I was referring to tort reform.

2/26/2010 11:12:16 AM

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

Quote :

"“If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care."

Get.

The.

Fuck.

Out.

2/26/2010 11:14:23 AM

I can see that you're really mature. Anyways, why don't you read a real study on the matter instead of some guy just throwing numbers out there?

http://jay-pcor.stanford.edu/Readings/Lecture06/kessler_mcclellan_qje_defensive_medicine.pdf

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/26/2010 11:19:41 AM

I can see you don't live in reality.

2/26/2010 11:20:51 AM

Even if tort reform would save 1% of total health care costs, why the hell not? One percent is still something. Obama called all the players to the table very early and essentially asked everyone to give up some money. Well, no, it was probably more like: "Get on board, pledge some savings, or we'll make up some new taxes for your industry." In that context, why are ambulance chasers left out? Trial lawyers lobby? Obama stands to gain some credibility in exchange for that 1%.

2/26/2010 11:21:57 AM

No one is against tort reform.

The point is that's the only fucking thing the republicans keep saying.

TORT REFORM. LET'S START OVER. TORT REFORM. SCRAP THE BILL. TORT REFORM. GENERIC TALKING POINT.

2/26/2010 11:22:44 AM

By the way that PDF is a report from 15 fucking years ago lmao

2/26/2010 11:24:27 AM

Why don't you educate yourself a little more, seriously? And pork may be 1 percent of the national budget, but it is making 10 times that in this bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

Obama, change you can believe in!

2/26/2010 11:25:35 AM

^x3 I understand. All the more reason for Obama to say: "OK. Tort reform. Done. Happy now?" The argument that Republicans are being obstructionist would be strengthened if Obama gave the Republicans something.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

2/26/2010 11:25:45 AM

At least it was actually a well researched report, instead of just guesstimating.

2/26/2010 11:26:13 AM

^^Exactly, if its not a big deal, why doesn't Obama give in. Oh yeah, lawyer friends.

2/26/2010 11:26:50 AM

I don't think that article means what you think it means.

2/26/2010 11:27:06 AM

^It estimates the total cost of defensive medicine practice at 5-9% of total health care costs. And one could argue that in recent years, with even bigger lawsuit payouts being handed out, that the cost could very well be higher.

2/26/2010 11:28:50 AM

Quote :

"^x3 I understand. All the more reason for Obama to say: "OK. Tort reform. Done. Happy now?" The argument that Republicans are being obstructionist would be strengthened if Obama gave the Republicans something."

True but by the time the Tort Reform bill is created, debated, revised, debated, revised, passed, implemented, revised, implemented again and in place long enough to produce accurate feedback, Obama's first term will be long gone.

Obama has been giving them things since last summer, and every time he gives them something, they ask for something else. Stalling Tactics.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM. Reason : o nose, 2k post]

2/26/2010 12:02:34 PM

^So instead of doing something right, with tort reform. Obama just wants to get SOMETHING passed, anything, doesnt matter what.

2/26/2010 12:21:43 PM

Even if it's right, it's not even close to a full solution. Implementing tort reform alone would be a failure to seriously address the health-care problem.

2/26/2010 1:28:25 PM

Quote :

"Obama has been giving them things since last summer"

that is such bullshit and you're either being cynical by repeating this tripe or just as gullible as dems hope the avg american is.

the dems have given conservatives very small token compromises - the public option is the only possible real compromise that you could claim the dems have made, but a ton of democrats themselves opposed the public option so that wasn't really a compromise for conservatives as much as a convenient one.

2/26/2010 1:30:28 PM

didn't they add like 160 of the 200something republican amendment suggestions to the original bill just so the pubs could turn around and vote against it anyway? seems like more than token compromises

2/26/2010 1:42:21 PM

k

2/26/2010 1:43:57 PM

you won't hit him

2/26/2010 1:48:18 PM

^^^The whole bill is a fucking failure. It does nothing to change how much health care costs, it just shifts who pays for it.

2/26/2010 1:48:27 PM

What do they expect? The Republican version of health-care reform is a total 180 from the Democrat bill. Republicans are not going to get their bill because they're not the majority, but they won't settle for anything less.

Its fucking party politics - neither side wants to let the other side succeed, health-care be damned. The only thing that separates the parties is the fact that one got voted into the majority and the other didn't.

2/26/2010 1:49:57 PM

Hey guy we have the solution for NC's $10 billion budget deficit, lets take away Kay Hagen's lunch allowance, that should solve it
-sincerely
republicans

2/26/2010 1:52:54 PM

I think God misses the point about tort reform. The point isn't to keep doctors from having to pay their negligence (and I guess once you include insurance payments, court settlements, etc that prob is only 1.5% of total health care spending), the point is to help realign doctor's incentives to avoid waste.

Specifically, the idea is that a lot of doctors order unecc tests and treatments not to make serious bank off insurance (contrary to popular belief, your doctor doesn't get a bonus check for ordering an extra MRI), but to avoid big penalties if they are sued for negligence (something that actually will impact doctor's pocketbooks).

I think this makes sense and tort reform is a problem worth investigating...later. The point of this bill(s) is to make health insurance more affordable for everyone. Tort reform would only help this problem indirectly and likely over a time line of decades.

Pass insurance reform now. Focus on tort reform tomorrow.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ``]

2/26/2010 1:55:50 PM

^ that's why I can't understand why they didn't just toss the RINOs a bone and included tort reform. LAST YEAR that would have been enough to give rinos a cover for voting to end filibuster.

its too late now. dems F-ed it up. They're good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

2/26/2010 2:07:44 PM

^^Hey guys we have a solution for health care. Lets turn it into a system like social security. That's worked out SO well.

2/26/2010 2:10:18 PM

I think he made a good point. If they GOP are going to use procedural tactics to prevent vote then it is far game to use procedural tactics to allow a vote. He also pointed out that most or all of the GOP in the HC reform meeting have voted for reconciliation in the past.

The GOP threatened filibusters to their hearts content, they have no room to whine about procedural tactics at this point.

2/26/2010 2:29:54 PM

Ok, just remember you said that next time the dems try to filibuster a constitutionalist nominee to the supreme court.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : OMG IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! ]

2/26/2010 4:04:07 PM

That scenario isn't even possible. You can't tack judicial nominations to spending bills.

2/26/2010 4:12:31 PM

The Democrats are stuck between a rock and a hard place politically. They really have no choice but to push the Senate bill through via reconciliation, despite polarized public opinion. Having spent so much time and political capital, without a bill the Democrats will look impotent and unable to legislate. By default, voters will go to Republicans. This is the issue with our two party system. A loss for one party is automatically a gain for the other party. The incentive to just try to block every bill is ever present.

2/26/2010 4:20:30 PM

You're right that this has gone on for far too long, all the while the GOP saying slow down you're going too fast, and at endgame the GOP is saying it is time to start over... but the dems have gotten better about selling their position (Question Time & the fact that they held bipartisan televised summit), and better at showing the gop gridlock which they've hammered them on their responsibility to govern since no side controls a supermajority.

You can hear their start over talking point in the first two minutes here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2/26/2010 4:37:33 PM

time will tell.

2/26/2010 4:56:08 PM

God, you arent factoring in defensive medicine, only the numbers is actual lawsuits. You also arent factoring in the increased costs of insurance by with just being named in a lawsuit, no matter if it has any merit. Believe it or not, doctors are targets of lawsuits for many... i know it seems like a stretch.

Hell I practice defensive medicine. Ill refer or run a test even if im pretty sure I know its nothing, but its CYA. They teach you do to it. Common sense is GONE from the legal world. And you a sure as shit not going to get a jury full of doctors.

2/26/2010 8:12:10 PM

Well all the tort reform in the world isn't going to fix that. Plenty of other countries have all sorts of different models like no-fault, trail by judge, and loser pay, and they experience the same problems as us in malpractice costs. It's just not going to help that much.

2/26/2010 8:54:24 PM

Here's a 4 minute edit of the health care summit that wasn't done by Chris Matthews...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw3ko5tKotY

Quote :

"..most or all of the GOP in the HC reform meeting have voted for reconciliation in the past. "

You can rationalize it all you want. The democratic party is going to get trounced in November if they ram this turkey bill through.

2/27/2010 12:28:39 AM

so voting for something that they've already voted for will kill them 8 months from now (more than if it just died)? i don't buy it.

2/27/2010 12:31:31 AM

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2/27/2010 1:54:19 AM

I left CNN on in the background while reading today and I can't tell you how many times I heard from the GOP talking points "start over" "clean sheet of paper" and "ram it through"

The GOP has threatened the filibuster like whoa, and then some. If they are going crazy with procedural tactics to halt process in the federal government then they have no room to whine, not one bit, when the democrats use a procedural tactic once that has been used by the GOP & has been used on health care related issues in the past. I think every 100 filibuster threats deserves at least 1 reconciliation threat without whining.

And I have to laugh when the right wing talking point of, if they health care reform is signed by the president, they will lose the election big. Since when has the GOP tried to give honest and helpful advice to the Dems on how to beat the GOP?

2/27/2010 2:03:29 AM

So why don't the democrats just call the republicans and let them filibuster? What better way to show the evil obstructionist republicans than to broadcast on every major network video of republican senators, not arguing about the bill or its merits, but reading from the phone book and such?

2/27/2010 9:16:46 AM

because it would be boring, no one would watch/care, and it would be a waste of time.

2/27/2010 9:18:11 AM

^^because that isn't how the filibuster works.

2/27/2010 10:07:42 AM

^
They should go back to the old method of filibustering. The Jimmy Stewart talking for hours and hours way. Make the filibustering party work for it..put some pain into standing up for their principles.

2/27/2010 10:22:20 AM

that actually is how the filibuster works.

the reason the dems don't want to call the GOP's bluff is because that means all the democrats would have to sit in the chamber also - or else there would not be a quorum and everyone could just go on home.

In short, the dems don't really care enough to sit around bored for a few days in order to pass this "critical" legislation

2/27/2010 10:31:20 AM

Quote :

"that actually is how the filibuster works."

No it isn't.

Quote :

"The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse (as Strom Thurmond famously did in his record-breaking 24-hour filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act)."

http://www.slate.com/id/2241233/



So way to ignore reality on your way toward condemning the Democrats.

[Edited on February 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2010 11:36:29 AM

it allows them to use procedural filibuster, but it does not preclude a "classic" filibuster.


all the democrats have to do is commit to sitting in the chamber en masse and force the GOP to speechify.

2/27/2010 12:34:34 PM

The reason the Republicans only have to threaten filibuster has nothing to do with procedure and everything to do with that fact that Democrats know they will be in the same position some time in the future.

2/27/2010 3:56:11 PM

which is why I find it to be highly speculative to assert that the senate is going to use the nuclear option here.

2/28/2010 1:48:53 AM

Reconciliation has been used to alter health care policy in the past. "COBRA" = Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. But, of course, never to this scale. Perhaps over time, but not in one fell swoop. I think the Senate's (and let us not automatically assume the House's) particpation will come down to a battle of influence. The question will be whether Obama can press enough on the fence Democrats into compliance?

2/28/2010 10:21:04 AM

Yep... That's the question... Will Obama be able to convince congressmen to vote for a bill that will get them fired so that he can have a legacy

2/28/2010 4:21:58 PM

you've yet to explain to me why voting for something they've already voted for will give them worse electoral chances

2/28/2010 5:35:06 PM