AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.

I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.

Physicians are all eager to see some serious tort reform so that they don't have to practice defensive medicine. Let's hope that we will soon see a day when physicians can practice sound evidence-based medicine instead of ordering a battery of diagnostic tests just to avoid any potential lawsuits. If President Obama really believes that physicians are ordering too many unnecessary tests, then he should make sure that physicians are protected against silly and frivolous lawsuits that take up time and money.Trouble viewing the contents? Visit MedicineandTechnology.com by Dr. Joseph Kim. Follow @DrJosephKim on Twitter.

I would be happy to participate in an actual discussion with you providing your argument for your point of view and me providing mine.

And yes, when I have made an argument and it has not been rebutted by an equally credible opposing argument, I do win. Read up on formal debate rules some time.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One would think that someone who was actually familiar with 'formal debate rules' would understand that individual participants generally cannot declare themselves the winner in a debate; that is the call of the judges or audience, not the proponent of an argument. And what more, it is poor form and quite insulting to do so.

Cycloptichorn

As one who IS familiar with 'formal debate rules', I am absolutely one hundred percent confident that I am correct that if you cannot adequately and competently present and defend your own argument, your opponent wins. No debate judge I've ever know would judge "that's not true" or "that's stupid" or "you're wrong" as a competent rebuttal, and for most, blatant ad hominem or direct personal insults would almost certainly cause the guilty party enough points to lose if it didn't disqualify him outright.

A good debater will effectively dismantle his opponent's argument with fact, not emotion or prejudice or weak unsupportable assertions, and will present his own argument competently to make it difficult to dismantle.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.

I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.

No thank you. You blew it off the first time I posted that information and I don't care to spend my time hunting it up today as you will no doubt blow it off again.

A good debater will effectively dismantle his opponent's argument with fact, not emotion or prejudice or weak unsupportable assertions, and will present his own argument competently to make it difficult to dismantle.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.

I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.

No thank you. You blew it off the first time I posted that information

I've been carefully following this thread, too, and i don't recall Fox having posted any links to support a claim that tort reform will reduce insurance premiums.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.

I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.

No thank you. You blew it off the first time I posted that information

I never posted in reply to a post of yours that contained any actual data to support that specific claim. For that matter, I've never seen a post of yours that contained any actual data about the effect of tort reform on health insurance premiums.

ican did post actual data, and it showed that tort reform in Texas brought down the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals, but that it had no effect on the health insurance premiums of patients. In fact, health insurance premiums kept rising while the cost of malpractice insurance went down.

Also, please don't confuse opinion with data.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have articulated a reasoned argument for my opinions and posted links to support them where necessary.

I must have missed the links to the data that supports your claims that tort reform will bring down insurance premiums. Could you post that again? Thank you.

No thank you. You blew it off the first time I posted that information and I don't care to spend my time hunting it up today as you will no doubt blow it off again.

You never posted this information. Never. I have been watching this thread like a hawk since it came up, and neither you nor Ican has posted this information.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I would be happy to participate in an actual discussion with you providing your argument for your point of view and me providing mine.

I don't believe you.

Quote:

And yes, when I have made an argument and it has not been rebutted by an equally credible opposing argument, I do win. Read up on formal debate rules some time.

It's true that I was never on the debate team, but one thing I do know is that the participants do not get to be the judges, nor can they declare victory for themselves. It's up to those who are either convinced or unconvinced by our arguments. I think you are probably beyond convincing, so my purpose with you is to expose your ideas for the vapid partisan talking points that they are, through logical argument, to all who would care to read it. So to that end, I am happy when you fold. Enjoy your day.

Your hawkish talents are slipping.

Many observers have called on the federal government to enact such reforms. As discussed in Chapter 11, Congress is not constitutionally authorized to impose substantive rules of tort law on the states. Although the federal government may enact technical procedural changes, state legislatures are the proper venue for correcting excesses in their civiljustice systems. The fact that medical professionals can avoid states with inhospitable civil justice systems gives them significant leverage when advocating state-level medical liability reforms, and gives states incentives to enact such reforms. That some states have done so demonstrates that they have the ability.

Yet state-imposed medical malpractice reforms share two flaws with federally imposed rules. As noted earlier, imposing one set of limits on the right to sue for medical malpractice on all patients and providers will help some patients while hurting others. And the fact that those rules are written into statutes makes harmful rules extremely difficult to remove.

Thanks for the link. I don't think it supports your argument, though.

Well since you've yet to try it, we'll never know will we.

I have yet to 'fold' in any discussion with anybody who is actually debating the subject. I do get really bored with the numbnuts who refuse to debate. That's not folding. I simply choose not to engage in an exercise in futility. Remember that I choose not to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. I don't consider it futile to disagree with me, however, and thoroughly enjoy the exercise with people who are able to competently challenge my arguments.

Am I beyond convincing? No. Do I consider your 'purpose to expose my ideas for the vapid partisan talking points that they are' any more than a vapid partisan attitude against anything with which you disagree? No.

If I were you, I would like for a somewhat more useful and profitable purpose in life.

And yes, the person who can provide an argument that is not rebutted with an equally credible argument will win in a debate. Every single time. You can't simply say you disagree or the other person cannot be convinced.

old europe wrote:

Thanks for the link. I don't think it supports your argument, though.

Why not? My argument is that tort reform should be a part of the healthcare reform debate as I believe some healthcare costs will not be reduced without it in a free market system. How does that piece not support that?

Are doctors and medical providers in Germany subject to the same degree of frivolous lawsuits as are those in the USA?

Are doctors and medical providers in Germany subject to the same degree of frivolous lawsuits as are those in the USA?

When you offer a reasoned and supportable argument of your own, then you will find out whether I have 'folded'.