2004 Presidential Election

[JeffKnob]

Why is it that everybody here can come up with a defense for the actions of our president but our president can't?

Everytime new information comes out clearly proving that Bush screwed up he comes up with some other reason. It is exactly the same reaction has when they have been lying about something and get caught; they come up with another lie to protect themselves. It is obvious to half of this country.

We went to Iraq because there was intelligence that said that Saddam was a threat. There is now proof (I am not going to bother to cite it because it is all over the place) that Saddam didn't have any of the things we went in to find. Why won't Bush just say our intelligence was wrong and we shouldn't have gone in?

I don't understand why the republicans insist that Kerry is going to pull out of Iraq immediately. That has never been said. Both Bush and Kerry have very similar plans for Iraq a this point. Kerry is just going to actually get the plans going. Bush doesn't seem to be implementing any plans. This is how Kerry is going to get us out earlier.

As for the economy, I have been hearing that tax cuts are what helps our economy. What doesn't make sense is if you cut taxes, there is less money in the budget, if there is less money, then you must spend more. If you cut taxes, don't spend more!!! It is common sense that each person in America uses in their private lives but for some reason half of America thinks it is ok for the goverment to spend spend spend!!!

I just registered and voted yesterday. I am in a swing state, WI, so my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

[Resident Loser]

...had I not mentioned "lawyer" we wouldn't be having this exchange...LOL

"Alexander Hamilton - lawyer"

Three cheers for Aaron Burr! Was AH an early version of Bubba in a powdered wig? Was Maria Reynolds HIS Ms. Lewinsky?

"John Jay - lawyer"

Ifn yer gonna' be a judge and write treaties an' all I suppose ya gotsta be one...

"John Adams - lawyer"

The first "professional" Politician? May have spawned the concept of politcal "dynasty" with JQ.

"Thomas Jefferson - well-read in law and studied law"

TJ was a polymath...Well-versed in many things...Can't fault him for wanting to learn...I certainly wouldn't hold it against him...

"James Madison - well-read in law and studied law"

In order to play the game you must be conversant with the rules...he(and others) advocated limited power for the federal government...

And re: "changing horses"...I'll pose the same question I have in the past...Do you think 9/11 was contrived over scones with clotted cream at high tea on the tenth...Wanna' get into our support for those who occupy Palestinian lands and the self-serving reasons behind it?

BTW, "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoudrel" Samuel Adams, second cousin to John...well known essayist, lexicographer, biographer and all-around pithy wit...simply his opinion. I prefer Ben Franklin's quote of "F@rt proudly"

jimHJJ(...a nice raspberry tort with some Earl Grey would be loverly 'bout now!...)

[dean_martin]

.

BTW, "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoudrel" Samuel Adams, second cousin to John...well known essayist, lexicographer, biographer and all-around pithy wit...simply his opinion. I prefer Ben Franklin's quote of "F@rt proudly"

jimHJJ(...a nice raspberry tort with some Earl Grey would be loverly 'bout now!...)

Excellent, RL! I thought it was Samuel Johnson, the English literary giant of whom my English Lit prof said would despise anyone for using two-ply, cottony soft toilet paper to wipe their ass. I never quite figured that one out.

[JSE]

As for the economy, I have been hearing that tax cuts are what helps our economy. What doesn't make sense is if you cut taxes, there is less money in the budget, if there is less money, then you must spend more. If you cut taxes, don't spend more!!! It is common sense that each person in America uses in their private lives but for some reason half of America thinks it is ok for the goverment to spend spend spend!!!

I just registered and voted yesterday. I am in a swing state, WI, so my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

JSE

[piece-it pete]

He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

A soldier does his job. That job is NOT decided by him. The minute soldiers are allowed, or worse yet encouraged by fifth column elements here at home to insubordination our effectiveness as a fighting force is finished and we will be put down by our enemies.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes?

Here I am!

Bushs' appearance on the aircraft carrier was twofold - congratulating our boys on a job well done - which it was - and marking the transition from invasion to occupation - which it was.

Ask any graduate of West Point if a war can be won without ground troops. Pushbutton war is a myth loved by folks who cannot face the fact that troops get shot and bombed, or are duped by people, earnestly or deceictfully, telling them it would work.

I do not like it. I ferverently wish it were not so. But those boys are heros whether or not the war is "justified" - they die doing their duty.

Quote?

When, in spite of all efforts to avoid it, a republic must go to war, the focus of the nation is temporarily changed. The President, as Commander-In-Chief, assumes the extraordinary powers necessary to conduct the all-out effort. Citizens and legislators must then put aside differences and unite against the common enemy. Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy.

Jefferson
_______

Presenting an united front to the enemy. What a concept.

That said, I have always believed that, if we are truly free we will, no, we MUST discuss the things that matter to us collectively, and foreign deployment of troops surely rank high:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may.

Mark Twain
___________

Pete

[FLZapped]

So, you've bought in totally to this propaganda of half truths spewed forth from the mouths of people who weren't there and snippets of testimony and lines from books taken out of context. What is a young man to do? He goes off to war with no real goal or objective yet he kills and is shot at just like those who fought with an objective. He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes? There's one about "patriotism" that I think, unfortunately, fits about half the country.

Speaking about propaganda and twisting the truth. Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.

And get over this shut-up and salute BS, that is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated. A shallow argument when one has no answers.

Can you deny what Kerry is doing on the cover of his book? Can you?
Read the book and read his testimonial transcripts, they are all available.

And in case you didn't know. Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it. Did yo know that one of his Purple Hearts was denied? He was only sucessful in getting it when his upper command structure changed. Did you know that in his own diary that he admitted to causing his own injury for one of the purple hearts he applied for?

Then with all this great experience he had, including tha infamous Christmas in Cambodia event etched in his memory, he can clearly tell congress of all these autrocities he saw. More BS. The guy is a communist sympathizing socialist who will do and say anything to promote himself.

Can you explain his bizarre voting record between the two gulf wars? Can you? Can you explain how he will build better aliances, when he called the current one the "bribed and coerced"? Can you?

Can you deny his congressional voting record? It goes completely counter to his campaign rehtoric.

-Bruce

[dean_martin]

Right, and Edwards, using junk science, sued a bunch of obstetricians in his area and caused them to change the way they did deliveries. They were forced, because of Edwards suits, to do only C-Sectons, which are more dangerous to the mother and the baby, increases hospital time and drives up medical costs.


Made him millions, enough to buy three houses. Another man of the people.

-Bruce

What case are you talking about? Are you expecting us to believe that there's not a single natural child birth in North Carolina? The ONLY way to prove medical malpractice is to first establish the standard of care in the medical community for the procedure at issue (standards set by the medical community itself) and second prove that the particular doctor or medical care provider breached that standard. It's a difficult hurdle. I'm not sure of the case or cases you are talking about, but I think it has to do with certain aspects of child delivery causing cerebral palsy. I know that this has become a controversial issue in the medical community, but I believe the controversey arose after this case with new studies. In other words, Edwards' position may have been substantiated in the medical community, i.e., medical literature, at the time of the lawsuit(s). Should the parents give the money back?

As to your second point, would you deprive John Edwards of prospering and living the American Dream because he's a lawyer, or would you rather those privileges be preserved to the Ken Lays, or perhaps there's just a hint of petty jealousy?

[Resident Loser]

...it WAS Samuel Johnson...but, even on the 'net, if you say something and seem to have a certain amount of conviction about it, you can present practically anything and have folks believe it...and he wasn't second cousin to Adams, but he was all the other things I mentioned.

And my faux-pas wasn't intentional...It was my own blatant error and I apologize for it.

jimHJJ(...a thousand pardons affendi...)

[FLZapped]

What case are you talking about? Are you expecting us to believe that there's not a single natural child birth in North Carolina? The ONLY way to prove medical malpractice is to first establish the standard of care in the medical community for the procedure at issue (standards set by the medical community itself) and second prove that the particular doctor or medical care provider breached that standard. It's a difficult hurdle. I'm not sure of the case or cases you are talking about, but I think it has to do with certain aspects of child delivery causing cerebral palsy. I know that this has become a controversial issue in the medical community, but I believe the controversey arose after this case with new studies. In other words, Edwards' position may have been substantiated in the medical community, i.e., medical literature, at the time of the lawsuit(s). Should the parents give the money back?

As to your second point, would you deprive John Edwards of prospering and living the American Dream because he's a lawyer, or would you rather those privileges be preserved to the Ken Lays, or perhaps there's just a hint of petty jealousy?

I have no problem with Edwards making an honest living....honest, key word.....

However, he changed the face of medicine in his area. Many doctors left or refused to do child birth and those that remained changed the way they functioned. His actions mad health care for pregnant women in his area almost impossible to get and when they could it was much more expensive. He didn't just sue the doctor, he sued anyone he could name, the hospital, the nurses, the bookeeper....

As far as I'm concerned, he's just a slick talking scumbag. But Edwards can't be held totally accounable here; it's also people who think they are entitled to soemthing because life isn't fair. Well guess what, it never was. No one is born with a warranty agreement attached to their big toe.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20040120a.html

http://www.newaus.com.au/041207johnedwards.html

-Bruce

[dean_martin]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20040120a.html

http://www.newaus.com.au/041207johnedwards.html

-Bruce

Give it up Bruce, both of these "journalists" had to admit that cerebral palsy can be caused by the negligence of the delivering doctor, but they cite studies that show that it's less prevalent than once believed. They both admit that you have to make the determination on a case-by-case basis which is what our civil justice system and our right to trial by jury in civil cases is all about. So, you don't like trial lawyers? I can live with that, but here in America we impanel jurors to decide complex issues that the parties can't agree on themselves. If you don't like the system, then vote for Bush - he'll get rid of it for you.

[FLZapped]

Give it up Bruce, both of these "journalists" had to admit that cerebral palsy can be caused by the negligence of the delivering doctor, but they cite studies that show that it's less prevalent than once believed. They both admit that you have to make the determination on a case-by-case basis which is what our civil justice system and our right to trial by jury in civil cases is all about. So, you don't like trial lawyers? I can live with that, but here in America we impanel jurors to decide complex issues that the parties can't agree on themselves. If you don't like the system, then vote for Bush - he'll get rid of it for you.

While you fail to admit that it wasn't thought to be very prevelent in the first place.

Trial lawyers have their place, greedy, dishonest one, don't and give the profession a bad name.

As far as the election goes, at least with Bush I know his stance. Kerry has been on all sides of the issues, except maybe abortion, throughout the campaign. Even Imus couldn't figure him out.

-Bruce

[piece-it pete]

Why is it that everybody here can come up with..... my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

Jeff, congratulations! You've fulfilled the first duty of an American citizen. I'm for everyone voting, even if they're - WRONG!!



It does give a feeling, don't it? And in the face of the last elections' close results there can be no disputing that one vote matters.

I will say again that Kerry saw the same evidence that Bush did and voted FOR the action. Even though there is no WMD found there is also no doubt that Saddam "would've if he could've" - and in the face of diminishing support for sanctions and massive UN corruption it was only a matter of time. That plus many other reasons to take him out. Osama is only important for morale reasons - keep your eye on the big picture.

Kerry stated CLEARLY he has a four year plan to withdraw. Good thing we didn't do this in Japan, or Germany, or South Korea. Remember that the potential payoff from Iraq is huge!! Poll after poll shows at least 60% of Iraqis are afraid we will leave TOO EARLY - if our operation is a success, and so far has been! - WE, the hated crusaders, will be responsible for the freedom of Iraq.

Isn't this something to be proud of?

Don't you think this will help address the "root causes" so glibly used to justify the attacks?

Tax cuts are a proven method of recession relief, and defict spending has been a Democrat recession mantra for many decades, conveniently forgotten now. Remember, a tax dollar is a dollar I can't spend, and only the most ardent socialists believe the gov't spends more efficently that the private sector, particularly in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. Do you have any experience dealing with the gov't? I fill out tax forms myself every year. What a convoluted mess.

Let's give them our health care, currently the best in the world. THEY'LL make it better.

And Kerry is going to BALANCE the budget?! lol. Look to recent history - his voting record and public statements.

Pete

PS Again, welcome to the club. Viva le Republic!

Oops, that's French .

[FLZapped]

Here, see if you can figure this one out:

I have my view, and my view is my view. I can't tell you in 20 years or whenever, if
someone made a persuasive argument, the world changes. ... So I
don't predict the future. What I tell you is that my position
is what it is." --John Kerry

[dean_martin]

Speaking about propaganda and twisting the truth. Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.

And get over this shut-up and salute BS, that is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated. A shallow argument when one has no answers.

Can you deny what Kerry is doing on the cover of his book? Can you?
Read the book and read his testimonial transcripts, they are all available.

And in case you didn't know. Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it. Did yo know that one of his Purple Hearts was denied? He was only sucessful in getting it when his upper command structure changed. Did you know that in his own diary that he admitted to causing his own injury for one of the purple hearts he applied for?

Then with all this great experience he had, including tha infamous Christmas in Cambodia event etched in his memory, he can clearly tell congress of all these autrocities he saw. More BS. The guy is a communist sympathizing socialist who will do and say anything to promote himself.

Can you explain his bizarre voting record between the two gulf wars? Can you? Can you explain how he will build better aliances, when he called the current one the "bribed and coerced"? Can you?

Can you deny his congressional voting record? It goes completely counter to his campaign rehtoric.

-Bruce

First, I wouldn't call what Kerry did weasling. My father applied for OCS with the Navy just before he got his draft order from the Army where he surely would have been a frontline junior officer in Vietnam. The Navy wanted him so they got him. (No strings pulled - my dad was the first in his family to go to college. His father was a logger. He continued to use oxen into the early '60s. He didn't know anyone of any influence.) Second, although I have no military experience, it has always been my impression that it's crazy to go in as an enlisted man if you have a college degree and can go in as an officer.

If he got his Purple Heart then it may have been initially denied, but it wasn't denied. You don't answer the question WHY. Of course that's a time-tested tactic.

NO, you get over this we can't question our commander-in-chief BS, while there's still a First Amendment. Read it sometime. No answers? To what question? I'm the one asking the questions. What the hell are we doing in Iraq? I mean right now.

Who has John Kerry's personal diary available for viewing? I couldn't pick out which one was Kerry on the cover of that book. I have no desire to relive the Vietnam era. Believe me, you're candidate doesn't want to either. I hope you noticed that I didn't go after Bush for his "service". My impression was that Kerry, in his testimony to Congress, was careful to point out that most of the autrocities he laid out were based on testimonials from other soldiers.

Anyhow, that was a messy time. Kerry playing up his own heroics (you let others do that for you, like he did in Iowa during the primaries), the controversial swift boat ads, etc. are turn-offs for me. I don't even put much stock into bashing Bush's military record. What these people did during the Vietnam era just demonstrates how different people deal with complicated, life or death issues at a particular time. To call these decisions right or wrong is unfair unless you can back it up with an official, contemporaneous finding of guilt. They don't send one to hell and the other to heaven. AND, I don't believe what we've heard so far disqualifies one for President. Some may. Because I'm not defending Kerry's military record, doesn't mean I'm conceding that his service was dishonorable. There's certainly no basis for such a charge. It seems to me that some (and I can't get a grasp on who they are) are pissed about what Kerry did AFTER he returned from Vietnam. To make their case stronger, they've subsequently tried to tarnish his service record. For me, so long as the military was satisfied with his service, I have no problems. I've yet to hear of an official contemporaneous report that criticized Kerry's service. The rest of the mess has more to do with how one feels and is therefore highly subjective.

I can't explain Kerry's vote on the first Gulf War. I think I know that on the second war he was voting to give the President authority to use force with the assumption that the President would follow the UN process to its conclusion, would go in as a last resort and would plan carefully.

After the damage Bush has done, I'm not sure how Kerry is going to build better alliances, but I do know that he's polling much better in traditional European allied countries.

Finally, how do you defend or even taut a 20 year Senate record? If there's something to vote on that you have no interest in you don't have to be there. If there's something to vote on that you are interested in, but you know there are enough votes going your way, you don't have to show up. The people of Massachusetts trusted him. They kept sending him back. He didn't just crawl out from under a rock. Where have all these highly personal attacks been for the last 20 years? What is it about his 20 year record, other than the votes on the 2 Gulf Wars, you don't like?

Hell, man, vote for Bush already! I'll vote for Kerry! The only test is whether we still consider each other Americans afterwards (as opposed to a "communist sympathizing socialist" - what is that anyhow? A socialist who really aspires to be a communist? A left-leaning socialist? Who does a socialist sympathize with these days?)

[piece-it pete]

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE

Under Governor Bush, Texas led the way in making it harder for ordinary
citizens to get their day in court. What can we expect if the
corporate-backed "tort reform" movement succeeds in its dream: spreading
Lone Star justice across America?

By Stephanie Mencimer
SPECIAL TO FACING SOUTH/SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

On June 23, 1999, 24-year-old Juan Martinez and his uncle Jose Inez Rangel
were hydro-testing a ........... To see a full copy of this story and additional information, visit:
www.southernstudies.org

#

Stephanie Mencimer was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her
reporting in The Washington Monthly on the battle over medical malpractice
and tort reform. She is the author of "The Price of Confession," which
appeared in the Fall/Winter 2003/2004 edition of Southern Exposure. Funding
for this story was provided by the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the Fund
for Investigative Journalism, and will appear in the upcoming edition of
Southern Exposure magazine.

Well I guess we don't need to continue the previous thread!

I was feeling good about this article BUT found that this is another extremely left individual. Articles and books she has authored include biotech food scare books (the legal professions' next target?), how Orrin Hatch helped kids buy drugs, global warming, why SUV drivers are jerks (better tell Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he drives the gigantic Escalade), etc.

I really can't take these tort reform articles to heart until I see supporting evidence from a more middle-of-the-road type individual or organisation. Forgive me for the jab, but there is so far basis in fact: are ALL legal apologists lefties?

Pete

BTW, this just in: Latest Wash. Post poll has Bush gaining a slightly larger lead at 51% to 46%.

[Resident Loser]

...it all depends on "what your definition of is, is"

jimHJJ(...can't hit a movin' target...)

[dean_martin]

[QUOTE=piece-it pete]A soldier does his job. That job is NOT decided by him. The minute soldiers are allowed, or worse yet encouraged by fifth column elements here at home to insubordination our effectiveness as a fighting force is finished and we will be put down by our enemies.



Here I am!

Bushs' appearance on the aircraft carrier was twofold - congratulating our boys on a job well done - which it was - and marking the transition from invasion to occupation - which it was.

Ask any graduate of West Point if a war can be won without ground troops. Pushbutton war is a myth loved by folks who cannot face the fact that troops get shot and bombed, or are duped by people, earnestly or deceictfully, telling them it would work.

I do not like it. I ferverently wish it were not so. But those boys are heros whether or not the war is "justified" - they die doing their duty.


Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue. But, the implication (even direct charge) from some is that Kerry did something wrong in his service because they didn't like what he did when he returned. This is simply wrong! The military makes this decision or finding and there has been none. In fact, the military was officially pleased with his service.

In contrast, an example of the insubordination issue I believe you are talking about is the recent reservist unit's decision not to take its convoy into combat areas, apparently contrary to direct orders.

Bush's appearance on the aircraft carrier can only be described as a "transition from invasion to occupation" in hindsight. The administration was running from the word "occupation" at every turn. I believe back then that the correct buzzword was "reconstruction". I'm sure the white house website has the speech. I think I've seen it but haven't reviewed it. I simply know the impression I was left with.

Can a Kerry supporter actually be proud of our troops? That's a funny question, but unfortunately that's the way the issue has been framed. If you're not voting for Bush, if you're questioning Bush's decisions or his administration's decisions, then you're not supporting the troops. However, you can support the troops if you're a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.

[dean_martin]

Well I guess we don't need to continue the previous thread!

I was feeling good about this article BUT found that this is another extremely left individual. Articles and books she has authored include biotech food scare books (the legal professions' next target?), how Orrin Hatch helped kids buy drugs, global warming, why SUV drivers are jerks (better tell Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he drives the gigantic Escalade), etc.

I really can't take these tort reform articles to heart until I see supporting evidence from a more middle-of-the-road type individual or organisation. Forgive me for the jab, but there is so far basis in fact: are ALL legal apologists lefties?

Pete

BTW, this just in: Latest Wash. Post poll has Bush gaining a slightly larger lead at 51% to 46%.

Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with personal stories (and some biased leanings), but if you want cold hard numbers about the medical malpractice liability "crisis" myth:

President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits
Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.

January 29, 2004
Modified:January 29, 2004
Summary



The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.


Analysis



In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year.

Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.

But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.”

“In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said.

What the President Said

In his Little Rock speech the President blamed baseless lawsuits for a big part of rising medical costs:

One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits. The risk of frivolous litigation drives doctors -- and hear me out on this -- they drive doctors to prescribe drugs and procedures that may not be necessary, just to avoid lawsuits. That's called the defensive practice of medicine.

. . . . See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse.

The defensive practice of medicine affects the federal budget. The direct cost of liability insurance and the indirect cost from unnecessary medical procedures raise the federal government's health care costs by at least $28 billion a year.

What HHS Said

The President was relying on a paper issued last year by an assistant secretary of HHS which said “The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every American.”

The HHS report put the cost of malpractice insurance to doctors alone at $6.3 billion in 2002, but said much larger costs come from "defensive medicine":

Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.

That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits.

The Kessler-McClellan conclusion:

We find that malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. We conclude that liability reforms can reduce defensive medical practices.

The Kessler-McClellan study won the 1997 American Economics Association’s award in health economics.

However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.

Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”

What GAO and CBO Said

CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere.

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:

Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.

When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.


Sources



President George W. Bush, " President Bush Calls for Medical Liability Reform : Remarks by the President on Medical Liability" Baptist Health Medical Center, Little Rock , Arkansas 26 Jan. 2004.

U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation " Confronting the New Health Care Crisis : Improving Health Care Quality and Lowering Costs By Fixing Our Medical Liability System" 24 July 2003.

Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan, "Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1996: 353-390.

Perry Beider and Stuart Hagen “ Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice ” Congressional Budget Office 8 Jan. 2004.

US General Accounting Office “ Medical Malpractice : Effect of Varying Laws in the District of Columbia , Maryland and Virginia ” 15 Oct 1999.


U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.

[JeffKnob]

Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

JSE

I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? We have a fund-raisers like selling candy bars or have all the Senators come out and we can have a car wash? It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy. It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. As AMERICANS we should be willing to make sacrifices to help the good of our country, especially in a time of war. I am willing to pay a little more taxes to support our troops. To make sure they are getting the equipment they need AND to have a country that can fund the war as it is happening. That is my way of contributing to the War on Terror and to supporting our troops. By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles.

I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you. For your knowledge I have watched all 4 debates and read many articles from many sources. After each debate I have checked all of the facts on both sides to get the whole truth because everybody should know that BOTH candidates swing the truth in their favor. Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. This decision may not be the same as yours but that is what makes America great!

[JSE]

"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "

The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.

"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."

Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?

My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.

"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."

Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.

"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "

How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?

" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."

Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.

"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."

I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.

"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "

Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".


JSE

[JeffKnob]

"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "

The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.

"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."

Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?

My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.

"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."

Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.

"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "

How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?

" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."

Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.

"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."

I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.

"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "

Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".


JSE

The surplus was real. At least that is what Bush said himself.

I guess you are just one of those drones that just accepts whatever the president says as the truth. It has been proven many many times that he has lied to all of us. When he is caught he just fabricates another lie to coverup.

Facts are facts. If you have an opinion that contradicts them then that is your opinion. I guess if my thoughts don't fall in line with your opinion then they must be uneducated. Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.

[JSE]

Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.

Hey, at least your making one good decision.

I'm off to watch my Stros beat the hell out of the Cards.

Later,

JSR

[piece-it pete]

Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue....... a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.[/QUOTE]

Dean,

Well Kerry's a darn site better than Kusinich!! So we can count our blessings (if that's still allowed!).

I'm afraid I misunderstood the reference to the soldiers, I didn't realise you were discussing Kerry specifically.

In a head-to-head comparison with military service, I believe Kerry did the more honorable (far more honorable) thing originally. That's a fact. I believe he probably fought to the best of his ability. That's more or less guessing. His later actions are deplorable. That's a fact. Pretending to throw his metals, pandering to the anti-war crowd, this is demagogery at its worst.

His service wouldn't be such an issue, except HE made it one, and no wonder - when it comes to National Defense it's all he's got. After 20 years in Congress all he's got is - a history of gutting the Armed Services. And the intelligence services.

And these facts are there for all the world to see, whether or not he'll fight unfettered doesn't matter, he'll be perceived as weaker than Bush because of these facts.

Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless . True.

I won't say Kerry supporters are un-American. I'll let others do it.

Just kidding! Couldn't resist.

Cons see libs as destroying America. Libs see cons as doing the same thing. Who's right? It'll sound unimaginative, but quite frankly *right now* we need STRENGTH in foreign policy, like we haven't needed since the end of the cold war. We are GOING to take casualties in this war, and war it is. Win through covert ops? Who're these people kidding? Yep, Syria's going to say, "Come on in, shoot our citizens! Have at it!" Not going to happen. Well, it'll happen (it BETTER be happening!) but it's not going to win this fight, it's not going to take the place of ground troops shooting people and being shot at.

We show weakness, perceived or real, and more of our boys will die needlessly. We need to be respected, and strength will EARN it, not loved, love/kindness/softness will not stop these hateful people. Let them whine and complain. We've got a job to do, to protect ourselves.

Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Dang it, Pete! Here you go.......... Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.

Hey, that's great!

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Lots going on in this thread: And in this corner....

lol. Have a great evening!

Pete

PS I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Red Socks!!

[dean_martin]

Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.

Pete

Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!

I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?