Is Obama a fool?

[Feanor]

During the US Presidential campaign it struck me that BO's emphasis on bipartisanship was a noble ideal, but perhaps impractical. It seems that is so.

Rush Limbaugh got a lot of "tsk, tsk" when he said that wished Obama would fail, but events have proved that this is the Republican strategy. Even I, an outsider, am not too surprised given that world-wide, opposition parties would rather bugger the electorate than concede anything to the governing party. Obama was a fool not talking about bipartisanship but for actually believing might work. Why did he thing that?

Somebody can tell me, but I think it has to do with the "two-party" character of US politics. Two parties is really too few for any country: all opinions cannot simply be classified as black or white, (or Blue or Red). Consequently there is excessive diversity in both parties which in turn ensures that the President cannot rely on all the members of his own party to support him in Congress. In fact this is the biggest problem with a "two-part" system. Ridiculous rules such as 60% vote required in the Senate only make a bad situation worse.

In basically every other democracy there are at least three, and often many more, parties struggling for power. If "bi-" is tough, "multi-" partisanship is absurd. Granted, presidents and prime ministers talk about multi-party cooperation but few of them believe in it and fewer still count on it. But then virtually every where else in the world 50%+1 vote means bills pass. E.g. in Canada filibusters are attempted but it they go on too long the government calls for a vote of "closure" which if it passes (with 50%+1), debate is ended and the bill goes to a vote. There is no bullsh!t about 60%. There is no need for machinations such as "Reconciliation".

[blackraven]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!

[3LB]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!It isn't just the system that's broken, its the amount of people who actually vote, and the amount of people who know who and what they're voting about. People might listen to campaign speeches but never look at voting records. People vote by name recognition. People cross vote; they'll vote republican locally and in state government, but they might vote Democrat for Senate, Congree or Presidential...if they vote at all. Remember when Clinton was elected Pres and then what, a year later the Republicans took over the majority of Congress, after years of it being a Democratic stronghold.

The news is no help. During campaigns the only information we get is salacious stories, both sides digging up dirt on the other and squabbling. Rarely is policy ever disgussed on local news or national news for that matter. The ones who are in office spend all their time stonewalling the other party, focusing on ways to make the other party look bad. Spin spin spin.

[blackraven]

It doesnt matter which party is in office. Big business owns both parties. I have no faith what so ever that either party can make changes to benefit our society as a whole without conceding to lobbyist's and special interest groups.

[Feanor]

More parties are not the answer. The answer is to have big business stop running the show. Both parties ignore what the public wants. All that both parties care about is where their next campaign contribution is coming from. Both are in bed with big business. Both parties can't stop spending the tax payers money. They are mortgaging our future away, borrowing from social security and it will never be paid back. They will continually raise taxes and to pay for watered down programs that never work!

Our system is broken. There should be a one time 6 year term limit for the President, Senate and Congress!
Hard to argue with that statement, BR. It applies in many countries including Canada. But I suspect it's a rather worse in the US than many countries. Unfortunately things are only going to get worse State-side thanks to the Supreme Court's decission against restricting corporate campaign contributions. That's insanity, but it's what happens when the right wing exploits an opportunity to stack the Court.

Funny: my wife, who's no political pundit, recently made the observation that the US has elections too often. I agree that electing all of Congress and the President at the same time would be a good ideal; maybe 4 years instead of 6, but either way.

[Feanor]

It doesnt matter which party is in office. Big business owns both parties. I have no faith what so ever that either party can make changes to benefit our society as a whole without conceding to lobbyist's and special interest groups.
This is another reason, (or part of the same reason), you need more parties. Minor parties get less funding are are accordingly more ready to raise flags and propose new ideas.

[GMichael]

They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution begins.

[Feanor]

It isn't just the system that's broken, its the amount of people who actually vote, and the amount of people who know who and what they're voting about. People might listen to campaign speeches but never look at voting records. ...

The news is no help. During campaigns the only information we get is salacious stories, both sides digging up dirt on the other and squabbling. Rarely is policy ever disgussed on local news or national news for that matter. The ones who are in office spend all their time stonewalling the other party, focusing on ways to make the other party look bad. Spin spin spin.
Gotta agree with that, 3LB.

See my famous Venn diagram ...

http://www.ody.ca/~wbailey/StupidWorld.jpg

[GMichael]

Gotta agree with that, 3LB.

See my famous Venn diagram ...

http://www.ody.ca/~wbailey/StupidWorld.jpg

But everyone thinks that they are the ones in the little white area.

[thekid]

To answer the question...... Yes in the sense that he was foolish to leave his most important stated goal in the hands of the inept Democratic House/Senate. He only got involved when the bill got in trouble but by then the damage was done because Reid caved in to too many special interests in the Senate version and this caused problems with the House. He needed to spend his post-election political capital on strong arming his own party members (the GOP was never going to go along with any of this) to get a bill passed that both controlled cost and expanded coverage. (See my rants in the Health Care thread).

Amazingly enough despite a complete fumbling of the health care issue, high unemployment and a shaky economy he still maintains a 50% approval rating. The Congress is in perpetual gridlock and like Truman did he needs to run against the "Do-Nothing" Congress. He needs to start dictating legislation from the White House and use the bully pulpit to get it passed. If his health care initiative goes down I think he should even consider the possibility of forming a third party while he is in the White House. That truly would be change you could believe in. The ramifications of this could be amazing given the high level of anti-Washington and anti-Congress feeling that is running through this country. It would free him to call out every back door deal being made by both sides of the aisle and probably allow him to raise enough cash that he could effectively run a presidentail campaign bid in 2012 without relying on the traditional sources of party money.

[blackraven]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.

[Feanor]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.
Really? Why does he need to cross party lines? This is all very foreign to me, a foreigner.

In a parliamentary system a prime minister with a majority in parliament only needs to control his own party and this is usually no problem. If a party MP doesn't vote with the party, he/she is kicked out of caucus and probably won't be allowed to run under the party banner in the next election.

But it seems that in the US, without the ability to control your own party, you have to kiss a lot of ass and do a lot deals with the other guys. I guess is why real legislation can't be get passed in the USA.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We definitely need a President that will cross both party lines. All I see is 2 parties doing all they can to create subterfuge and derail each other.

And this is the major problem we are having right now. The atmosphere is just polluted with hostility, and now we are in grid lock at a time when we really need a huge breakthrough.

[Feanor]

And this is the major problem we are having right now. The atmosphere is just polluted with hostility, and now we are in grid lock at a time when we really need a huge breakthrough.
What mystifies me is that Obama or anybody else had expected anything different.

From a more distant perspective it is absurd to expect parlamentarians of different parties to cooperate. Yet that is apparently necessary in the US system; predicably there are problems.

[blackraven]

What I mean about crossing party lines is that he should not be bound to vote or support everything the democrats come up with and be against all policies that the republicans come up with. And visa-versa for a repulican president. You should not have to always side with the party line. I would rather see a neutral party president and a 2 party Senate and Congress.

But I would gladly settle for a 6yr, 1 term limit for all. That way there would b enough time to institute new policies and see if they work. Also it would help limit big business getting in bed with the Senate and Congress. They would not have to worry about getting reelected and they can concentrate on the job at hand.

[Ajani]

Obama throughout the campaigns and his previous political history, has been a man with a plan (often a slow moving one that is not obvious to his critics or supporters until it is near completion)... I Suspect that he is not actually a fool and knew that the Republicans always intended to frustrate any changes he attempts to make (such is the nature of politics and he dealt with years of that in Illinois )... My guess would be that he plans to strong arm the party eventually and just push changes without any GOP cooperation, and use the 'valid' excuse that the GOP were not interested in compromise... Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....

[Feanor]

...
Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....
Possibly so. Or maybe he'd have been better respected if he'd shown leadership form teh start. I would say he should never have talked so much about biparitisanship in the first place.

I have tried to make the point that elsewhere than in the US, bi- or multi-partisanship is not give the same emphasis. It really only comes up in coalition or minority government situations where it is given mainly lip service. It's never a factor when a government has a parliamentary majority.

[thekid]

I would disagree that the White House has had a strategy in this whole process or they would not be talking about "deem and pass" or reconcilitation. Whether it was post-election hubris or gross misjudgement of Congress the White House has bungled this for almost a year. Hopefully we can get past this health care debacle and they will have learned their lesson on how to effectively pass legislation. I think if they are smart they can use the anti-Washington sentiment out there to effective make much needed changes to a variety of problems.

[Feanor]

I would disagree that the White House has had a strategy in this whole process or they would not be talking about "deem and pass" or reconcilitation. Whether it was post-election hubris or gross misjudgement of Congress the White House has bungled this for almost a year. Hopefully we can get past this health care debacle and they will have learned their lesson on how to effectively pass legislation. I think if they are smart they can use the anti-Washington sentiment out there to effective make much needed changes to a variety of problems.
There is a big furor working up with the "Deem and Pass" thing, and it is laden with the usual political hypocracy.

As I heard (though might not fully understand) the House must vote (not not vote), on the rules for debate for the Reconciliation measures. In that context, the rules may "deem" that the Senate bill is passed without having a debate on the Senate bill per se.

I suppose this might shorten the process but I hear the real reason is so Democrates who don't like the Senate bill don't have to be on record as having voted in favor of it (per se). Personally I dont' see what the big deal given there will be subsequent Reconciliation amendments to the Senate bill. However it does give Republicans the opportunity to say that Pelosi and Dem House leadership are stifling debate and that there will be no vote on the Senate bill -- which is sort of true but misleading, (or "truthy" as Colbert would say). Of course, the record show that the Reps have in the past used Deem & Pass more often then the Dems.

So there is dissembling hypocrisy all round.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obama throughout the campaigns and his previous political history, has been a man with a plan (often a slow moving one that is not obvious to his critics or supporters until it is near completion)... I Suspect that he is not actually a fool and knew that the Republicans always intended to frustrate any changes he attempts to make (such is the nature of politics and he dealt with years of that in Illinois )... My guess would be that he plans to strong arm the party eventually and just push changes without any GOP cooperation, and use the 'valid' excuse that the GOP were not interested in compromise... Had he just passed any legislation he wanted from the start without first giving the GOP plenty of rope to hang themselves, then everyone would criticize him for lying about his intention to be bipartisan. While now he can easily drop the bipartisan charade and people will cheer... As I said, I suspect it's all just strategy in a game of chess....

I absolutely agree with this. I think Obama is smarter than people really recognize.

[thekid]

There is a big furor working up with the "Deem and Pass" thing, and it is laden with the usual political hypocracy.

As I heard (though might not fully understand) the House must vote (not not vote), on the rules for debate for the Reconciliation measures. In that context, the rules may "deem" that the Senate bill is passed without having a debate on the Senate bill per se.

I suppose this might shorten the process but I hear the real reason is so Democrates who don't like the Senate bill don't have to be on record as having voted in favor of it (per se). Personally I dont' see what the big deal given there will be subsequent Reconciliation amendments to the Senate bill. However it does give Republicans the opportunity to say that Pelosi and Dem House leadership are stifling debate and that there will be no vote on the Senate bill -- which is sort of true but misleading, (or "truthy" as Colbert would say). Of course, the record show that the Reps have in the past used Deem & Pass more often then the Dems.

So there is dissembling hypocrisy all round.

I think I understand the process they are using but just because you can do something does not always mean that you should. If a member supports the bill and believes that the Senate will correct it in the reconciliation process then have the fortitude to vote for it. Using a procedure strictly for the purpose of providing "polictical cover" just provides further ammo for your critics and makes you look weaker not stronger.

I think Obama is a smart guy who some how allowed this bill to get away from them for a variety of reasons. As I mentioned a few posts down I hope he has learned his lesson about the abilities of Pelosi and Reid and will not let this happen again on other key pieces of legislation.

[blackraven]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

[Feanor]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!
"ALL" it's going to do? Like that isn't significant and worthwhile?

But I suspect you're right that it won't address health care costs. For that you need an universal, single-payer system ... like, uhmm, Medicare but for everybody. Anybody talking about cancelling Medicare, (that socialist scam)? Don't think so. Indeed, hypocritical opponents the new bill complain that it will cut Medicare funding.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[blackraven]

"ALL" it's going to do? Like that isn't significant and worthwhile?

But I suspect you're right that it won't address health care costs. For that you need an universal, single-payer system ... like, uhmm, Medicare but for everybody. Anybody talking about cancelling Medicare, (that socialist scam)? Don't think so. Indeed, hypocritical opponents the new bill complain that it will cut Medicare funding.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


I don't want to get caught up in this debate again. I'm all for insuring everyone, but it won't fix the system and it will not drive costs down. Costs will go up and it will force people to buy insurance when they are on the fence as too whether they can afford it.
It is not doing anything to address the cost of care and drugs as well as the cost of health insurance. Its just a band aide on a very big problem. It will create more debt, raise taxes and the cost of goods.

There is nothing in the bill to limit end of life care, procedures and abuse of the system, product liability, etc.

The government needs to take more time and get it right. Recently they mandated that all hospitals go to an electronic medical record because they think it will save money, increase the quality of care and allow for hospitals to axcess records from other hospitals. We went to an electronic medical record as has all the hospitals in the twin cites and many across the country. Well the government was wrong. First of all, all the hospitals are using different elctronic mediacal records (EMR for short) and they can not talk to each other as the EMR companies use different OS's. Second, the EMR is maximizing billing now and actually driving the cost's up and costing the Government more money. Third, using an EMR to do charting is cumbersome, greatly increases waiting times in the emergency room and clinics as well as making it easier to make mistakes. Fouth, it has done nothing to increase the quality of care as a recent Harvard study has shown.

This is just another cluster fk created by our government because they moved too fast and did not mandate that all hospitals use the same EMR so they could talk to each other.

Excuse me if I don't have the confidence in the government to get thins right with this health care bill that is being rushed. Obama wants to push it through so they can say "look what we did" so that the democrats can get reelected.

[Feanor]

I don't want to get caught up in this debate again. I'm all for insuring everyone, but it won't fix the system and it will not drive costs down. Costs will go up and it will force people to buy insurance when they are on the fence as too whether they can afford it.
It is not doing anything to address the cost of care and drugs as well as the cost of health insurance. Its just a band aide on a very big problem. It will create more debt, raise taxes and the cost of goods.

There is nothing in the bill to limit end of life care, procedures and abuse of the system, product liability, etc.

The government needs to take more time and get it right. Recently they mandated that all hospitals go to an electronic medical record because they think it will save money, increase the quality of care and allow for hospitals to axcess records from other hospitals. We went to an electronic medical record as has all the hospitals in the twin cites and many across the country. Well the government was wrong. First of all, all the hospitals are using different elctronic mediacal records (EMR for short) and they can not talk to each other as the EMR companies use different OS's. Second, the EMR is maximizing billing now and actually driving the cost's up and costing the Government more money. Third, using an EMR to do charting is cumbersome, greatly increases waiting times in the emergency room and clinics as well as making it easier to make mistakes. Fouth, it has done nothing to increase the quality of care as a recent Harvard study has shown.

This is just another cluster fk created by our government because they moved too fast and did not mandate that all hospitals use the same EMR so they could talk to each other.

Excuse me if I don't have the confidence in the government to get thins right with this health care bill that is being rushed. Obama wants to push it through so they can say "look what we did" so that the democrats can get reelected.
Yeah, government won't get right right away -- though our perspectives are a bit different we agree on that. But now it's time to get the show on the road and improve it as the experience accumulates.

Its ironic that there's been a big hassle in Ontario about ERM. The Province was going to set up a comprehensive, province-wide system. Basically a good idea of course but the official in charge turned it into a typical private contractor boondoggle. She let out no-bit contracts to her cronys and other high-price help. (Shades of Haliburton and Blackwater, albeit on a smaller scale and for a much better cause.) She was fired -- with plush severance package of course.

[thekid]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

BR

I am with you on the cost control issue but I am encouraged by the CBO estimate yesterday and they are an unbiased source. However there are about 3 dozen states already lining up to sue the government over certain language in the bill so who knows what this will morph into. Optimistically if this bill does show that it is possible to reduce health care costs perhaps Congress will be emboldened to introduce some real cost saving measurments.

[Feanor]

BR

I am with you on the cost control issue but I am encouraged by the CBO estimate yesterday and they are an unbiased source. However there are about 3 dozen states already lining up to sue the government over certain language in the bill so who knows what this will morph into. Optimistically if this bill does show that it is possible to reduce health care costs perhaps Congress will be emboldened to introduce some real cost saving measurments.
Rome wasn't built in a day but somebody had to lay the first stone.

The Republican "we need to start over" is a transparent ploy.

[thekid]

Rome wasn't built in a day but somebody had to lay the first stone.

The Republican "we need to start over" is a transparent ploy.

No but they at least knew where they were going to build Rome.... There was never much of a plan here and they cobbled together a bill that cut too many deals reflects that approach.

The GOP leadership was never going to go along with Healthcare reform and they really only used it to get back to their position on Tort reform. However there were/are some moderate Republicans with some interesting ideas on cost control. After the dust settles from this bill I would hope some of the Dems will reach out to these people and get some cost containment measurements passed.

[Feanor]

No but they at least knew where they were going to build Rome.... There was never much of a plan here and they cobbled together a bill that cut too many deals reflects that approach.

The GOP leadership was never going to go along with Healthcare reform and they really only used it to get back to their position on Tort reform. However there were/are some moderate Republicans with some interesting ideas on cost control. After the dust settles from this bill I would hope some of the Dems will reach out to these people and get some cost containment measurements passed.
I must admit I have a bias (and it certainly pertains to the Canada as much as the US). I don't care for legislation cobbled together by "committee", that is by members of congress (or parliament). ("A camel is a hourse designed by committee.") Comprehensive legislation -- anything really new -- needs to be framed by "the government", i.e. Cabinet with the assistance of appropriate experts including departmental bureaucrats and other experts.

And I personally believe what you ought to need to get powerful, new legislation through congress/parliament is a majority, not a consensus. Many Americans seem wedded to the concept that there ought to be substantial "bipartisan agreement". Get over that if you what to get anything done. But again, to have an actual majority when your party has a nominal majority you have to have party discipline. Nowadays the Republicans are lot better at that then the Democrats.

[blackraven]

There certainly needs to be bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Our government was established to have checks and balances so that no one person or party can have total control. Both parties need to get together and form a frame work sharing their idea's and expertise or lack of there of in our governments case in health care refrom. No one party should make reform. It should not be rushed and it should be done right with the ability to tweak the reform. I find it tiring, disheartening and embarissing that both parties feel the need to vote along party lines even though they may know that the party line is wrong. I just wish that they would get rid of all the old cogers in congress and the senate and start with new, brighter and younger people with new idea's.

[Feanor]

There certainly needs to be bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Our government was established to have checks and balances so that no one person or party can have total control. Both parties need to get together and form a frame work sharing their idea's and expertise or lack of there of in our governments case in health care refrom. No one party should make reform. It should not be rushed and it should be done right with the ability to tweak the reform. I find it tiring, disheartening and embarissing that both parties feel the need to vote along party lines even though they may know that the party line is wrong. I just wish that they would get rid of all the old cogers in congress and the senate and start with new, brighter and younger people with new idea's.
There is no longer a possibility of bipartisan agreement, hence it is waste of time to pursure it. And the next generation will be worse than the present.

The Republican Party is apparently ahead of the Democrates in understanding this. The takeover of that party by the extreme right wings, (plural, i.e.), the financial and the socio-religious, is almost complete. The dominant elite of the Party mocks compromise: any compromise must be by the other side in their direction. They are utterly determined to expunge the few residual moderates of their own and focus on the complete distruction of the Democratic Party and any and all other moderate, liberal, or left-leaning constituencies.

My original reason for asking, "Is Obama a fool?", pertained to his evident inability to understand that compromise with the new, reactionary Republican Party is impossible.

On the up-side, look at it this way: the US is simply becoming more like the world in terms of rigidly voting a long party, and left vs. right wing lines -- this is the world-wide norm.

[blackraven]

Any time one party loses the majority, the other party makes it its mission to make the other party look bad and defeat them. Its a viscious circle and the american people are the ones that suffer. Important bills get watered down or earmarked (which by the way, Obama said he would not do and he has not lived up to that promise. He's just like every other lying politician who will say and promise anything to get elected) and they end up becoming useless legistlation. Both parties need to see the light and put their differences aside and really make a difference. But alas, I will never see this in my life time. The founding fathers never intended for the country to be run this way.

[Feanor]

...
Both parties need to see the light and put their differences aside and really make a difference. But alas, I will never see this in my life time. ...
I'm glad you're agreeing with me, BR.

Americans have to deal with the new reality -- which is that the Republican Party has become rigidly financially and socio-religiously right wing. No longer an entity that is disposed to compromise.

The great triumph of Republicans has been to join the traditional, weath & private enterprise party with the socially and religiously conservative consituency -- the latter used to vote mainly Democrat, (see "Dixiecrats" or "Yellow Dog Democrats"). There is not inherent or imperative connection between the two, but this distructive alliance began to form in mid 20th century, finaly reaching its stride with Ronald Regan. It isn't quite complete, (see "Blue Dog Democrats"). Even in the '08 election, despite Democrat gains in most of the US, in certain areas, e.g. the "Bible Belt", the vote continued to swing even further towards the Republicans.


...The founding fathers never intended for the country to be run this way.
Indeed they did not. But let's remember they were devising a totally new form of govenment, the republican, to replace the parliamentary. They could not have foreseen all the consequences of that.

[thekid]

Indeed they did not. But let's remember they were devising a totally new form of govenment, the republican, to replace the parliamentary. They could not have foreseen all the consequences of that.

Several of the Founding fathers did forsee and were opposed to the formation of political parties. Some such as Adams believed they would corrupt policies and result in a less democratic process. They would be turning over in their graves if they saw the effects of lobbyists or the Supreme Court's ruling that corporations have many of the same rights as voting citizens.

For many of their faults on certain issues it never ceases to amaze me how the Founding Fathers essentially got it right. It would help if today's politicians would actually go back and read some of the writings of the people who designed and organized this country. I think we might be better served with a few more History majors in Congress and less lawyers....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All this new health care bill is going to do is provide coverage for about 30 million more people but not address the cost of health care and its problems. Its being rammed down our throats by Obama's administration and all it is going to do is increase the national debt. They should scrap it and work together with the republicans and come up with major changes and something that will work. But both sides are stubborn and have their own adjenda's!

BR, I think you are missing a fundamental point here. The republicans do not want to work with the democrats or the white house, they want the white house, the house, and the senate back. That is their only agenda. You cannot sit down and work with anyone that does not want to work with you. The repubs have no plan, and that has been demonstrated time and time again. I do not know if you remember this, but the repubs called a press conference to annouce their plan for health care reform. When they threw down a plan that had no detail in it whatsoever, and when questioned about it, they looked silly and confused. Their plan is to oppose any and everything the white house wants to do, plain and simple. You cannot work together in that environment.

The repubs(and some democrats) are owned by big business. In spite of the fact we nearly had a financial melt down, the repubs are fighting financial reform as well. They drive up the deficits with their war spending, and then when it comes time to help the American people, we all of a sudden cannot afford it. Does it make any sense to you that we can afford to fight two wars, but we cannot afford to insure our own people?

I do not look at this as being rammed down my throat. I look at this as a necessity to the financial health of our country. If the present conditions continue, this country is going to be bankrupt in short order. As much as I don't like this bill, at least it will save the country over a hundred billion dollars over the next ten years, and one trillion ten years after that according to CBO scoring of the bill. I believe this bill is the first step to correcting a problem that has gotten completely out of hand.

[recoveryone]

Obama is only doing what every other administration has try to do for the last 80 years, check your history. From Teddy Rose-thur Clinton from either side of the parties this has been on and off the front burner, Johnson was the only one that came close when he got Medi Care put into law. So don't think this is some new plan for America, its that Obama feels its time to stop talking the talk and walk the walk. I may not agree on some of the points, but I do take my hat off to the man for standing his ground on the issue.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obama is only doing what every other administration has try to do for the last 80 years, check your history. From Teddy Rose-thur Clinton from either side of the parties this has been on and off the front burner, Johnson was the only one that came close when he got Medi Care put into law. So don't think this is some new plan for America, its that Obama feels its time to stop talking the talk and walk the walk. I may not agree on some of the points, but I do take my hat off to the man for standing his ground on the issue.

I agree with this. And each time the men you mention attempted to change the system, he was met with this much foolishness, lies, delay tactics, and campaigns of misinformation. I think the most painful part for me is to watch the negative racial angle, and overt selfishness some segments of the opposition have deployed. I was reading on the Huffingtonpost this morning that some democratic house members were verbally abused and spit upon when they left congress yesterday. This issue has brought out the absolute worst in some Americans, and it is sad to see and hear.

[3LB]

I understand some people who have "theirs" are afraid they'll have to live a diminished life in order for others to have "some". The republicans have played this angle up for years. The claim the Dems are the fear mongerers and try to make isolationists out of voters. I understand why there are those who are against a healthcare plan that's designed to fail. But the fear that some have over this is beyond me. And yes, there are those who are getting downright ugly over it. But why aren't people getting just as angry over a war that's being waged over "old Bush family business"? They're afraid a viable healthcare plan will take money out of their pockets...and give it to Americans? Instead we allow a war to rage for a decade, we sit by while corporations recieve bailouts (bailouts they intern won't pass on to the American public). We watch as corporations take the biggest slice of the pie and put a barbed-wire fence around the rest of it and we just accept it, because we're comfortable (for now).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do not know. Nobody in America has a PH.D in future prediction, so this whole notion of designed to fail might be a bit premature. Most of the folks that claim design to fail have not read the bill. The bill has quite a few good points in it. The problem is its bad points are going to be contentious going forward. Without market competition, I know a few see even though they are going to get subsidized heavily in the beginning, will be nervous as the rates they pay continue to go up, and they can actually afford less and have fewer choices while their out of pocket expenses go up even with the government subsidies. This is a reality under this bill as it is currently written. There are no controls on costs in this bill, and if rates keep going up, the cost savings the CBO predicted on the bill will not happen. That is a big worry if it cannot be fixed going forward.

Even though the votes are there to pass the bill, it may not have a chance of becoming a reality. The republicans are going to use this bill to win votes in November. If the American public is as consistent and predictable as I think they are, they are going to win a lot of seats, perhaps enough to pull this bill apart piece by piece over time. If this comes to pass, then it is toast for the America as we know it. This will embolden corporations to pay off our politicians to vote in their favor on every legislation that comes down the pipe that effects them. A corporate controlled America is not going to be a fun place to live, but I see it heading in this direction, if we are not already there.

[blackraven]

I am totally for health care reform and unversal coverage for all but this bill sucks! It will force people to buy insurance who are on the fence financially or who are just starting out in life like HS and college graduates. The insurance companies will get richer and the gov't and the average american poorer. Unless they make major changes in the cost of medicine, the abuse of ER's and the american attitude that I have to be well and happy all the time then this is doomed to failure. Look, I'm an ER doctor and we collect only 28%. We will collect a lot more if the bill passes. I dont care about that but I do care about the abuse of the system that will occur. The ER's will become more crowded, patients will become more demanding and wanting cat scans and mri's etc. This will break the system that is already overcrowded and abused. The government needs to be a gate keep by limiting and rationing certain care and passing product and medical liability.

Taxes will go up, there will be less money flowing into an already stagnant and suffering economy (except for the insurance comapnies).

[thekid]

Well it looks like it is going to pass. On to the next argument in which people will question other people's patriotism, lawyers and lobbyists will get paid six figures to be on both sides of the issue and in the end anything resembling a hard choice will be avoided like the plague. Welcome to leadership in the 21st century........

[Feanor]

I am totally for health care reform and unversal coverage for all but this bill sucks! It will force people to buy insurance who are on the fence financially or who are just starting out in life like HS and college graduates. The insurance companies will get richer and the gov't and the average american poorer. Unless they make major changes in the cost of medicine, the abuse of ER's and the american attitude that I have to be well and happy all the time then this is doomed to failure. Look, I'm an ER doctor and we collect only 28%. We will collect a lot more if the bill passes. I dont care about that but I do care about the abuse of the system that will occur. The ER's will become more crowded, patients will become more demanding and wanting cat scans and mri's etc. This will break the system that is already overcrowded and abused. The government needs to be a gate keep by limiting and rationing certain care and passing product and medical liability.

Taxes will go up, there will be less money flowing into an already stagnant and suffering economy (except for the insurance comapnies).
I suspect your wrong on several points here -- you are another FUD victim.

First & foremost if the bill was going to be lucrative for the insurance companies they'd have lobbied for it, not spent $100s of millions opposing it.

I don't see that ER rooms will be more crowed, even in the short term. If people can see doctors or go to urgent care clinics there will be less demand for ER treatment.

Just because people ask for CATs and MRIs doesn't mean they have to get them. If they can't be simply refused, they will necessarily be put on waiting lists even if they have insurance.

Ture enough "gate keeping" will be necessary, likely by government -- I'm glad you conceed the need for government oversight. In the medium term the need will become evident, and then maybe even some Republican pond-scum will support it as necessary cost containment.

[GMichael]

maybe even some Republican pond-scum will support it.

That's not very nice.:nono:

[Feanor]

That's not very nice.:nono:
You know me, GM. I call 'em that way I see 'em. :thumbsup:

[GMichael]

You know me, GM. I call 'em that way I see 'em. :thumbsup:

But I don't feel like pond-scum.

[Feanor]

But I don't feel like pond-scum.
In my objective opinion there are two kinds of Republicans:

The avaricious super-rich, a possible majority of the 2-3% minority of really rich people, and
The self- or otherwise deluded.I leave it to you decide the category to which you belong.

[GMichael]

In my objective opinion there are two kinds of Republicans:

The avaricious super-rich, a possible majority of the 2-3% minority of really rich people, and
The self- or otherwise deluded.I leave it to you decide the category to which you belong.

You left one out.

The ones who keep an open mind about everything without falling for the liberal (or the avaricious super-rich) hype.

[Feanor]

You left one out.

The ones who keep an open mind about everything without falling for the liberal (or the avaricious super-rich) hype.
Humm ... well, there is likely the odd such person -- doubtless you are one. But they are damned few.

Almost by definition, liberal policies (as distinct from liberal politicians) serve a wider swath of the population than do right-wing policies. Bear this in mind. The hard core right-wing delude the a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stoking their bigotry and fear of change.

[GMichael]

Humm ... well, there is likely the odd such person -- doubtless you are one. But they are damned few.

Almost by definition, liberal policies (as distinct from liberal politicians) serve a wider swath of the population than do right-wing policies. Bear this in mind. The hard core right-wing delude the a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stoking their bigotry and fear of change.

I see both sides as deluding a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stroking their bigotry. I don't not accept one side as truth, and the other as crap. The answer does not lie on one end or the other. It's somewhere in the middle. But the middle has no party to represent it.

Do we need healthcare? Hell yes.
Is this the Bill that's going to get it for us? Maybe. I sure do see a lot wrong with it, as well as right with it. As always, too many outside forces have had their influences.

What I don't do is claim that either extreme is any better than the other.

[Feanor]

I see both sides as deluding a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stroking their bigotry. I don't not accept one side as truth, and the other as crap. The answer does not lie on one end or the other. It's somewhere in the middle. But the middle has no party to represent it.

Do we need healthcare? Hell yes.
Is this the Bill that's going to get it for us? Maybe. I sure do see a lot wrong with it, as well as right with it. As always, too many outside forces have had their influences.

What I don't do is claim that either extreme is any better than the other.
"Either extreme"!?! Now that is delusional.

It is a source of bemusement to me that so many Americans see the "middle" to be somewhere between the Democrates and the Republicans. By world standards the whole of US politics is severely skewed to the right.

The true of the matter is that the Democratic Party is a centrist party with a smallish minority who are slightly left-leaning. For its part, the Republican Party at one time had a fair number of right-leaning centrists but we have to go almost back to the Eisenhower era for that. Today the Reps are utterly dominated by the financial and socio-religious right-wings who are extremists indeed. They are working hard drive out the very few remaining moderates.

The notion that the right answer is always a compromise or somewhere in the middle is a logical fallacy -- and that is certainly the case on the Dem / Rep scale.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I see both sides as deluding a large portion of the population by deceiving them about where their real interests lie and/or by stroking their bigotry. I don't not accept one side as truth, and the other as crap. The answer does not lie on one end or the other. It's somewhere in the middle. But the middle has no party to represent it.

Do we need healthcare? Hell yes.
Is this the Bill that's going to get it for us? Maybe. I sure do see a lot wrong with it, as well as right with it. As always, too many outside forces have had their influences.

What I don't do is claim that either extreme is any better than the other.

No doubt some of the Dems proved to be pond scum as well. Blanche Lincoln proved to be pond scum with algae. Ben Nelson proved to be coal sluge. Bart Stupak was pond scum. These Democrats constituents wanted health care in a big way, and these pond scum types tried to block the path. However I thought Boehner, Canton and McCain were just repulsive with their repeated lies about the bill. You are right G, both sides had their share of pond scum, and you are also right about the middle.

I look at this bill as a start.

[GMichael]

"Either extreme"!?! Now that is delusional.

It is a source of bemusement to me that so many Americans see the "middle" to be somewhere between the Democrates and the Republicans. By world standards the whole of US politics is severely skewed to the right.

The true of the matter is that the Democratic Party is a centrist party with a smallish minority who are slightly left-leaning. For its part, the Republican Party at one time had a fair number of right-leaning centrists but we have to go almost back to the Eisenhower era for that. Today the Reps are utterly dominated by the financial and socio-religious right-wings who are extremists indeed. They are working hard drive out the very few remaining moderates.

The notion that the right answer is always a compromise or somewhere in the middle is a logical fallacy -- and that is certainly the case on the Dem / Rep scale.

From my point of view, we're skewed to the left. (Notice how I didn't insult you by saying that your statements are delusional?)

To see one side as always right and the other as always wrong is problematic at best. The Democratic party is as far off center as the Republicans. I see some good from both, but mostly I see bad from both. I don’t see one as all knowing while the other should be written off as crap. To believe that would be the logical fallacy you speak of.

[GMichael]

No doubt some of the Dems proved to be pond scum as well. Blanche Lincoln proved to be pond scum with algae. Ben Nelson proved to be coal sluge. Bart Stupak was pond scum. These Democrats constituents wanted health care in a big way, and these pond scum types tried to block the path. However I thought Boehner, Canton and McCain were just repulsive with their repeated lies about the bill. You are right G, both sides had their share of pond scum, and you are also right about the middle.

I look at this bill as a start.

Unfortunately, I’m to the point of assuming that most politicians are PS until proven otherwise. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but my trust has been worn down over the years. I do know a few of them personaly from going through school with them. They were very bright and idealistic back then. One can only hope that they stay that way.

I hope you are right about this Bill. I'm not sure. Kinda on the fence. It could end up being a step in the right dirrection. But it could also be a step towards another depression. Both sides screw the picture so much that it's hard to know what the truth is.

[Feanor]

From my point of view, we're skewed to the left. (Notice how I didn't insult you by saying that your statements are delusional?)

To see one side as always right and the other as always wrong is problematic at best. The Democratic party is as far off center as the Republicans. I see some good from both, but mostly I see bad from both. I don’t see one as all knowing while the other should be written off as crap. To believe that would be the logical fallacy you speak of.
You are making strawman argument there, GM, since I never said or implied one side is always right on the other always wrong.

However it is a matter of fact that the US is skewed to the right. Obama is "far left" as so many right-wing pundits insist? No: Raul Castor is far-left, Hugo Chavez is arguably far-left, Obama is not far left. The fact that they can get away with calling him "far left" demonstrates my point.

On the other hand Bush/Cheney/Rowe are far-right, only excepting that, given the US tradition of democracy, they were able to institute a dictatorship. To be sure the three sought to enhance the power of the Executive against other arms of government, circumscribed tranditional privacy and other personal rights, invaded another country that neither supported Al Qaeda nor had WMDs, and tortured prisoners held without charging them personally with crimes. So OK, give them credit: it wasn't for lack of trying.

[GMichael]

You are making strawman argument there, GM, since I never said or implied one side is always right on the other always wrong.

B.S. What do you call this statement that you made in post# 50?
"Either extreme"!?! Now that is delusional.

It is a source of bemusement to me that so many Americans see the "middle" to be somewhere between the Democrates and the Republicans. By world standards the whole of US politics is severely skewed to the right.

The true of the matter is that the Democratic Party is a centrist party with a smallish minority who are slightly left-leaning. For its part, the Republican Party at one time had a fair number of right-leaning centrists but we have to go almost back to the Eisenhower era for that. Today the Reps are utterly dominated by the financial and socio-religious right-wings who are extremists indeed. They are working hard drive out the very few remaining moderates.

The notion that the right answer is always a compromise or somewhere in the middle is a logical fallacy -- and that is certainly the case on the Dem / Rep scale.


You however are working that strawman argument pretty hard.


However it is a matter of fact that the US is skewed to the right. Obama is "far left" as so many right-wing pundits insist? No: Raul Castor is far-left, Hugo Chavez is arguably far-left, Obama is not far left. The fact that they can get away with calling him "far left" demonstrates my point.

I It is a matter of your point of view that the US is skewed to the right. Not fact.
I would not call Obama far left. I think he has great potential. I’m just not sure if this plan is the best for us. It could be great in the long run, I just don’t agree with a lot of it.



On the other hand Bush/Cheney/Rowe are far-right, only excepting that, given the US tradition of democracy, they were able to institute a dictatorship. To be sure the three sought to enhance the power of the Executive against other arms of government, circumscribed tranditional privacy and other personal rights, invaded another country that neither supported Al Qaeda nor had WMDs, and tortured prisoners held without charging them personally with crimes. So OK, give them credit: it wasn't for lack of trying.

You act like Bush was the only one for the war at the time. Very few of our politicians were against it. It wasn’t until it became unpupular that everyone began to blame Bush. At this point, everything from global warming to the last ice age have been blamed on him. I’m not saying that he did a great job. He sure didn’t.

I’m not trying to paint the Republicans as the ones to follow. But I’m also not blind to what BOTH parties have done. You are the one who called me delusional for saying that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Then you accused me of making a strawman argument for pointing it out.

[Hyfi]

Maybe I watched too many X-Files but I am under the belief that it does not matter who is President or what party they are from. Both parties are ultimately controlled by a greater power whether that is big business or other.

The president is merely a puppet chosen to get someone else agenda pushed through.

Did anyone ever wonder why Obama was picked? Duh, because he was black, or as I like to say, Half White. By pushing for a black man, they insured that certain people would come out of the woodworks and vote for him.

Then, did anyone ever wonder why he Obama was pitted against an overly aging, heart attack prone war monger, with a whack job female, Palin as his running mate?

It was all a big setup to insure that Obama would get elected. Nobody in their right mind can agree that McCain/Palin was the absolute best choice of individuals for their party. It was a death sentence and an insurance policy for Obama to win.

It was not much different than when Ross Perot announced his running mate and in the first debate, the guy says "eh, hang on I need to turn my hearing aid on" after the first question.

Now, is the coverage that the politicians get going to change? I doubt it but mine will. I am all for some type of reform but they started at the wrong end and why? Because they are all in bed together no matter what they want the stupid public to think. Just watch Capitalism, A Love Story and see just how we have been getting screwed by political bull****. We have been being screwed over since FDR years. They need to start with Tort, overpriced insurance and services and drugs. Then move down the tree. They are not going to fix anything by making it MANDATORY to have insurance or be fined. If you can't afford the insurance, you probably can't afford the fine. Then for larger companies that don't provide HC, they will get fined $750 per year per person. Guess what, that is many thousands less than providing insurance so which way will they go?

The bottom line is it doesn't matter who is in, we are all screwed in the end except for people who don't want to work or people that sneak into our country. For those people, we will just keep taking from the hard working individuals and give it freely to those who don't want to work.

Republicans=Democrats=Your Screwed!

[Feanor]

You are making strawman argument there, GM, since I never said or implied one side is always right on the other always wrong.
...
B.S. What do you call this statement that you made in post# 50?

...
I'd call it a fact. However I didn't say anything about one side being "aways right" nor the other "aways wrong" on every matter of fact or substance.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to know I'm throwing in the towel at this point. You can feel you've "won" if you like.

[GMichael]

I'd call it a fact. However I didn't say anything about one side being "aways right" nor the other "aways wrong" on every matter of fact or substance.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to know I'm throwing in the towel at this point. You can feel you've "won" if you like.

Won? What did I win? A towel? Does it come with a copy of the Guide?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe I watched too many X-Files but I am under the belief that it does not matter who is President or what party they are from. Both parties are ultimately controlled by a greater power whether that is big business or other.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.


The president is merely a puppet chosen to get someone else agenda pushed through.

Did anyone ever wonder why Obama was picked? Duh, because he was black, or as I like to say, Half White. By pushing for a black man, they insured that certain people would come out of the woodworks and vote for him.

By calling him half white, you know you are ignoring the fact the other half is black(lolol)

Just because he is black? Oh please! In this country the black man has never been respected. Why all of a sudden would folks just embrace a black man given this history. This does not make any sense at all. I think people were enamored with his message, articulation, and his presence more than his racial and cultural background. Jesse Jackson is black, and he has failed twice in his bid for the White House. So did Alan Keyes. I guess you have forgotten that the many in the congressional black caucus actually supported Hilary Clinton, as they were not sure America would vote in favor of a black man for President.


Then, did anyone ever wonder why he Obama was pitted against an overly aging, heart attack prone war monger, with a whack job female, Palin as his running mate?

It was all a big setup to insure that Obama would get elected. Nobody in their right mind can agree that McCain/Palin was the absolute best choice of individuals for their party. It was a death sentence and an insurance policy for Obama to win.

To be sure here, it was the Republican Party that nominated McAngry as the choice for its party. Do you really think they would choose him just so he could lose to a black man given their propensity for making negative racial and cultural comments against blacks and hispanics? I don't think so, that is a little far fetched. I think McAngry blew the minds of even Republicans with his Palin annoucement, and I believe he was strongly criticized for doing it. It was Republicans that called her intellectually challenged.


It was not much different than when Ross Perot announced his running mate and in the first debate, the guy says "eh, hang on I need to turn my hearing aid on" after the first question.

LOLOL


Now, is the coverage that the politicians get going to change? I doubt it but mine will. I am all for some type of reform but they started at the wrong end and why? Because they are all in bed together no matter what they want the stupid public to think. Just watch Capitalism, A Love Story and see just how we have been getting screwed by political bull****. We have been being screwed over since FDR years. They need to start with Tort, overpriced insurance and services and drugs. Then move down the tree. They are not going to fix anything by making it MANDATORY to have insurance or be fined. If you can't afford the insurance, you probably can't afford the fine. Then for larger companies that don't provide HC, they will get fined $750 per year per person. Guess what, that is many thousands less than providing insurance so which way will they go?

Hyfi, the bills states that "individuals" will pay a penalty of $95 per year if they do not have insurance. That goes up to $695 dollars in 2014. Employers will pay a penalty of $2000 per employee per year if they opt out. So its not like it is going to be cheap to opt out of the plan.


The bottom line is it doesn't matter who is in, we are all screwed in the end except for people who don't want to work or people that sneak into our country. For those people, we will just keep taking from the hard working individuals and give it freely to those who don't want to work.

Republicans=Democrats=Your Screwed!

Wow, you have completely depressed me LOLOLOL

[Ajani]

Won? What did I win? A towel? Does it come with a copy of the Guide?

You can have one of my old socks...

I think what Feanor was "trying" to say: is not that the Democrats are perfect and the Republicans are evil, but that the Democrats are far closer to center, while the Republicans are moving further and further to the extreme right... In the rest of the world, the US Democratic party would not even be considered as being to the left... But in the US, somehow the GOP has convinced the masses that the DEMs are hardcore leftists/liberals/socialists...

I don't think Bush was evil, he seems just to be a perfect example of a worst case scenario in America: the notion that a total incompetent can gain a powerful position through family/connections... I think Bush just thought it would be cool to be President... My daddy was president and now I get to be.. whooopppeee!!! Then reality that being President is actually a sh!+ job hit him hard with 911... Bush didn't sign on for all that drama, he just wanted to put his feet up on the desk and watch TV in the Oval office...

Dems and Reps both have major failings and a load of @$$clowns in both parties, but I honestly think the Reps are killing their party by embracing the tea bagging extremists in the far right, instead of embracing the moderate, fiscal consevatives (closer to center)... The Dems need to continue moving to center but also develop some damn backbone and unite more as a party when it comes voting time...

[blackraven]

To see one side as always right and the other as always wrong is problematic at best. The Democratic party is as far off center as the Republicans. I see some good from both, but mostly I see bad from both. I don’t see one as all knowing while the other should be written off as crap. To believe that would be the logical fallacy you speak of.

Well said! The Republicans have moved far right because they have been criticized for moving too far to the left in recent years by their supporters and the fact that they are no longer in the majority is helping to drive them further to the right and go back to conservative values. They want less government and less taxes where in recent years they were moderate. The Democrates went too far too the left in recent years. The Dems want to basically Socialize the country and tax the crap out of every one to pay for it.

[Feanor]

Well said! The Republicans have moved far right because they have been criticized for moving too far to the left in recent years by their supporters and the fact that they are no longer in the majority is helping to drive them further to the right and go back to conservative values. They want less government and less taxes where in recent years they were moderate. The Democrates went too far too the left in recent years. The Dems want to basically Socialize the country and tax the crap out of every one to pay for it.
Here's an interesting & entertaining book I'm just finishing at the moment, wherein we get a flavor of what "conservative values" are really all about ...

http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51OfORwZTeL._SS500_.jpg

Greed
Ignorance
Bigotry
Superstition
Selfishness
Fear of change

[JSE]

Here's an interesting & entertaining book I'm just finishing at the moment, wherein we get a flavor of what "conservative values" are really all about ...

http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51OfORwZTeL._SS500_.jpg

Greed
Ignorance
Bigotry
Fear of change


No doubt fair, unbiased and in no way extremist from the "Bestselling Author of the Bush Haters Handbook". LOL! :frown2:

[Feanor]

No doubt fair, unbiased and in no way extremist from the "Bestselling Author of the Bush Haters Handbook". LOL! :frown2:
No, I grant you Huberman is an extremist ... well, at least by US standards. :biggrin5:

[blackraven]

My point from my post is that both parties are way off base and far apart. I would prefer a much more moderate 2 party system. There needs to be some overlap of beliefs so that they can work together and get things done right. I don't see it happening. Its too bad that the Senate and Congress cant be permanently 50-50, dems and reps. They would be forced to work together.

[Feanor]

My point from my post is that both parties are way off base and far apart. I would prefer a much more moderate 2 party system. There needs to be some overlap of beliefs so that they can work together and get things done right. I don't see it happening. Its too bad that the Senate and Congress cant be permanently 50-50, dems and reps. They would be forced to work together.
It would certainly be great if we could "all just get along". However polarization is a typical response to difficult times.

What a shame that the end of the Cold War didn't bring the peace divident we hoped for. Despite becoming the world's one remaining superpower, American is more troubled and less certain of itself than ever -- at least since the Civil War.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well said! The Republicans have moved far right because they have been criticized for moving too far to the left in recent years by their supporters and the fact that they are no longer in the majority is helping to drive them further to the right and go back to conservative values. They want less government and less taxes where in recent years they were moderate. The Democrates went too far too the left in recent years. The Dems want to basically Socialize the country and tax the crap out of every one to pay for it.

BR,
After the financial debacle, I think it is time for more of a blend of socialization and free market. With free market(as we have seen) the majority gets left behind while a minority benefits from raping the majority.

We in this country want a lot, but we don't want to pay for it. That is not realistic, and now we know it. It is time we either pay for what we want, or get taxed less, shrink the government, and when an earthquake, Tornado or Hurricane comes, we just fend for ourselves without government help. I do not think that is palpable for anyone.

This bill is going to raise my taxes, I and am not crying one bit about it. Unlike a lot of folks, I do not mind paying more taxes so other Americans can get health insurance. What I do mind is paying more taxes so our leaders can use our military to bully other countries.

[blackraven]

It would certainly be great if we could "all just get along". However polarization is a typical response to difficult times.

What a shame that the end of the Cold War didn't bring the peace divident we hoped for. Despite becoming the world's one remaining superpower, American is more troubled and less certain of itself than ever -- at least since the Civil War.


I can't argue with what you said. I would love for the U.S. to stop trying to dictate policy to the rest of the world and to stop being the worlds policeman and start concentrating on things at home, like our deteriorating infrastructure, the economy, health care, crime, etc.
It's time for the U.S. to start rebuilding because we are digging a hole that may take generations to repair, if ever.

[GMichael]

I can't argue with what you said. I would love for the U.S. to stop trying to dictate policy to the rest of the world and to stop being the worlds policeman and start concentrating on things at home, like our deteriorating infrastructure, the economy, health care, crime, etc.
It's time the U.S. to start rebuilding because we are digging a hole that may take generations to repair, if ever.

I hear that. How about we stop getting involved before our involvement is requested?

[3LB]

A democrat sees a half a glass of water and says, "its half-empty"; a republican sees a half a glass of water and says, "who's been drinkin my damn water?".

[JoeE SP9]

You can have one of my old socks...

I think what Feanor was "trying" to say: is not that the Democrats are perfect and the Republicans are evil, but that the Democrats are far closer to center, while the Republicans are moving further and further to the extreme right... In the rest of the world, the US Democratic party would not even be considered as being to the left... But in the US, somehow the GOP has convinced the masses that the DEMs are hardcore leftists/liberals/socialists...

I don't think Bush was evil, he seems just to be a perfect example of a worst case scenario in America: the notion that a total incompetent can gain a powerful position through family/connections... I think Bush just thought it would be cool to be President... My daddy was president and now I get to be.. whooopppeee!!! Then reality that being President is actually a sh!+ job hit him hard with 911... Bush didn't sign on for all that drama, he just wanted to put his feet up on the desk and watch TV in the Oval office...

Dems and Reps both have major failings and a load of @$$clowns in both parties, but I honestly think the Reps are killing their party by embracing the tea bagging extremists in the far right, instead of embracing the moderate, fiscal consevatives (closer to center)... The Dems need to continue moving to center but also develop some damn backbone and unite more as a party when it comes voting time...

Sometimes I wonder why Americans have such a hard time acknowledging what Ajani said. Too many "Americans" vote using the narrowest criteria. The Republican party has taken advantage of this with the "anti-choice" stance. Were it not for that they would have a much smaller following. Movers and shakers in the party have stated on more than one occasion they don't really care about abortion and don't like the religious right. They need the votes their "hypocritical" stance brings them. So, they "put up" with what's necessary.

The middle class generally does better financially when the "Demo's" are running things. You don't think so? I urge you to compare your finances. I would love to be wrong. In any case, as a registered independent I vote for the (IMO) best candidate. Being "pro-choice" is no reason to expect my vote. However, being "anti-choice" is reason not to expect it.

I'm for less taxes on everything and more personal freedom everywhere. If what others do doesn't effect me or cost me it's none of my business. All victim-less crimes should be legalized as a start toward true personal freedom. Most of those crimes are crimes only because of religious or moral/ethical (religious really) reasons. They are a perfect example of the "I know what's best for you" mentality. Unfortunately what's "best" is usually best only to those proposing said law.

[JoeE SP9]

BR,
After the financial debacle, I think it is time for more of a blend of socialization and free market. With free market(as we have seen) the majority gets left behind while a minority benefits from raping the majority.

We in this country want a lot, but we don't want to pay for it. That is not realistic, and now we know it. It is time we either pay for what we want, or get taxed less, shrink the government, and when an earthquake, Tornado or Hurricane comes, we just fend for ourselves without government help. I do not think that is palpable for anyone.

This bill is going to raise my taxes, I and am not crying one bit about it. Unlike a lot of folks, I do not mind paying more taxes so other Americans can get health insurance. What I do mind is paying more taxes so our leaders can use our military to bully other countries.

I'm a veteran and I think you're right. It's like when I went to a child support hearing and asked the judge to take out more because I was making a lot more and could afford it.

As far as bullying other countries goes, we should nuke the entire middle east and get rid of the problem. the Muslims won't quit until the Jews are gone. Then they will go after all the other non Muslims. That's you and me.

[Ajani]

As far as bullying other countries goes, we should nuke the entire middle east and get rid of the problem. the Muslims won't quit until the Jews are gone. Then they will go after all the other non Muslims. That's you and me.

Problem with nuking is that it won't solve the problem. Many of the surviving Muslims and Jews in other countries, including America (who lost family and friends in the nuking) will now have a score to settle... You'd just create more terrorists... So unless you then seek to eradicate all Muslims and Jews around the world to implement a "final solution", you will have neverending war...

[Ajani]

I hear that. How about we stop getting involved before our involvement is requested?

Unfortunately, I think US involvement is already requested in many cases...

Too many damn wars... I can't understand how "fiscal conservatives" can be opposed to spending tax dollars on universal healthcare, but support neverending war! War is not fiscally conservative, it is a waste of tax money...

And you can never win a war on terror... Attempting to defeat terrorists with ground troops is a joke... You simply throw away American lives and money... If the US captures and murders Bin Laden tomorrow, would that end terrorism? I seriously doubt it... You can fight a war with another country and win, but you can't fight a traditional war with faceless extremists... How would you even know when you had defeated all the Terrorists? It's like me attempting to stop thiefs from breaking into my house by proactively attacking all the thiefs I can find... It would be far better and cheaper for me to focus on making my house as secure as a bank vault than to try and track down all potential thiefs...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A democrat sees a half a glass of water and says, "its half-empty"; a republican sees a half a glass of water and says, "who's been drinkin my damn water?".

LOLOLOL. Can somebody pass me a screen wipe pleeeeeze

[blackraven]

I suspect your wrong on several points here -- you are another FUD victim.

First & foremost if the bill was going to be lucrative for the insurance companies they'd have lobbied for it, not spent $100s of millions opposing it.

I don't see that ER rooms will be more crowed, even in the short term. If people can see doctors or go to urgent care clinics there will be less demand for ER treatment.

Just because people ask for CATs and MRIs doesn't mean they have to get them. If they can't be simply refused, they will necessarily be put on waiting lists even if they have insurance.

Ture enough "gate keeping" will be necessary, likely by government -- I'm glad you conceed the need for government oversight. In the medium term the need will become evident, and then maybe even some Republican pond-scum will support it as necessary cost containment.


Feanor, unfurtunately you really don't know much about the emergency medical system in this country as well as how hard it is to get in to see your family Dr let alone a specialist. In addition, your know very little about peoples attitudes about how long they expect to wait to see a Dr and how demanding they can be about having certain tests done as well as the constant constant threat of litigation or complaints to administration or the medical board which could cost you your licence. Its different in Canada and you are an outsider looking in.

There is a shortage of family physicians and Dr's in general in the U.S..(and the problem is going to get worse. The cost of medical school is about $150,000-300,000 over 4 yrs, couple this with the cost of 4yrs of college and high interest loans and you are left with a large loan burden in the hundreds of thousands to pay back. Students see this and most are going into higher paying specialties and very few are going into low paying family medicine). ER's are over crowded not necessarily by those that don't have insurance but by the fact that people tend to use the ER for minor complaints that can be seen in the office but don't want to wait. We see thousands of people with colds, sore throats, fever, flu, pregnancy tests, headaches, toothaches, back aches, sprains, diarrhia, rashes, hayfever, high blood pressure, depression, anxiety among many of the benign illnesses. Dr's offices even direct their patient there because they are too busy to see them. People don't want to wait 1-2 days to see their Dr. for things that will get better on their own. We see over 40,000 patient a year in our ER and over 1/2 don't need to be there and we can't turn them away.

People in this country want things done now and dont want to wait a week for a test even though the diagnosis won't change a thing. They come in demanding cat scans and mri's and all sorts of other tests that don't need to be done in the ER. Many threaten to call administration and complain. (and god forbid we should have poor patient satisfaction as we now use picker scores for patient satifaction. Patients are no longer considered patients by the hospital administrators, they are consumers and they are always right in this country) They leave threatening that if something happens to them because we won't do the test that they will sue or call ths state medical board which is no picnic to deal with because you are guilty till proven innocent. Many people are smart, they call an ambulance for a non emergent condition or make up symtoms so that they came be seen quicker, moving ahead of the pack of people in the waiting room.
You look at medicine as black and white. Medicine is grey. Things are usaully not as they seem and what text books describe as being typical us usually atypical.

The ER's will get more over crowded and waiting times will go up by a few hours in many ER's across the country as more people have insurance and will use it as their family clinic.

And insurance companies will get richer they will have 30-80 million more people paying in to the system. They lobbied against the new bill because they don't want to have to cover people with pre-existing illnesses and they are afraid of further changes down the road or even a single payer system.

Feanor, if you think that I am wrong, I invite you to spend a couple of days shadowing me in our ER. You have an open invitation at any time. You will be in for a rude awakening. Maybe some other forum members will speak up about their experiences waiting to get in to see their family Dr or having to wait hours in an emergency dept to be seen!

I bet that there is not an ER Dr in the country that is not very concerned about increased over crowding in the ED.

[thekid]

BR -Is correct that the cost for med school is driving alot of new doctors out of family practice. I just heard a story about that last week and two of the med students interviewed said their student loan payment will run about $1500 a month once they leave school. Couple this with just the regular cost of living and you can see why they would opt for the more lucrative specialties. My concern with this bill is that it does not address issues like that and in the short term expanding coverage will expose the flaws in the current system. Hopefully this will lead to real reform and not people blaming the bill that was passed (ideally expanding coverage and reforming the system should have been done) Once the flaws are exposed perhaps real change will be made to the system. For example to address the situation above the government could offer some type of a low rate loan or loan forgiveness plan for med school students on the condition that they work as FP's for say 3yrs.

On the ER issue I defer to BR's experience there but there have been findings that alot of uninsured go to the ER's because at that point that they can not be turned away. In some cities pregnant women without insurance will actually go to the ER waiting room of hospitals known to have better facilities when they are in the early stages of labor. They will wait till the last minute to inform the ER they are in labor or else many hospitals will put them in an ambulance and send them across town to other hospitals that have higher rates of treating the uninsured. With expanded coverage hopefully many that now use the ER in effect as their primary doctor will know find alternatives available.

[Feanor]

BR -Is correct that the cost for med school is driving alot of new doctors out of family practice. I just heard a story about that last week and two of the med students interviewed said their student loan payment will run about $1500 a month once they leave school. Couple this with just the regular cost of living and you can see why they would opt for the more lucrative specialties. ...
I must admit the the family practice situation is a problem here in Ontario, especially small cities and rural or northern areas. (Bear in mind here people visit GPs for zero out-of-pocket costs and pay zero insurance premiums).

It took me1.5 years after moving to London ON to find a family doctor -- pretty scandalous. :mad: I'm not sure of the reason but I suspect that the government-mandated rates for family practice procedures are too low to attract doctors. Supply of GPs would improve if they could charge free-market fees -- but then demand would decline because people couldn't afford to visit them.

[JSE]

Patients are no longer considered patients by the hospital administrators, they are consumers and they are always right in this country.

Having several friends who are E/R doctors and my wife being a medical malpractice attorney, I can agree with just about everything you said in your post. But, I would also like to add to the above quoted statement.

Because medical malpractive suits are out of control in this country, patients are also seen as potential liabilities. Sad but true.

Somtimes medical treatment can't prevent a bad outcome. People somtimes get worse and die despite the best of medical care. This is no longer acceptable by many people. There has to be someone to blame and they sue the every doctor, every nurse and the hospital. I'm not saying every case has no merit. That obviously is not the case. But, seeing it from my wife's perspective, medical malpractice lawsuit abuse has gotten out control.

I sure am glad the new healthcare reform addressed this............Oh, wait? :idea:

[Feanor]

Feanor, unfurtunately you really don't know much about the emergency medical system in this country as well as how hard it is to get in to see your family Dr let alone a specialist. In addition, your know very little about peoples attitudes about how long they expect to wait to see a Dr and how demanding they can be about having certain tests done as well as the constant constant threat of litigation or complaints to administration or the medical board which could cost you your licence. Its different in Canada and you are an outsider looking in.
...
Feanor, if you think that I am wrong, I invite you to spend a couple of days shadowing me in our ER. You have an open invitation at any time. You will be in for a rude awakening. Maybe some other forum members will speak up about their experiences waiting to get in to see their family Dr or having to wait hours in an emergency dept to be seen!

I bet that there is not an ER Dr in the country that is not very concerned about increased over crowding in the ED.
Or maybe my "awakening" would not be so rude as you suppose because, in fact, Canadian problems are not so different from the US's as you presume. Just a few examples:

People demanding tests and procedures without having to waiting. This is déjà vu all over again to Canadians. Here is the irony -- Canadian critics of our system insist the a US-style system would solve these problems. A big thinks, BR, for revealing the invalidity of that suggestion.
Lack of family doctors. See my recent post in this thread that I made before reading this present one of yours. Again, your facts are enlightening because I might have guess that the more free-market US approach might have mitigated the problem: apparently not.
People crowding ERs. This happens in Canada too, though perhaps not to the same extent as the US. In our case the reasons are people don't go to their family doctor or to a walk-in clinic are (1) they don't have one or because they don't know where one is located when they need it, or (2) simply because the ER is the only location open at the time of day they need the attention.So you're right that the Dem's bill will leave various problems unsolved. On the other hand some problems are likely inevidable regardless of the system and I doubt the present bill will make them worse.

[Feanor]

Having several friends who are E/R doctors and my wife being a medical malpractice attorney, I can agree with just about everything you said in your post. But, I would also like to add to the above quoted statement.

Because medical malpractive suits are out of control in this country, patients are also seen as potential liabilities. Sad but true.

Somtimes medical treatment can't prevent a bad outcome. People somtimes get worse and die despite the best of medical care. This is no longer acceptable by many people. There has to be someone to blame and they sue the every doctor, every nurse and the hospital. I'm not saying every case has no merit. That obviously is not the case. But, seeing it from my wife's perspective, medical malpractice lawsuit abuse has gotten out control.

I sure am glad the new healthcare reform addressed this............Oh, wait? :idea:
JSE, certainly you have a point here.

Litigiousness is strong US tradition. I'm not lawyer but as I understand US practices such as conditional fees in combination with large pain-and-suffering and punative damages awards exacerbate the situation. So what's to be done in general as well as in the healthcare instance? I don't think you want to totally cut off patient/consumers' civil recourse, but how shall it be limited?

(Our situation here in Canada is quite a bit less severe but is tending in the direction of the US. Here, as I understand, conditional fees and P&S awards are limited and punative damages are not recognized.)

"Tort reform" is as I understand is a big a thing with some Republicans. Cynical critics would say that it's about limiting consumer and employee awards to their corporate sponsors. I guess it's difficult choice for Reps: accomodate corporate funders or fat-cat law firms and attorneys who no doubt tend to the Republican Party; (oh, so hard to decide amonst the plutocrats but I suppose you go with the highest bidder).

[Ajani]

JSE, certainly you have a point here.

Litigiousness is strong US tradition. I'm not lawyer but as I understand US practices such as conditional fees in combination with large pain-and-suffering and punative damages awards exacerbate the situation. So what's to be done in general as well as in the healthcare instance? I don't think you want to totally cut off patient/consumers' civil recourse, but how shall it be limited?

(Our situation here in Canada is quite a bit less severe but is tending in the direction of the US. Here, as I understand, conditional fees and P&S awards are limited and punative damages are not recognized.)

"Tort reform" is as I understand is a big a thing with some Republicans. Cynical critics would say that it's about limiting consumer and employee awards to their corporate sponsors. I guess it's difficult choice for Reps: accomodate corporate funders or fat-cat law firms and attorneys who no doubt tend to the Republican Party; (oh, so hard to decide amonst the plutocrats but I suppose you go with the highest bidder).

I think what all these points really show is that there are several other problems that impact healthcare, which can't be solved with a healthcare bill, but must be addressed seperaterly:

The cost of tertiary education in the US is ridiculous (it is also outrageous in some other countries as well)... The concept that someone should come out of school in debt up to their eyeballs is truly sad, as it means that you need to look for the job that pays you the most money in order to recoup your 'investment' in education...

The obssesion with frivolous lawsuits... what happened to the days when people discussed problems? Now if I have a disagreement with my neighbour, I contact a lawyer instead of sitting down over drinks and having a discussion about the issue...

There are so many things that need to be addressed in order to truly solve the healthcare issue...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Feanor, unfurtunately you really don't know much about the emergency medical system in this country as well as how hard it is to get in to see your family Dr let alone a specialist. In addition, your know very little about peoples attitudes about how long they expect to wait to see a Dr and how demanding they can be about having certain tests done as well as the constant constant threat of litigation or complaints to administration or the medical board which could cost you your licence. Its different in Canada and you are an outsider looking in.

There is a shortage of family physicians and Dr's in general in the U.S..(and the problem is going to get worse. The cost of medical school is about $150,000-300,000 over 4 yrs, couple this with the cost of 4yrs of college and high interest loans and you are left with a large loan burden in the hundreds of thousands to pay back. Students see this and most are going into higher paying specialties and very few are going into low paying family medicine). ER's are over crowded not necessarily by those that don't have insurance but by the fact that people tend to use the ER for minor complaints that can be seen in the office but don't want to wait. We see thousands of people with colds, sore throats, fever, flu, pregnancy tests, headaches, toothaches, back aches, sprains, diarrhia, rashes, hayfever, high blood pressure, depression, anxiety among many of the benign illnesses. Dr's offices even direct their patient there because they are too busy to see them. People don't want to wait 1-2 days to see their Dr. for things that will get better on their own. We see over 40,000 patient a year in our ER and over 1/2 don't need to be there and we can't turn them away.

People in this country want things done now and dont want to wait a week for a test even though the diagnosis won't change a thing. They come in demanding cat scans and mri's and all sorts of other tests that don't need to be done in the ER. Many threaten to call administration and complain. (and god forbid we should have poor patient satisfaction as we now use picker scores for patient satifaction. Patients are no longer considered patients by the hospital administrators, they are consumers and they are always right in this country) They leave threatening that if something happens to them because we won't do the test that they will sue or call ths state medical board which is no picnic to deal with because you are guilty till proven innocent. Many people are smart, they call an ambulance for a non emergent condition or make up symtoms so that they came be seen quicker, moving ahead of the pack of people in the waiting room.
You look at medicine as black and white. Medicine is grey. Things are usaully not as they seem and what text books describe as being typical us usually atypical.

The ER's will get more over crowded and waiting times will go up by a few hours in many ER's across the country as more people have insurance and will use it as their family clinic.

And insurance companies will get richer they will have 30-80 million more people paying in to the system. They lobbied against the new bill because they don't want to have to cover people with pre-existing illnesses and they are afraid of further changes down the road or even a single payer system.

Feanor, if you think that I am wrong, I invite you to spend a couple of days shadowing me in our ER. You have an open invitation at any time. You will be in for a rude awakening. Maybe some other forum members will speak up about their experiences waiting to get in to see their family Dr or having to wait hours in an emergency dept to be seen!

I bet that there is not an ER Dr in the country that is not very concerned about increased over crowding in the ED.

BR,
I think you are creating a worse case scenario here. I have not heard any of these concerns from folks that have actually read the bill from cover to cover. It seems to me that now that we have 30+ million people now covered, that would actually reduce the stress on ER's.

I also believe there is talk of reducing the expenses of medical students so we can get more doctores in the field.

[dean_martin]

Let me just relate my exerience as a lawyer who represents plaintiffs in personal injury, wrongful death, and workers' comp cases.

During my 12 years of practice in a 3-man family firm, we have counseled many, many individuals who have complained of the medical care either they or a deceased loved one received. In the vast majority of those instances the "bad outcome" (either death or injury) was a known risk of the procedure or a result of the condition for which they were treated. Some of the complaints had more to do with the doctor's poor bedside manner. In such instances, filing a lawsuit would be plain STUPID! A lawyer would not only risk the great expense of taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit, but also risk his/her license to practice law.

Of those many people whom we've counseled, I recall maybe a half-dozen that had a valid claim. Of those, we proceeded with only two by ourselves. Of those two, we won one at trial and lost the other prior to trial because we could not get our expert (from Duke University) to follow our state's strict and highly technical rules on affidavits of experts in medical malpractice cases in a timely manner. (We still paid her for the work she did.) The others were referred to larger firms that could afford to carry the expenses of medical malpractice lawsuits which generally cost anywhere from $85,000 to $150,000. The reason for the high cost is that a plaintiff must hire an expert who is a doctor in the same field as the defendant doctor who will testify as to the standard of care that the defendant doctor should have followed, that the defendant doctor failed to follow or breached that standard of care and that failure or breach caused the death or injury. These "experts" are rarely local and usually come from university settings or from highly regarded hospitals or clinics.

Almost all 50 states have enacted some form of medical malpractice tort reform since the mid 1980s. An estimated 98,000 people die from medical errors in this country every year. Only approximately 3% of total annual health care costs can be attributed to expenses associated with medical malpractice lawsuits.

Admittedly, medical malpractice is not a large part of my practice. Nevertheless, as I see it, there is no medical malpractice lawsuit abuse.

[blackraven]

BR,
I think you are creating a worse case scenario here. I have not heard any of these concerns from folks that have actually read the bill from cover to cover. It seems to me that now that we have 30+ million people now covered, that would actually reduce the stress on ER's.

I also believe there is talk of reducing the expenses of medical students so we can get more doctores in the field.


You are way off base here. Believe me, hospital administrators and ER physicains are worried. (just look at the flu epidemic that hit this year and years past, we were seeing about 50 more people a day and the ER's were over crowded with 6-12 hour waits due to patients that mostly did not need to be there.) Now more people will go to the doctor for minor complaints and they will end up in the ER because family medicine will not be able to handle the influx of patients that would have normally waited it out and got better. Legistlators know of the potential impact but they don't really want to talk about it because there is no short term solution. It will take 20-30 years to remedy this problem. It first needs to start with public education, especially in grade school, all the way through college. We need to teach peolpe what to do for fevers, colds, diarrhia, aches and pains, etc., and when they truley need to go to the Dr. Years ago people waited things out and most got better. Now people are ignorant of how to take care of themselves and are scared. The media doesnt help either.

And as far as medical school costs, the government should pay for it if they are calling health care a god given right!

[blackraven]

Let me just relate my exerience as a lawyer who represents plaintiffs in personal injury, wrongful death, and workers' comp cases.

During my 12 years of practice in a 3-man family firm, we have counseled many, many individuals who have complained of the medical care either they or a deceased loved one received. In the vast majority of those instances the "bad outcome" (either death or injury) was a known risk of the procedure or a result of the condition for which they were treated. Some of the complaints had more to do with the doctor's poor bedside manner. In such instances, filing a lawsuit would be plain STUPID! A lawyer would not only risk the great expense of taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit, but also risk his/her license to practice law.

Of those many people whom we've counseled, I recall maybe a half-dozen that had a valid claim. Of those, we proceeded with only two by ourselves. Of those two, we won one at trial and lost the other prior to trial because we could not get our expert (from Duke University) to follow our state's strict and highly technical rules on affidavits of experts in medical malpractice cases in a timely manner. (We still paid her for the work she did.) The others were referred to larger firms that could afford to carry the expenses of medical malpractice lawsuits which generally cost anywhere from $85,000 to $150,000. The reason for the high cost is that a plaintiff must hire an expert who is a doctor in the same field as the defendant doctor who will testify as to the standard of care that the defendant doctor should have followed, that the defendant doctor failed to follow or breached that standard of care and that failure or breach caused the death or injury. These "experts" are rarely local and usually come from university settings or from highly regarded hospitals or clinics.

Almost all 50 states have enacted some form of medical malpractice tort reform since the mid 1980s. An estimated 98,000 people die from medical errors in this country every year. Only approximately 3% of total annual health care costs can be attributed to expenses associated with medical malpractice lawsuits.

Admittedly, medical malpractice is not a large part of my practice. Nevertheless, as I see it, there is no medical malpractice lawsuit abuse.


Dean, all I can say is that malpractice insurance costs can run as high as $175,000 per year in some specialties in many states. Now why is that? It's because people tend to sue when there is a bad outcome even though the risks and complications are explained to the patient and they sign a legal document saying so-informed consent! I'm not saying that Dr's should not be sued, but it should be for gross neglegance, not for bad outcomes.

Also, defensive medicine is practiced by every Dr. Hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions are spent daily across the country in defensive medicine. All Dr's are scared of being sued!

As far as expert witnesses go. Many are not impatial and they are getting paid large sums of money to testify. Both the plantiff and defendent can always find expert witnesses to disagree with one another. And tell me, who decides who is an expert witness? In you are residency trained in an area of medicine then we are all expert witnesses.

[JSE]

Let me just relate my exerience as a lawyer who represents plaintiffs in personal injury, wrongful death, and workers' comp cases.

During my 12 years of practice in a 3-man family firm, we have counseled many, many individuals who have complained of the medical care either they or a deceased loved one received. In the vast majority of those instances the "bad outcome" (either death or injury) was a known risk of the procedure or a result of the condition for which they were treated. Some of the complaints had more to do with the doctor's poor bedside manner. In such instances, filing a lawsuit would be plain STUPID! A lawyer would not only risk the great expense of taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit, but also risk his/her license to practice law.

Of those many people whom we've counseled, I recall maybe a half-dozen that had a valid claim. Of those, we proceeded with only two by ourselves. Of those two, we won one at trial and lost the other prior to trial because we could not get our expert (from Duke University) to follow our state's strict and highly technical rules on affidavits of experts in medical malpractice cases in a timely manner. (We still paid her for the work she did.) The others were referred to larger firms that could afford to carry the expenses of medical malpractice lawsuits which generally cost anywhere from $85,000 to $150,000. The reason for the high cost is that a plaintiff must hire an expert who is a doctor in the same field as the defendant doctor who will testify as to the standard of care that the defendant doctor should have followed, that the defendant doctor failed to follow or breached that standard of care and that failure or breach caused the death or injury. These "experts" are rarely local and usually come from university settings or from highly regarded hospitals or clinics.

Almost all 50 states have enacted some form of medical malpractice tort reform since the mid 1980s. An estimated 98,000 people die from medical errors in this country every year. Only approximately 3% of total annual health care costs can be attributed to expenses associated with medical malpractice lawsuits.

Admittedly, medical malpractice is not a large part of my practice. Nevertheless, as I see it, there is no medical malpractice lawsuit abuse.

I can agree with just about everything the last part. You firm is just one of thousands and thousands. You may counsel your potential clients on the merits of a possible suit and even advise against filing but many firm file everything and work on a volume philosophy. Sue everyone and everything for what ever they can get, big or small. My wife works for a company that handles medical malpractie suits for medical groups, doctor groups, hospitals, insurance companies and even nurses all over the US. She has a very broad view of suits filed in pretty much every state and at every level of the medical field. Many/most of the suits she handles have very little or no merit. Many are filed with the hopes of a settlement in order to avoid a costly trial with all the expenses you mentioned above. You estimate on the cost of a trial above is dead on. The problem is, merit or not, when a suit is settled the doctor in most cases is reported to a medical review board/agency (can't remember the actual organization, you probably know it). Any potential insurer will have this information and will adjust premiums accordingly. Accordingly meaning to increase them. There are a lot of very good doctors out there that have been sued numerous times and can barely afford the malpractice insurance. Many of them did nothing wrong.

[JSE]

As far as expert witnesses go. Many are not impatial and they are getting paid large sums of money to testify. Both the plantiff and defendent can always find expert witnesses to disagree with one another. And tell me, who decides who is an expert witness? In you are residency trained in an area of medicine then we are all expert witnesses.


You are absolutely right. Both sides can and do always find a doctor/expert to say anything you want him/her to say.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are way off base here. Believe me, hospital administrators and ER physicains are worried. (just look at the flu epidemic that hit this year and years past, we were seeing about 50 more people a day and the ER's were over crowded with 6-12 hour waits due to patients that mostly did not need to be there.) Now more people will go to the doctor for minor complaints and they will end up in the ER because family medicine will not be able to handle the influx of patients that would have normally waited it out and got better. Legistlators know of the potential impact but they don't really want to talk about it because there is no short term solution. It will take 20-30 years to remedy this problem. It first needs to start with public education, especially in grade school, all the way through college. We need to teach peolpe what to do for fevers, colds, diarrhia, aches and pains, etc., and when they truley need to go to the Dr. Years ago people waited things out and most got better. Now people are ignorant of how to take care of themselves and are scared. The media doesnt help either.

And as far as medical school costs, the government should pay for it if they are calling health care a god given right!

I've have talk about this issue ad naseum with a good friend of mine who is a higher up for Sutter Health. He has never mentioned this as being an issue, but he has mentioned others.


For me, this is a wait and see, because the way things were, it is just not morally acceptable on any level. I would rather see us fix that problem, than to watch the insurance companies expliot, and lead people to personal bankrupcy with their practices.

[Feanor]

You are way off base here. Believe me, hospital administrators and ER physicains are worried. (just look at the flu epidemic that hit this year and years past, we were seeing about 50 more people a day and the ER's were over crowded with 6-12 hour waits due to patients that mostly did not need to be there.) Now more people will go to the doctor for minor complaints and they will end up in the ER because family medicine will not be able to handle the influx of patients that would have normally waited it out and got better. Legistlators know of the potential impact but they don't really want to talk about it because there is no short term solution. It will take 20-30 years to remedy this problem. It first needs to start with public education, especially in grade school, all the way through college. We need to teach peolpe what to do for fevers, colds, diarrhia, aches and pains, etc., and when they truley need to go to the Dr. Years ago people waited things out and most got better. Now people are ignorant of how to take care of themselves and are scared. The media doesnt help either.

And as far as medical school costs, the government should pay for it if they are calling health care a god given right!
As I explained ... the situation is the same in Canada with respect to people going to their doctor, clinics, or the ER with every hang-nail. But somehow we cope up here an our cost per capita is 40% of what it is down there and we have as good healthcare outcomes.

You guys will work it out and it won't take 20 years. And believe this: Americans will NEVER ACCEPT to go back to market-driven system once they've gotten past the initial FUD.

[dean_martin]

As far as expert witnesses go. Many are not impatial and they are getting paid large sums of money to testify. Both the plantiff and defendent can always find expert witnesses to disagree with one another. And tell me, who decides who is an expert witness? In you are residency trained in an area of medicine then we are all expert witnesses.

I wanted to address this topic of experts. To answer your specific question "who decides who is an expert witness", the legislatures of the several states set out the general qualifications of expert witnesses in medical liability cases. I agree with the general premise that either side can hire an expert to say almost anything and a lot of experts have really turned my stomach (for which I thought I might need a doctor), but none of those cases were medical liability cases. In medical liability cases, as I've said before, tort reform has tamed the wild west. Almost every state has enacted medical liability reform since the mid 80s under the premise that medical liabilitiy insurance premiums would go down. However, in 100% of those states that enacted this legislation, medical liability insurance premiums have gone UP! I've got quotes from insurance lobbyists who have said after winning passage, "We never promised that rates would go down."

Here's my state's statute on experts in medical liability cases (it's probably a little more complex than you imagined):

Burden of proof; reasonable care as similarly situated health care provider; no evidence admitted of medical liability insurance.
(a) In any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by substantial evidence that the health care provider failed to exercise such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated health care providers in the same general line of practice ordinarily have and exercise in a like case.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, if the health care provider whose breach of the standard of care is claimed to have created the cause of action is not certified by an appropriate American board as being a specialist, is not trained and experienced in a medical specialty, or does not hold himself or herself out as a specialist, a "similarly situated health care provider" is one who meets all of the following qualifications:

(1) Is licensed by the appropriate regulatory board or agency of this or some other state.

(2) Is trained and experienced in the same discipline or school of practice.

(3) Has practiced in the same discipline or school of practice during the year preceding the date that the alleged breach of the standard of care occurred.

(c) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, if the health care provider whose breach of the standard of care is claimed to have created the cause of action is certified by an appropriate American board as a specialist, is trained and experienced in a medical specialty, and holds himself or herself out as a specialist, a "similarly situated health care provider" is one who meets all of the following requirements:

(1) Is licensed by the appropriate regulatory board or agency of this or some other state.

(2) Is trained and experienced in the same specialty.

(3) Is certified by an appropriate American board in the same specialty.

(4) Has practiced in this specialty during the year preceding the date that the alleged breach of the standard of care occurred.

(d) Notwithstanding any provision of the Alabama Rules of Evidence to the contrary, no evidence shall be admitted or received, whether of a substantive nature or for impeachment purposes, concerning the medical liability insurance, or medical insurance carrier, or any interest in an insurer that insures medical or other professional liability, of any witness presenting testimony as a "similarly situated health care provider" under the provisions of this section or of any defendant. The limits of liability insurance coverage available to a health care provider shall not be discoverable in any action for injury or damages or wrongful death, whether in contract or tort, against a health care provider for an alleged breach of the standard of care.

(e) The purpose of this section is to establish a relative standard of care for health care providers. A health care provider may testify as an expert witness in any action for injury or damages against another health care provider based on a breach of the standard of care only if he or she is a "similarly situated health care provider" as defined above. It is the intent of the Legislature that in the event the defendant health care provider is certified by an appropriate American board or in a particular specialty and is practicing that specialty at the time of the alleged breach of the standard of care, a health care provider may testify as an expert witness with respect to an alleged breach of the standard of care in any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death against another health care provider only if he or she is certified by the same American board in the same specialty.