Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Hart on Health Care Overhaul: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Columnist Ron Hart on ObamaCare:
If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
Correction: The link above is to a Hart col on education. The one about health care is here.
Reason.tv on health care, including sticker-shock treatment and sending in those "fishy" emails about ObamaCare:
Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel here. And go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, links, and more.
anarch|8.9.09 @ 2:00PM|#
treasury chief who did not pay his taxes
Isn't that the kind of example we want?
|8.9.09 @ 2:44PM|#
"Isn't that the kind of example we want?"
Well yeah, although it would be better if he also advocated the
same behavior for everyone else.
|8.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
While you link to a good Ron Hart article, It's about education, not health care.
|8.9.09 @ 3:13PM|#
I can see why the article was mislinked. The college article is far better. Was the larry craig innuendo necessary? I mean, that is SO 2008.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
treasury chief who did not pay his taxes
Isn't that the kind of example we want?
No.
Because it's an example of how the connected get to ignore the
rules the rest of us have to live by.
I mean, would you take a man with that record on as CFO of
your business enterprise? Well, we've installed him in
that post for the whole damn nation? Thank you ever so much
"greatest deliberative body in world".
|8.9.09 @ 3:17PM|#
If I am ever elected president, cheating on your income taxes will be a PREREQUISITE to treasury secretary. On the other hand, that is consistent with a policy of abolishing federal individual income taxes for all (and corporate income taxes for intrastate operations)
|8.9.09 @ 4:08PM|#
higher education for everyone is an increasingly dubious
presupposition.
Wordsmithery-like prose.
|8.9.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Guess what- the actual "health care" piece sucked, too.
Shocked, I am.
*sits back, waits for sockpuppets to arrive*
|8.9.09 @ 4:31PM|#
There is an inverse relationship between the intelligence of a town and the number of dubious lawyers on its billboards trolling for malpractice-injury lawsuits.
While acknowledging only idiots blame all of the spiraling costs of
health care on malpractice awards and physicians attempts to avoid
the marching morons lottery that tort has become, I appreciate that
line.
TAO - Thanks for covering for Gillespie. You can deliver Nick's
deserved twenty lashes behind the barn.
|8.9.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I have serious concerns about the cost of healthcare reform too
(although, we could legalize drugs and tax them, and with the money
saved by not fighting the drug war and earned from increased tax
revenue we'd be able to pay for healthcare for all, while fully
funding medicare, ten times over).
However, it's disingenuous and hypocritical for anyone to complain
about the cost of "Obamacare" healthcare reform if they did not
complain about the cost of all of Bush's spending increases (Rx
drug bill, Iraq War, etc.). Anyone who didn't complain about those
things is ideologically estopped from complaining about the cost of
healthcare reform, no matter how legitimate the concern may be. You
can't abide the overspending of a white president only to complain
about the overspending of a black president. To do so makes you
nothing more than a hypocritical racist.
William|8.9.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Hypocricy is the warp and woof of all ideologically committed true believers, but they call it "being pricipled."
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.9.09 @ 5:41PM|#
BruceM,
You won't find many regular posters on Hit&Run who didn't bitch
at some length about the costs of Bush the Lesser's socialist
excursions. Things may be a little more mixed on the shrub's
overseas adventures, but I think the consensus was still
against.
BruceM|8.9.09 @ 5:43PM|#
I firmly believe that the first amendment does not protect hypocrisy or any form of hypocritical speech. Like fraudulent advertisements, slander, libel, fighting words, and offers to sell illegal products, the first amendment does not protect such things. Hypocritical speech not only does not advance public discourse, it actively harms it. So, as long as any interpretation of "hypocritical speech" is very narrowly construed, I think it can - and should - be unlawful. It would give people an incentive to think before they talk, and what would improve the quality of public discourse more than that?
Federal Dog|8.9.09 @ 5:44PM|#
Yes, no one ever criticized Bush about escalating debt,
especially resulting from war efforts. For eight years, no one
uttered a peep to question the man -- that's how popular his
policies were.
Therefore any criticism of fiscal policy now must be racism.
|8.9.09 @ 6:05PM|#
However, it's disingenuous and hypocritical for anyone to complain about the cost of "Obamacare" healthcare reform if they did not complain about the cost of all of Bush's spending increases (Rx drug bill, Iraq War, etc.). Anyone who didn't complain about those things is ideologically estopped from complaining about the cost of healthcare reform, no matter how legitimate the concern may be. You can't abide the overspending of a white president only to complain about the overspending of a black president. To do so makes you nothing more than a hypocritical racist.
Yeah. Nobody here has ever complained about Bush the Lesser's
spending record. What's up with that? Every libertarian type who
complains about record setting debt and deficits, while ignoring
the fiscal irresponsibilty demonstrated over the last eight years
is really a closet racist.
BruceM - In case you have an inability to recognize sarcasm, the
above means "kiss my ass you race baiting whore".
|8.9.09 @ 6:19PM|#
The corollary to BruceM's declaration above is that anyone who
complained about Bush's spending increases must also complain about
Obamacare spending.
So plenty of hypocrites on the left, too.
|8.9.09 @ 6:32PM|#
However, it's disingenuous and hypocritical for anyone to
complain about the cost of "Obamacare" healthcare reform if they
did not complain about the cost of all of Bush's spending increases
(Rx drug bill, Iraq War, etc.). Anyone who didn't complain about
those things is ideologically estopped from complaining about the
cost of healthcare reform, no matter how legitimate the concern may
be. You can't abide the overspending of a white president only to
complain about the overspending of a black president. To do so
makes you nothing more than a hypocritical racist.
You write this as if you're declaring some logical truism. You're
not.
Someone may pick and choose the spending they'll protest based on
any number of factors -- the absolute amount of the cost, for
instance, or the relative amount given a certain budget. That's not
even accounting for someone's take on legitimate government
functions: An Obamacare-cost-complainer who believes national
defense is a legitimate government role is not "hypocritical" for
having declined to complain about Iraq War spending.
Oh, and stop using the word "estopped."
Oh, and stop talking about racism. Nobody gives a shit what color
anybody is. You don't get to whip out some bullshit trump card on
people who are discussing the prospective use of THEIR money.
Flex Nasty B.I.G.|8.9.09 @ 6:37PM|#
However, it's disingenuous and hypocritical for anyone to
complain about the cost of "Obamacare" healthcare reform if they
did not complain about the cost of all of Bush's spending increases
(Rx drug bill, Iraq War, etc.). Anyone who didn't complain about
those things is ideologically estopped from complaining about the
cost of healthcare reform, no matter how legitimate the concern may
be.
You haven't been around here very long, have you?
|8.9.09 @ 6:42PM|#
C'mon Nick. What is it that Ron Hart has on you? Naked pictures of you and a can of Cheez Whiz? A signed absentee ballot with a Bush/Quayle vote from '88? What? His columns are so ludicrously over the top, that I'm aghast that anyone at Reason, especially you, would chose to give a forum to his craptastic writing.
|8.9.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Well, golly, this should make for a lively Monday (per
Drudge):
Pelosi/Hoyer op-ed in Monday USATODAY calls townhall
protesters 'un-American'... Developing...
MNG|8.9.09 @ 8:03PM|#
"You can't abide the overspending of a white president only to
complain about the overspending of a black president."
That doesn't follow, as they overspent on different things and in
different amounts, so it could certainly be consistent to be for
one and not for another. Besides, as pointed out above, pretty much
all the regulars here did their part crapping on Bush's
spending.
As to health care, we should look to our north for reform. No, I
don't mean single payer, I'm referring to the Weapon X program.
Imagine how low our costs and excellent our health indicators per
capita would be with a healing factor.
BruceM|8.9.09 @ 8:20PM|#
Oh I realize a LOT of people around here criticized Bush over
spending. Why does everyone assume I'm talking about them when I
clearly stated which people I'm talking about? I'm not talking
about 99.9% of the people here.
I'm talking about the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world,
where everything Bush did was wonderful, for Jesus, for the
Children, and absolutely unquestionable lest you be with the
terrorists. I'm talking about the teabaggers.
But I absolutely recognize that nearly all the people HERE also
hated bush and his spending.
But, if you're one of the exceptions, and you had no problem with
Bush's spending, but are complaining about the cost of Obama's
healthcare reform plans, then I am talking about you.
The Angry Optimist|8.9.09 @ 8:27PM|#
oh yeah, and according to you, hypocrisy of that sort should be
illegal.
Dude, you're a joke.
Paul|8.9.09 @ 8:34PM|#
However, it's disingenuous and hypocritical for anyone to
complain about the cost of "Obamacare" healthcare reform if they
did not complain about the cost of all of Bush's spending increases
(Rx drug bill, Iraq War, etc.). Anyone who didn't complain about
those things is ideologically estopped from complaining about the
cost of healthcare reform, no matter how legitimate the concern may
be. You can't abide the overspending of a white president only to
complain about the overspending of a black president. To do so
makes you nothing more than a hypocritical racist.
Welcome to the board, Bruce M. May I direct you to the search
feature of this website where you can browse the thousands of words
in both article and blogpost (and comments) where we complain
bitterly about George Bush's increase in government.
And as for your "hypocritical racist" comment, even if we were
complainging about only the latter, that conclusion is idiotic.
Would it be racist if we were making the same complaints about
Hillary? Hypocritical, yes, but racist? You can't be that
retarded.
Oh shit, I just caught your followup post. Bruce is a troll. Ignore
him.
ev|8.9.09 @ 8:43PM|#
Do I contradict myself? Very well. I contradict myself. I am
large. I contain multitudes.
Fucking slap the cuffs on, officer.
Yakov Branson Smirnoff|8.9.09 @ 8:47PM|#
What does this debate matter, eh? America made the choice a long
time ago. A Socialist Horn of Plenty for the Seniors, or a minimum
of universal care for everyone. Last year, Medicare went
broke,
and it was barely reported.
You'll just have to learn to live with the massive shift in budget
priorities because in America, you don't roll the seniors, the
seniors roll you.
Stay well, every one.
alan|8.9.09 @ 9:08PM|#
Oh shit, I just caught your followup post. Bruce is a troll.
Ignore him.
He has a blog with that sort of stuff all over it, so I don't think
he is faking it. He really is like that.
[Sgt. Hatred leaves the Venture Compound after introducing himself
and says goodbye by pulling a gun and shooting Dr. Venture.]
Brock: (advancing on Hatred) Hey, hey!!
Sgt. Hatred: Woah, rubber bullets, rubber bullets! Just keepin' it
lively! It's not all charts and schedules and...
[Hatred and Brock look down to see Dr. Venture curled up and
bleeding profusely.]
Sgt. Hatred: Man, he's a delicate one, isn't he? They don't usually
break the skin like that. (into his comlink) Malice Troop!
Malice Troop: Sir?
Sgt. Hatred: Yeah, we got a bleeder here. Eighty-six the
non-lethal. We're goin' full Nerf on this one!
|8.9.09 @ 9:10PM|#
BruceM:
slander and libel are civil offenses with real identifiable
victims.
hate speech, hypocrisy and numerous other despicable activities are
protected free expression.
and wtf "illegal products"?... can you pls tell me which products
should be illegal?
BruceM - you sound just like another authoritarian asshat.
eSTFU
Brotherben: i almost fell out of my chair when i read that china
comment, and i'm not even drunk yet.
MNG|8.9.09 @ 9:14PM|#
This article is waaay stupid though. The only thing he offers as
an alternative to Obamacare is the tired old "tort reform." Not
only would tort reform by itself not work substantial reform, it's
immoral. If someone harms someone through violation of their duty
of reasonable care towards another they should have to make the
person harmed whole, period. Anything else would be horribly
immoral. Who thinks it right that if a doctor negligently performs
and the result is dead person, a deformed or retarded child, etc.,
that the person harmed should have their compensation "capped" at
something like $250,000?
When debating regulation and consumer protection laws libertarians
can't stop saying "but we don't need these measures, our common law
tort system is better." Of course the same folks out of the other
side of their mouth talk about tort reform and caps on damages. Who
should take such persons seriously?
The Angry Optimist|8.9.09 @ 9:16PM|#
Don't worry, MNG, we'll just punch those doctors a few times and they'll cough up the cash.
MNG|8.9.09 @ 9:19PM|#
The real funny is how utilitarian the arguments for tort reform
are. Hey horribly and permanently harmed individual, we realize
that your suffering was caused by this other guy's negligence, and
we understand that our entire tort system is based on the damages
being based on making you whole, but fuck you we are going to cap
your damages because it will make everyone's insurance premiums go
down some.
I guess I should retract everything I've said about libertarians
being hyperindividualists...
hmm|8.9.09 @ 9:20PM|#
We can afford it now. Krugman
Says U.S. Economy May Be on Brink of Recovery!!
video goodness on top tab.
Paul|8.9.09 @ 9:30PM|#
Not only would tort reform by itself not work substantial
reform, it's immoral. If someone harms someone through violation of
their duty of reasonable care towards another they should have to
make the person harmed whole, period.
Why would tort reform result in the inability to sue a provider for
harm? I would think that reform would change the way people can
sue, and make reasonable adjustments on the damages.
How that reform would look exactly would be for another thread. But
I don't think anyone here suggests that tort reform should result
in the elimination of a patient's ability to sue.
MNG|8.9.09 @ 9:37PM|#
Paul
Did I say it would not allow the person to sue? I said it would not
allow him the right to recover the amount that would make him
whole. That principle is what our tort damages are based on, and
for a good reason, it's the moral thing to do.
A popular malpractice reform plan is to cap damages at $250,000. I
just read a case where because of astounding negligence on the part
of some emergency room doctors a two year old child was
misdiagnosed for weeks and thus not given the proper treatment for
that period, the result was that this normal happy kid had
irreversible brain damage and will be very retarded for the rest of
his life. His parents will never derive financial assistance from
him, in fact it will cost them tens of thousands of dollars a year
to take care of the kid. Not to mention the loss of companionship,
pain and suffering, etc. By what moral principle should that child
and/or his parents have their damages be capped at $250,000, even
though it could be established with a fair amount of certainty that
he would require more than that over his life just to get basic
care (much less make him whole)? WTF?
Crackerbreeder|8.9.09 @ 9:41PM|#
I wish I could believe BruceM is the kind of troll who's just in
it for the lulz, but he'd have to be a hell of a good actor to be
acting as brainwashed and retarded as actual leftards. I think he
must be an actual leftard and really does believe all that
anti-free-speech crap he's posting.
Here's a little of your own logic in order to "answer a fool
according to his folly," Bruce:
Democrats are
to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis and this mess we're all
in on account of it.
Your racist
Messiah doesn't want people who caused this mess to do a lot of
talking.
Therefore, you and all 0bama-voting leftards must STFU or you'll
offend your racist Messiah. That makes you racist for posting here.
Also, your Messiah is racist because he keeps flapping his gums
about the mess he and his fellow leftards caused; he must really
hate himself to keep offending himself so much.
MNG|8.9.09 @ 9:42PM|#
If you have a vase worth $260,000 dollars and Ron Hart's dumb
ass breaks it through his negligence, he should have to pay you
$260,000 in damages. We should not cap your damages so that
everyone else's vase prices come down a bit. And if some doctor
causes you harm via his negligence, and you can show that it would
take $260,000 to make you back to how you were before the harm,
then you should be able to get that from him. Capping you short so
that everyone else can see their premium go down a bit is immoral
as all shit.
I should note that I think such reform would fail the utilitarian
calculus too ultimately, but that's a whole 'nother point, and I've
got to go watch the game on NBC now, so another day for that
perhaps...
|8.9.09 @ 9:59PM|#
The real funny is how utilitarian the arguments for tort
reform are.
The goal of many tort reformers is to eliminate "excessive"
verdicts. Isn't it a form of Utilitarianism to draw a bright line
between acceptable and excessive, since you're trying to judge
where the utility of the judgment ends and the excess begins?
I do agree that hard caps are not a good answer. I tend to prefer
some sort of damages review board.
Hugh Akston|8.9.09 @ 10:00PM|#
Hypocritical speech not only does not advance public
discourse, it actively harms it. So, as long as any interpretation
of "hypocritical speech" is very narrowly construed, I think it can
- and should - be unlawful.
Bruce, the Constitution protects people, not public discourse.
Please get a fucking clue.
MultiNodular Goiter- What the vase is worth isn't the issue. It's
what Ron Hart makes annually. If he makes less than $250,000 a
year, he doesn't have to pay a dime for that vase. Not. One.
Dime.
Paul|8.9.09 @ 10:05PM|#
Did I say it would not allow the person to sue? I said it
would not allow him the right to recover the amount that would make
him whole. That principle is what our tort damages are based on,
and for a good reason, it's the moral thing to do.
I think that's the disagreement. It's easy to take the person who
had the wrong leg amputated and determine that massive damages are
necessary.
To paraphrase your own scenario above:
Gee, we're awefully sorry that you have Connective Tissue Disease
but we can't award you $12 Billion in damages because there's
just no real evidence that CTD has been caused by your
implants. None.
MNG, I agree that when patient 'x' had the wrong leg amputated, he
should own the hospital after the botched surgery. It's the cases
that are largely driven by entrepeneurial lawyers with mere shreds
of evidence which extract HUMONGOUS awards from sympathetic juries
that we need to figure out.
I don't have the answers on how that should work.
Sgt. Hatred|8.9.09 @ 10:06PM|#
Sgt. Hatred is supposed to stay 100' from
children.
He looked 16. He was so tense, I thought he could use some
relaxation in the hot tub. I swear I thought it was a sausage
floating around in its skin when I grabbed for it.
|8.9.09 @ 10:33PM|#
BTW, if I only object to nationalized medicine because the
president is black, then why did I oppose Hillarycare? Was that
because I'm sexist?
-jcr
Paul|8.9.09 @ 10:37PM|#
BTW, if I only object to nationalized medicine because the
president is black, then why did I oppose Hillarycare? Was that
because I'm sexist?
Yes, and hence your illegal speech.
|8.9.09 @ 10:50PM|#
# Federal Dog | August 9, 2009, 5:44pm | #
# Yes, no one ever criticized Bush about
# escalating debt, especially resulting from
# war efforts. For eight years, no one uttered
# a peep to question the man -- that's how
# popular his policies were.
# Therefore any criticism of fiscal policy now
# must be racism.
Sarcasm? If not, FD must be new here, too, as there were plenty of
objections "round these parts" to the price in blood, treasure, AND
indebtedness stemming from Bush's overseas adventures.
Libertarians are equal-opportunity critics of runaway government.
Count on it.
|8.9.09 @ 10:53PM|#
Speaking of
suing physicians when they fuck up.
Colton Reed can't sue shit, and that's wrong.
Doctor Duck|8.9.09 @ 11:09PM|#
So, ditch hard caps and allow actual damages with no upper
limit, or as set by a review board.
Eliminate punitive damages, or allow them but make the health care
system the payee, not the individual or her lawyer. That gets rid
of the lottery aspect and discourages oversuing.
|8.9.09 @ 11:15PM|#
If you went in for gallbladder surgery and a surgeon cut off
both your legs, you would not want to sue him as an individual? You
would not want him, personally, to pay punitive damages?
WTF is "oversuing" when you lose both your legs? Ten million
dollars?
|8.9.09 @ 11:15PM|#
MNG - it's not total damages that are capped; it's nonecononomic
damages (basically, pain and suffering awards) The millions of
dollars to pay for the brain-damaged child's future medical care
will still be awarded.
Oh, and for everyone wondering about BruceM, he's the guy famous
for this statement:
"In fact, being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most
useful thing most children will ever be. The rest of the time they
will just be loud, obnoxious little vandals."
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/04/louisiana-getti.html
(1st comment)
|8.10.09 @ 1:25AM|#
You can't abide the overspending of a white president only
to complain about the overspending of a black president.
Bruce, this is Reason's H&R page. You seem to think you're at
Little Green Footballs.
To do so makes you nothing more than a hypocritical
racist.
Yes, it would. Go tell a Bush supporter.
-jcr
|8.10.09 @ 1:28AM|#
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/04/louisiana-getti.html
Wow. I've been known to troll from time to time, but that's a
desperate and pathetic cry for attention. Bruce needs a shrink, big
time.
-jcr
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 1:51AM|#
Sarcasm? If not, FD must be new here, too,
Yeah, that was sarcasm on Federal Dog's part. And some people wonder why Ron Hart lays his pritn sarcasm on so thick. ;)
The Libertarian Guy|8.10.09 @ 2:16AM|#
"You can't abide the overspending of a white president only to
complain about the overspending of a black president. To do so
makes you nothing more than a hypocritical racist."
Horseshit. I wouldn't care if Obama looked like Dick Fucking
Gephardt... Obama's policies are crap without regard to his outer
shell.
Bruce, you really need to get off this "it's because he's black"
bandwagon. Bush was an overspending, overbearing cocksucker, too.
We GET it. Some of us got it a long time ago.
mark|8.10.09 @ 2:18AM|#
'Un-American' attacks can't derail debate
Reform will mean stability and peace of mind for the middle
class. Never again will medical bills drive Americans into
bankruptcy; never again will Americans be in danger of losing
coverage if they lose their jobs or if they become sick; never
again will insurance companies be allowed to deny patients coverage
because of pre-existing conditions.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 4:10AM|#
Has any official or prestigious authority yet deemed 'un-American' one of those political phrases that needs to be quickly retired due to its horrible and obscene overuse and misuse?
Hugh Akston|8.10.09 @ 7:35AM|#
Never again will medical bills drive Americans into
bankruptcy
Nope, now America as a whole will be driven into bankruptcy.
MNG|8.10.09 @ 8:02AM|#
MP & Paul
I have no problem with better jury instructions, review board of
damages, more exacting standards for initial liability, etc.. But
caps are usually mentioned as part of "tort reform", especially
malpractice reform, and that's fucked up to the nth degree. When
someone can show to whatever standard that they had x amount of
harm caused by y's negligence, then y should have to compensate for
that x amount, period. Anything else would be to immorally protect
irresponsibility and take a dump on an innocent and harmed
party...
Hugh
I have literally no idea what you are talking about...
Doctor Duck
What you talk about sounds reasonable. It's the caps stuff that is
just insane.
"it's not total damages that are capped; it's nonecononomic
damages"
I don't think you are right, iirc some states just put a cap on all
damages. But even a cap on just non-economic damages is messed up,
while they can't be perfectly monetarily assessed surely things
like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc. are important and
should be compensated when someone harms you via their stupid
negligence. If someone makes your toddler a retard then you haven't
just lost the money it will now cost you to take care of that
child, you've lost some other things that I think you will admit
are important and therefore should be compensated for. And I think
it's more than $250,000 in that case...
Nooge-what you should be allowed to sue for is the amount that best
approximates what would make you whole, or in other words the
amount that best seems to compensate you for the harm. I'm ok with
a rigorous standard having to be met to show requested damages meet
that. But capping them makes no sense. And as to who to sue, well,
yeah I want to sue the doctor personally, but if he has an
indeminfier then it's cool imo to sue them too. If the guy who
broke my vase was bonded I would not feel bad about suing them
too...
|8.10.09 @ 8:15AM|#
I firmly believe that the first amendment does not protect
hypocrisy or any form of hypocritical speech.
I firmly believe that you are profoundly stupid.
|8.10.09 @ 8:47AM|#
"I don't think you are right, iirc some states just put a cap on
all damages."
MNG - I just picked up on this thread. Can you provide a single
example of any jurisdiction even proposing a $250K cap on all
damages?
If not, then from what basis have all your arguments been up to
this point, if not factual?
|8.10.09 @ 9:25AM|#
Having been around for a long time i can say with some surety that everything the goverment touches turns to dung.
|8.10.09 @ 9:47AM|#
I don't think you are right, iirc some states just put a cap
on all damages.
This is kind of what I do, and I can assure you no state puts a cap
on economic (that is, actual) damages. Outside, of course, of the
sovereign immunity that protects state hospitals and
employees.
Tort reform generally consists of some combination of procedural
changes and caps on non-economic damages.
Brian King|8.10.09 @ 10:12AM|#
"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can
have two at twice the price?" (from Contact)
That is a real eye opener about the spiraling costs of the
prescription drug plan. There is no way in hell any politician can
say with a straight face that a revamped health care system will
ONLY cost one trillion bucks.
creech|8.10.09 @ 10:15AM|#
No amount of money can make someone whole for non-quantifiable
damages. If my 70 year grandfather dies from asbestos exposure,
will $8 million to his family make us forget him or really soothe
the loss of his companionship?
No, it just rewards us and we will continue to think fondly of him
and miss him from the Riviera instead of from Rehoboth Beach. So
put a cap on profiting from the misfortunes of others. However, how
about a soft cap? Say, $200,000 for non-economic damages but you
could sue for more - on a loser pays basis - if you really think
you have a negligence case worth more. E.G. the doctor gave you the
sex change operation instead of the guy on the next gurney.
|8.10.09 @ 10:25AM|#
I wouldn't care if Obama looked like Dick Fucking
Gephardt..
I would. Gephardt always creeped me out. Does he actually have any
eyebrows?
-jcr
robc|8.10.09 @ 11:01AM|#
MNG,
The only tort reform I favor is that neither the plaintiff nor his
lawyer gets a dime of any punitive damages.
No cap on punitive damages but the plaintiff is limited to real
damages. Actually, I would allow some of the punitive damages, up
to maybe 33% of the real damages to go to the plaintiff in order to
cover his attorney fees.
Punitive damages should be for punishment purposes only, not as a
lottery for a law firm.
|8.10.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Actually, I would allow some of the punitive damages, up to
maybe 33% of the real damages to go to the plaintiff in order to
cover his attorney fees.
Since its the plaintiff's lawyers who run these cases, that'
creating an exception that will consume the rule.
Civil courts are in the restitution business, not the punishment
business. There should be no punitive damages in civil cases,
period.
I would point out that Colton Reed's inability to sue for the loss
of his legs is due to sovereign immunity, not tort reform.
I might even suggest that, as we federalize more and more of the
health care system so that damages are more and more the federal
government's problem, we will be creating a tension between
malpractice recoveries and the federal fisc. Just something for
proponents of federalized health care and fat plaintiff's awards to
think about.
MNG|8.10.09 @ 11:08AM|#
Creech
According to your logic though, as long as you don't require any
medical care and your earnings have not been hit, then your
negligent sex change is only worth 200,000 in non-economic damages.
I think my manhood is worth a bit more than that myself...Pain and
suffering, loss of consortium, etc., deserve compensation when
caused by some jackasses negligence, and it's not unforeeseeable
that the amount in a case could rise above 250,000...
robc
I have no beef with that, though I would say that I would accompany
it with allowing the English rule on legal costs/attorney fees
(otherwise plaintiff won't get what actually makes them whole after
they pay the costs/fees).
robc|8.10.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I have no beef with that, though I would say that I would
accompany it with allowing the English rule on legal costs/attorney
fees
Im fine with that as long as it applies both ways, which I think
the English rule does.
|8.10.09 @ 12:00PM|#
if they simply allowed providers to operate on liability waivers
instead of insurance, then quality doctors who wanted to earn $
would flee the corrupt system as well as private hospitals. all of
these would have incentive to provide quality care because private
consumer watchdogs would fill the void of onerous federal
regulation as they capitalised on the public's desire to seek
cheap/quality care. quality would necessarily follow the upward
trend, which coupled with real financial risk (screw up & you
never work again, as opposed to pay a higher premium but still gain
from an expensive and time consuming education) would decrease the
incidence of cutting off the wrong foot.
in the middle ground, providers that would cater to the more leery
or more at risk, would promise medical annuities or some other type
of security to customers who may need continuing care due to
malpractice.
obviously all types of new methods and schemes would be dreamed up
to fight for market share.
in the end, the only sector to really "lose" in a free market
solution would be the politicians and they're govt protected
rackets. which is why it will never happen.
also in joe's pipedream land, prescriptions are only something you
need if you really want the advice of a physician, otherwise to
hell withem...
TallDave|8.10.09 @ 12:21PM|#
I firmly believe that the first amendment does not protect
hypocrisy or any form of hypocritical speech.
Fortunately, this kind of fucktarded totalitarianist sentiment has
few serious adherents.
TallDave|8.10.09 @ 12:32PM|#
What's amazing is that Obama is able to say things like "the
people who got us in this mess should stop talking" when in fact it
is largely his side of the aisle that has created all these
mandated coverages, bad tax incentives like employer-provided
health insurance, and ridiculous liability claims that are driving
health care costs up.
The only other major pressures on health care costs are innovation
and quality of care (which include things like the fact the U.S.
has FAR more MRIs per person (and other diagnostics) than most
countries, and much better cancer survival rates). Naturally, those
two are in his cross-hairs.
Worst of all, Barack keeps repeating the obvious lie that even
though the current system is in crisis and needs massive reform,
you can keep getting the exact same care and insurance you're
getting now. Of course, this is not remotely true under laws
currently being considered: employers can and will dump you on to
the public option, and costs will not be controlled without price
controls and rationing, which means shortages and long waits for
specialists like we see in most socialized countries.
|8.10.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Tall Dave:
"Fortunately, this kind of fucktarded totalitarianist sentiment has
few serious adherents."
unfortunately probably more than you think. how far a leap is that
from "hate speech should be illegal".
how many people would be likely to jump on that bandwagon, the
"hate crimes" language which i believe was attached to the defense
budget contains wording that criminalizes speech. in many cases it
seems hate crimes are just another way of going after "thought
crime".
in our society, i believe many would be afraid to stand up and
defend hate speech. defense of that would automatically make you a
bigot today...
Cindy|8.10.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Hart is on fire, one of the hottest libertarian humorists working today. He gets out message out like Jon Steward and Colbert get the liberal's message out. With humor and flare. I love it.
|8.10.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Attagrrrl, Cindy!
Just when I was beginning to think Hart's sockpuppets didn't get
the link...
|8.10.09 @ 2:04PM|#
"financed by a country that is just about broke"
Correction: financed by a country that is broke
Gary|8.11.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Hart works with humor and is damn good at advancing the cause of
libertarianism to those in the South who are one, but do not know
it yet. He is on fire now here in my town, folks love his wit. PJ
O'Rourke like, but a little redneck appeal too..
Nick is right to promote him. You got anyone better?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245