10
   

Hawaii governor can't find Bork's birth certificate

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 11:58 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cyclops, my brother was a family physician all of his working life.


Oh, Christ, more of your anecdotal evidence bullshit? Let's see how bad it gets.

Quote:
Actual real life information is where much of my "research" has been done. We had many discussions about the medical industry. His insurance was small and it stayed that way because he never had any cases filed against him, but even with that, I think it was over $20,000 annualy, I am not sure the exact number. He always kept his basic office charges as low as he could, but liability insurance was one of his largest expense growth areas. Even if a lower liability insurance cost could have allowed him to lower his office visit cost by a dollar or 5 dollars, that would amount to a fairly major cost cutting nationwide. When he started practice in the 60's, he charged $3.00 for an office visit.


Hello, inflation plus drastically rising costs in the medical industry - having nothing to do with torts - equals higher office visit costs! Amazing!

Quote:
I do not know what it was by the time he retired, but I think liability insurance was one of the biggest growth expenditures that impacted the medical industry.


So you think, but have no evidence that this was true?

Quote:
As a side issue, one of the reasons he retired when he did, he grew more and more tired of the paperwork required by the government and for the government, caused mainly by government intrusion into the medical industry.


So? It's not anyone else's fault that he's too lazy to either do paperwork or hire a clerk to do it for him.

Quote:
People are not stupid, cyclops, and there is a reason why there are lawyer jokes. I have noticed local ads on radio and TV, that I would consider ambulance chaser ads, such as did you have an accident and do you suffer from neck or back ache, we will take your case on a percentage basis at no cost to you, blah blah blah. How do you think John Edwards got rich?


There are scummy people in every industry. Some oil developers and coal miners are scummy businesses who run dangerous job sites and destroy the environment around them. Should we shut their businesses down too?

It always makes me laugh to see Conservatives advance this argument, because Tort reform is regulation by the government of free activity. Which you call intrusive. But you don't think THIS regulation is intrustive, do you?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So? It's not anyone else's fault that he's too lazy to either do paperwork or hire a clerk to do it for him.Cycloptichorn
Insulting, cyclops. My brother was anything but lazy. Even though he grew up on a farm in a fairly poor family, he worked and put himself through college and medical school. I may be partial to a brother I admired greatly, but I heard nothing but praise from the citizens and patients at his retirement reception held by the town where he practiced.

He did have a medical records clerk I believe. Speaking from memory, I think that was pretty much her entire job, to keep up with government and insurance requirements for reporting and file all the forms, etc. etc. etc.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:13 pm
@okie,
as heartwarming as your stories are, okie, they provide no substantiation whatsoever for your weak arguments...


I suggest throwing around more rumors.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:17 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
as heartwarming as your stories are, okie, they provide no substantiation whatsoever for your weak arguments...
I understand your point, Rockhead. I have not offered statistical proof of the need for tort reform. I have seen articles on the success in Texas, so I might have to check that out again.

However, part of the philosophy I have is pretty simple, that common sense itself should tell you something. It seems like common sense to observe large lawsuit settlements going on around us and seeing what amounts doctors pay for liability, it is entirely logical that there is a problem that could use some tweaking, Rocky. Example, if you see it raining outside, does it occur to you that it might be wet out there, without doing a scientific test to prove it?
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:23 pm
@okie,
If I see health insurance companies taking large profits for denying sick folks care, I see enough to know where the problem lies...

let it rain.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It always makes me laugh to see Conservatives advance this argument, because Tort reform is regulation by the government of free activity. Which you call intrusive. But you don't think THIS regulation is intrustive, do you?
Cycloptichorn
Part of the legitimate purpose of government is to protect us and our property from being abused and taken by others. I therefore believe that regulation of lawsuits regarding medical issues, including pain and suffering, are fair game and need to be reasonably regulated. We have to recognize that humans are imperfect, and therefore we cannot or should not expect insurance companies to be able to insure that every product or service is 100% perfect.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:30 pm
@okie,
Let me guess... you have medical insurance, right?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 12:47 pm
I've mentioned this before... If I had the power to I would institute a sort of a basic health care reform which would be overwhelmingly simple and which would resemble the thing we're reading about in no way, shape, or manner. Key points would be:

1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice.

2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.

3. Elimination of the various games which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability. That would have to start with the gigantic costs of getting drugs past the FDA; there has to be a happy medium between the system of 1900 and what we have now.

4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses or other lifestyle-related problems.

All of those things would fall under the heading of what TR called "trust busting". There would also be some system for caring the truly indigent, but the need and cost would be far less than at present.

By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs.

The trial lawyers' guild being one of the two major pillars of financial support for the democrat party is the basic reason nobody is saying anything about that part of the problem.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 01:25 pm
Obunga theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzkszgjkj6Q
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 02:20 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:

By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs.


This is a total and complete lie. Zero factual evidence to back it up.

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 02:32 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html

Quote:

Health Reform's Taboo Topic

By Philip K. Howard
Friday, July 31, 2009

Health-care reform is bogged down because none of the bills before Congress deals with the staggering waste of the current system, estimated to be $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. The waste flows from a culture of health care in which every incentive is to do more -- that's how doctors make money and that's how they protect themselves from lawsuits.

Yet the congressional leadership has slammed the door on solutions to the one driver of waste that is relatively easy to fix: the erratic, expensive and time-consuming jury-by-jury malpractice system. Pilot projects could test whether this system should be replaced with expert health courts, but leaders who say they want to cut costs will not even consider them.

What are they scared of? The answer is inescapable -- such expert courts might succeed and undercut the special interest of an influential lobby, the trial lawyers. An expeditious and reliable new system would compensate patients more quickly and at a fraction of the overhead of the current medical justice system, which spends nearly 60 cents of every dollar on lawyers' fees and administrative costs.

Even more compelling, expert health courts would eliminate the need for "defensive medicine," thereby helping to save enough money for America to afford universal health coverage.

Defensive medicine -- the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren't needed to protect a doctor from the remote possibility of a lawsuit -- is ubiquitous. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association related that 93 percent of high-risk specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to the practice, and 83 percent of Massachusetts physicians did the same in a 2008 survey. The same Massachusetts survey showed that 25 percent of all imaging tests were ordered for defensive purposes, and 28 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of those surveyed admitted reducing the number of high-risk patients they saw and limiting the number of high-risk procedures or services they performed.

Defensive medicine is notoriously hard to quantify, but some estimates place the annual cost at $100 billion to $200 billion or more. Quantification is difficult because defensiveness is now embedded in the culture of American health care; it's hard to separate the financial incentives from the distrust of justice. Yet every physician, and most patients, can give examples. In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, a Texas doctor described how, since being unsuccessfully sued in 1995, he has "doubled and tripled the number of tests and consultations that I order."

A few years ago, I was not allowed to have minor knee surgery at an orthopedic hospital unless I went through a comprehensive "pre-operative examination." There was no financial incentive to the hospital because this pre-operative exam was to be done elsewhere. As it turned out, I had recently endured all those tests in my annual physical. But the orthopedic hospital would not accept month-old test results, nor even an explicit waiver by me of any liability. The result was pure waste: more than $1,000 spent on wholly unnecessary tests.

Health-care professionals live the reality of defensive medicine every day. Do an online search of the phrase "defensive medicine," and you will find scores of testimonials. But congressional leadership, amid all the talk of cost-containment, has assiduously avoided even mentioning the phrase.

Containing costs, as Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) noted on "Face the Nation" recently, requires overhauling the culture of health-care delivery. Incentives need to be realigned. That requires a legal framework that, instead of encouraging waste, encourages doctors to focus on what's really needed. One pillar in a new legal framework is a system of justice that is trusted to reliably distinguish between good care and bad care. Reliable justice would protect doctors against unreasonable claims and would expeditiously compensate injured patients. The key is reliability. Traditional "tort reform" -- merely limiting noneconomic damages -- is not sufficient to end defensive medicine, because doctors could still be liable when they did nothing wrong.

The shifts in legal structure required to contain costs are hard to "score," using the terminology of the Congressional Budget Office. Only with experience can anyone quantify the real value of realigning incentives. But surveys and studies repeatedly confirm what every doctor knows -- that they go through the day ordering tests and procedures that aren't really needed.

As the nation debates health-care overhaul, not addressing defensive medicine would be a scandal, a willful refusal by Congress to deal with one of the causes of skyrocketing health-care costs. The real crisis here is not that health care is broken; people of good will could come together and create the conditions for rebuilding the incentive structure of health-care delivery. The real crisis is that Congress is broken, and that it answers to special interests instead of the needs of all Americans.

The writer is chairman of Common Good, a nonprofit legal reform coalition, and a partner with the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 02:36 pm
More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eksAvr-YG-g
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 02:56 pm
@okie,
Quote:
After all, ciizenship proof to run for president is insignificant.

Of course it's insignificant when the courts have said claims that Obama isn't a citizen are frivolous.

Of course, you could try making it significant. It should only cost you a few tens of thousands of dollars to try to waste the courts time.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 03:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Buuuuttttt Cyclo.. didn't you read the report that says that more than half of the US economy is lawyers?


Oops.. I think I left that report right next to the face on Mars when it was being built by Haliburton contractors. Sorry, I'll have to go get it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 04:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
After all, ciizenship proof to run for president is insignificant.

Of course it's insignificant when the courts have said claims that Obama isn't a citizen are frivolous.

Of course, you could try making it significant. It should only cost you a few tens of thousands of dollars to try to waste the courts time.
Was there ever a trial on that issue,
in which evidence was taken, subject to voir dire and cross examination of testimony ??





David
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 06:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Was there ever a trial on that issue...


Not to my knowledge. But what IS going to happen is that a number of the states are going to make Bork produce a real birth certificate before his names goes on the ballot again. That is, IF the dems are stupid enough to let him run again in 2012 which I doubt.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 06:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Was there ever a trial as to the issue of whether you are sane or not David?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 06:42 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Not to my knowledge. But what IS going to happen is that a number of the states are going to make Bork produce a real birth certificate before his names goes on the ballot again.

Would that be the state of insanity and the state of irrationality?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 07:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Buuuuttttt Cyclo.. didn't you read the report that says that more than half of the US economy is lawyers?
Oops.. I think I left that report right next to the face on Mars when it was being built by Haliburton contractors. Sorry, I'll have to go get it.
Your post reminds me of a toy my kids had when they were little. It was a plastic pink panther with a pull string. Pull it and it had a repertoire of sayings, such as "I am the pink panther," or "Don't wrinkle my fur," things like that. One of the words that automatically comes forth when liberals' strings are pulled is "Halliburton."
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 11:34 pm
I don't buy the crap being spread about Obama being a citizen or not.
Like it or not, he was born in Hawaii and it is not up to the governor to find Obama's birth certificate.
Even if he did find it, I am not sure he could legally release it.

But just as an exercise in thinking, and because I truly don't know the answer, I have a few questions.

IF it was proven that he wasn't a US citizen, what would that mean.
Would it make every bill he has signed invalid?
What about the military officers that have been promoted?
Would they lose their promotions?
And since he would not have been able to run, what about Joe Biden?
If Obama could not have legally run for president, then he could not have legally picked Biden as a running mate, so would he still legally be the VP?
All of the bills and other stuff that Obama has signed would be invalid, wouldn't they?
Things like health care would be negated.

So While I don't but the crap about him not being a US citizen, it would present a serious constitutional crisis if it was ever proven to be true that he wasn't a citizen. I wonder exactly how the govt would handle that.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 07:17:53