we are talking about here is another form of regulation.
In this case a regulation concerning civil suits. Such regulation
should also regulate actual charges or costs by providers which
should be less in the absence of malpractice claims.
Otherwise what would be the point? Both side must give up
something.
David Hartung
The basics of tort reform, in my opinion, should be the following:
1. Same burden of proof as in criminal cases. The plaintiff should be
required to prove responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Proportional liability, the loser is only responsible for a
percentage of the judgment equal to his adjudges responsibility. In
other words, if one defendant in a multiple defendant suit is found to
be only 10% responsible, that defendant is only responsible to pay 10%
of the judgment.
3. the party which loses should be responsible to pay all expenses for
all parties concerned.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Then this would have to apply to all civil cases.
>
> 2. Proportional liability, the loser is only responsible for a
> percentage of the judgment equal to his adjudges responsibility. In
> other words, if one defendant in a multiple defendant suit is found to
> be only 10% responsible, that defendant is only responsible to pay 10%
> of the judgment.
That makes sense.
>
> 3. the party which loses should be responsible to pay all expenses for
> all parties concerned.
So you mean I could hire the most expensive lawyer and legal
dream team and expert panel and if I win the loser would have
to pay all my expenses?
I am not so sure they should have to pay all expenses.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 16, 11:41 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>> > Gotta love what this little monkey on a stick proposes on behalf of
>> > his corporate masters: litigation of all forms contributes less than
>> > 3% of the overall cost to a medical system that costs nearly twice as
>> > much as anyone else in the world pays for theirs, so what's Dave's
>> > answer? Tort Reform! Which is code for "strip patients of their
>> > right to redress!" Don't improve the system. Just make it
>> > unaccountable instead!
>>
>> Interestingly enough, all I did was tp post the words "tort reform" and
>> with no more knowledge than that Bryan thinks he knows what I am
>> talking about, yet he is accusing me of willful ignorance.
Correction. I only accused you of ignorance.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:50:38 -0800, maxwelton wrote:
>
>> On Dec 16, 11:41�am, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>
>>> > Gotta love what this little monkey on a stick proposes on behalf of
>>> > his corporate masters: litigation of all forms contributes less than
>>> > 3% of the overall cost to a medical system that costs nearly twice as
>>> > much as anyone else in the world pays for theirs, so what's Dave's
>>> > answer? �Tort Reform! �Which is code for "strip patients of their
>>> > right to redress!" �Don't improve the system. �Just make it
>>> > unaccountable instead!
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough, all I did was tp post the words "tort reform" and
>>> with no more knowledge than that Bryan thinks he knows what I am
>>> talking about, yet he is accusing me of willful ignorance.
>
>Correction. I only accused you of ignorance.
>>
Speaking of ignorance, see the exchange below...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/9c969bf6194c3cf8
Milt Shook says:
"By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has
already passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass."
Then Zepp Jamieson says:
"That, at least, is a valid point. It'll be interesting to see who
is on the reconciliation joint committee."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/9c969bf6194c3cf8
Canyon Note: The process of combining the house and Senate Bills
is very different from the no-fillibuster reconciliation process.
Steven L.
news:AaWdnd9Am-vQ57XW...@pghconnect.com:
> What is this �compromise� of which we speak?
>
> Liberals wanted single payer. Compromised out!
> Liberals wanted strong Public Option. Compromised out!
> Liberals wanted weak Public Option. Compromised out!
> Liberals wanted Medicare Buy in. Compromised out!
> Liberals didn�t want Coops or triggered Public Option and even
> that was compromised out!
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com), who is a liberal like yourself,
bothered to do a thorough analysis of what is still in the Senate bill.
It may surprise you.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
The Senate bill still manages to lower annual health care premiums by
thousands of dollars for an average family forced to purchase individual
coverage (i.e. because they're either self-employed or unemployed).
Look at his chart at that website.
I'm one of them. I'm self-employed and I have a serious pre-existing
health condition (that is, it was "pre existing" before I applied for
insurance). Right now, in many states, I can't purchase individual
insurance AT ALL because of my pre-existing condition. Not only will
this bill fix that, it will force insurance companies to charge me no
more in premiums than they would charge a healthy person in my same
geographic locale--guaranteed issue PLUS community rating.
That's not bad!
The bill does NOT do enough to lower health care costs. But given the
fierce opposition to ANY health care reform measure, why not pass
SOMETHING, get Americans accustomed to near-universal health care
coverage, and worry about cost containment at some future time?
Bottom line: Almost ANYTHING beats the screwed up health care "system"
we have now. And the Senate bill does beat what we have now.
I've been a conservative most of my life, and I didn't vote for Obama.
But having a life-threatening illness changes one's perspective, it
really does. I wouldn't wish it even on liberals. :-)
I say, PASS THIS BILL and get me coverage!
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
David Hartung
Absolutely.
>> 2. Proportional liability, the loser is only responsible for a
>> percentage of the judgment equal to his adjudges responsibility. In
>> other words, if one defendant in a multiple defendant suit is found to
>> be only 10% responsible, that defendant is only responsible to pay 10%
>> of the judgment.
>
> That makes sense.
If only the politicians thought that way.
>> 3. the party which loses should be responsible to pay all expenses for
>> all parties concerned.
>
> So you mean I could hire the most expensive lawyer and legal
> dream team and expert panel and if I win the loser would have
> to pay all my expenses?
> I am not so sure they should have to pay all expenses.
All expenses, such a measure will force plaintiffs to take
responsibility for their actions.
Kevin Cunningham
A few comments:
1) What a joke! This is the most radical part of this otherwise mind
numbing post, the amount of evidence in a criminal trial is beyond a
reasonable doubt. The amount needed in a tort trial, and malpractice
is a tort, is preponderance or evidence. You need less proof in a
tort trial because it is a trial over money damages, not spending time
in jail
Completely moronic.
2) Proportional liability is already used in every tort trial since
torts began some time in the medieval period.
3) Actually interesting.
What you fail to understand is the elimination of most torts actions
was in the Clinton health care bill that you dim witted conservatives
fought tooth and nail. If the doctor used standard, accepted
practices the suit would be dismissed. That would be a defense to the
tort.
But you opposed that and here we are.
David Hartung
Only in your opinion.
> 2) Proportional liability is already used in every tort trial since
> torts began some time in the medieval period.
You may wish to recheck your facts:
http://qanda.encyclopedia.com/question/joint-and-several-liability-used-civil-cases-533027.html
> 3) Actually interesting.
>
> What you fail to understand is the elimination of most torts actions
> was in the Clinton health care bill that you dim witted conservatives
> fought tooth and nail. If the doctor used standard, accepted
> practices the suit would be dismissed. That would be a defense to the
> tort.
>
> But you opposed that and here we are.
The Clinton bill is not under discussion here.