State of the Union

[dean_martin]

I'm not sure whether it's me or what, but when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something. VP Cheney's smirk (which looks like an evil grin) in the background doesn't help either. It's not every controversial topic, but there are a select few on which he looks like he doesn't really believe the reasons or grounds for taking the position he's taking.

Do you remember the Clinton nose-touching analyses? Supposedly, these preeminent psychologists examined his facial expressions, body language and voice inflections during several speeches/press conferences and were able to determine when he was lying based on non-verbal cues.

I guess the democrats just aren't innovative/creative/devious enough to sponsor such a study on Pres. Bush.

I also remember when the national debt and budget deficits were huge moral topics addressed by many of the moral majority. From the "where are they now" files - James Dobson's outing Sponge Bob and I'm not sure what Falwell and the John Birch Society are up to. But reducing the national debt takes money out of the pockets of the Rockefellers and other international bankers. I guess we're taking them to raise.

I got a chill when Pres. Bush called out Iran. Are we heading there next?

There were some positives in the speech. Just thought I would stir things up a bit.

[Justlisten2]

I'm not sure whether it's me or what, but when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something. VP Cheney's smirk (which looks like an evil grin) in the background doesn't help either. It's not every controversial topic, but there are a select few on which he looks like he doesn't really believe the reasons or grounds for taking the position he's taking.

He just can't believe people would buy what he's saying.
He's getting away with murder and loots of money. I'd have a funny smile too.

I got a chill when Pres. Bush called out Iran. Are we heading there next?

I get a chill anytime he opens his mouth.
If not Iran, Korea or some other country to exploit.
Gotta keep Halliburton stock up.
After all, one must have one's priorities straight.

[jeskibuff]

He just can't believe people would buy what he's saying.

He's getting away with murder and loots of money. I'd have a funny smile too.

I get a chill anytime he opens his mouth.

If not Iran, Korea or some other country to exploit.

Gotta keep Halliburton stock up.

Keep those anti-Bush fantasies coming! We saw how great those worked for Democrats; the likes of moveon.org, Michael Mooron, Soros, Garofalo, etc. last November!


Once the Democratic Party finds its way out of this insane stupidity it's currently wallowing in, maybe they'll regain some credibility, but I doubt that's going to happen. From what I see out of Teddy Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John F'n Kerry and other of the "liberal intelligensia", it's apparent that Democrats haven't learned their lesson very well. Good luck on those future elections!

[Justlisten2]

Keep those anti-Bush fantasies coming! We saw how great those worked for Democrats; the likes of moveon.org, Michael Mooron, Soros, Garofalo, etc. last November!


Once the Democratic Party finds its way out of this insane stupidity it's currently wallowing in, maybe they'll regain some credibility, but I doubt that's going to happen. From what I see out of Teddy Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John F'n Kerry and other of the "liberal intelligensia", it's apparent that Democrats haven't learned their lesson very well. Good luck on those future elections!

Don't worry, I don't think those Democratic clowns are worth voting for either. That's why I wear a black armband when voting. I know a clown or a crook will be running the country.
The Republican's do a remarkable job of controlling the media, thereby controlling what people think. That last minute tape showing Bin Laden two days before the election was a brilliant tactical manuver. As is the control they have over the media in Iraq, keeping the war off tv so it won't become another Vietnam. The evil empire does an admirable job of fooling the people. It's not hard really, as most of the sheep are easily fooled.

I know folks who aren't rich, but voted Republican anyway. Because 'them Democrats are going to take our guns away.' 'The Dems will kill all the babies', or 'Bush will protect us'. Sheesh, yeah right, as if. He didn't protect us on 9/11, what makes him the 'safety' prez?
I laugh when I see people who've lost their jobs in the Bush economy, vote for him so they can keep their guns safe!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

People are such dumb a$$', and the Republicans do a magnificent job of controlling simple minds. You are either wealthy, or a prime example.

[jeskibuff]

Your cluelessness and ignorance still astounds me, given the fact that you should have gotten a harsh wake-up call to reality last November. It worried me last year when I saw that so many idiots like you blindly followed the moronic leadership of people like Soros and Mooron. But worry no more, as the voice of reason trounced the overamplified voices of fools back then. The silent majority was more powerful than the loudmouthed minority.

Media in the hands of conservatives? Surely you live in fantasyland. How much more proof than Rathergate do you need? Nevermind...no matter what proof is offered, you will ignore it, for you are an ignorant fool of the nth degree.

Yup...continue to spout your idiot theories. We laugh at you now. We have learned that you have no ability to reason, so we no longer want to converse with you. Your conversation has little to no value.

You really have two choices. 1) Continue your current path, in which you and your fellow idiots will continue the downward spiral into insignificance or 2) Take a cold shower in the waters of reality and begin to understand that no one takes an idiot seriously. You don't have credibility. Your theories don't hold water. You have an inability or resistance to grasping truth, probably based on your overwhelming desire to clutch onto your own warped version of reality and to forward your own selfish agenda. Change your ways, get with the program, or continue to be a loser.

It's your choice, but sadly I know that there's little in this world that will cause you to make the wise choice.

Up until recently the U.S. has been a 2-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. People complained that there was no opportunity for others (Reform Party, etc.) to compete. Congratulations! The Dumbocrats have just transformed the U.S. into a 1-party system, as the Dumbocrats have shown that they are absolutely NO COMPETITION and offer no value beyond entertainment. I believe in the value of competition to enhance a product (in this case, political debate), so am somewhat sad that Democrats have self-destructed in this way. Still, better to have them marginalized than to have any sway in our government, given their moronic belief system and total lack of ethics.

[dean_martin]

Your cluelessness and ignorance still astounds me, given the fact that you should have gotten a harsh wake-up call to reality last November. It worried me last year when I saw that so many idiots like you blindly followed the moronic leadership of people like Soros and Mooron. But worry no more, as the voice of reason trounced the overamplified voices of fools back then. The silent majority was more powerful than the loudmouthed minority.

Media in the hands of conservatives? Surely you live in fantasyland. How much more proof than Rathergate do you need? Nevermind...no matter what proof is offered, you will ignore it, for you are an ignorant fool of the nth degree.

Yup...continue to spout your idiot theories. We laugh at you now. We have learned that you have no ability to reason, so we no longer want to converse with you. Your conversation has little to no value.

You really have two choices. 1) Continue your current path, in which you and your fellow idiots will continue the downward spiral into insignificance or 2) Take a cold shower in the waters of reality and begin to understand that no one takes an idiot seriously. You don't have credibility. Your theories don't hold water. You have an inability or resistance to grasping truth, probably based on your overwhelming desire to clutch onto your own warped version of reality and to forward your own selfish agenda. Change your ways, get with the program, or continue to be a loser.

It's your choice, but sadly I know that there's little in this world that will cause you to make the wise choice.

Up until recently the U.S. has been a 2-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. People complained that there was no opportunity for others (Reform Party, etc.) to compete. Congratulations! The Dumbocrats have just transformed the U.S. into a 1-party system, as the Dumbocrats have shown that they are absolutely NO COMPETITION and offer no value beyond entertainment. I believe in the value of competition to enhance a product (in this case, political debate), so am somewhat sad that Democrats have self-destructed in this way. Still, better to have them marginalized than to have any sway in our government, given their moronic belief system and total lack of ethics.

I really don't understand your nastiness. At least Rove and the Bush cronies keep theirs under the table and find creative and not-so-vulgar ways to get what they want. I don't think even the Repubs would want YOU out front as their spokesperson or poster boy. They're much more savvy and devious. We can see/hear you coming from a mile away.

Now that the election is over, it seems that you would tone down your rhetoric. Geez, is Monica Lewinski your sister? Did you have a relative at the Koresh compound? Did you have to register the last firearm you purchased? Did a minority get your job? Am I getting warmer?

[JeffKnob]

Your cluelessness and ignorance still astounds me, given the fact that you should have gotten a harsh wake-up call to reality last November. It worried me last year when I saw that so many idiots like you blindly followed the moronic leadership of people like Soros and Mooron. But worry no more, as the voice of reason trounced the overamplified voices of fools back then. The silent majority was more powerful than the loudmouthed minority.

Media in the hands of conservatives? Surely you live in fantasyland. How much more proof than Rathergate do you need? Nevermind...no matter what proof is offered, you will ignore it, for you are an ignorant fool of the nth degree.

Yup...continue to spout your idiot theories. We laugh at you now. We have learned that you have no ability to reason, so we no longer want to converse with you. Your conversation has little to no value.

You really have two choices. 1) Continue your current path, in which you and your fellow idiots will continue the downward spiral into insignificance or 2) Take a cold shower in the waters of reality and begin to understand that no one takes an idiot seriously. You don't have credibility. Your theories don't hold water. You have an inability or resistance to grasping truth, probably based on your overwhelming desire to clutch onto your own warped version of reality and to forward your own selfish agenda. Change your ways, get with the program, or continue to be a loser.

It's your choice, but sadly I know that there's little in this world that will cause you to make the wise choice.

Up until recently the U.S. has been a 2-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. People complained that there was no opportunity for others (Reform Party, etc.) to compete. Congratulations! The Dumbocrats have just transformed the U.S. into a 1-party system, as the Dumbocrats have shown that they are absolutely NO COMPETITION and offer no value beyond entertainment. I believe in the value of competition to enhance a product (in this case, political debate), so am somewhat sad that Democrats have self-destructed in this way. Still, better to have them marginalized than to have any sway in our government, given their moronic belief system and total lack of ethics.

So by you blindly accepting whatever Bush is telling you and every policy he puts on the table, what would that make you? That would make you clueless and ignorant in my opinion. Try opening up your mind to new things other than what our president tells you. I have met many people that voted for Bush that have told me they wish they had done more research and had gotten the facts about what is going on. They said they would have voted differently, maybe not for a Democrat but not for Bush.

We need a president that will try to represent our whole country, not just the wealthy, white, Christian Fundamentalists. I am Christian but I don't get my jollies by knowing we are attacking other countries. I don't see it as right to condemn homosexuals. I don't see it as right to cut environmental programs. I don't see it as right to be cutting taxes for the rich. They aren't the ones that are struggling to find where their next meal is coming from. Wages in this country are going down and corporate profits are going up. This has happened a lot in the last four years. So much for him being a moral president. I guess it depends on what your morals are.

Bush is just too extreme for me. I really think that some of his ideas are good ones on the surface but his plans to fix them are way too extreme and don't actually solve the real problem.

I realize that this isn't going to affect how you feel about politics in this country. I know you don't care about my views. You have your views and they will stay the same no matter what happens. No body will every enlighten you because aren't willing to accept any other ideas. Go ahead and ignore what I wrote because I am not trying to change your mind. This was mostly for me to get this off my chest.

[bjornb17]

i agree with you 100%, jetskibuff

[piece-it pete]

I'm not sure whether it's me or what, but when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something. VP Cheney's smirk (which looks like an evil grin) in the background doesn't help either. It's not every controversial topic, but there are a select few on which he looks like he doesn't really believe the reasons or grounds for taking the position he's taking.

Do you remember the Clinton nose-touching analyses? Supposedly, these preeminent psychologists examined his facial expressions, body language and voice inflections during several speeches/press conferences and were able to determine when he was lying based on non-verbal cues.

I guess the democrats just aren't innovative/creative/devious enough to sponsor such a study on Pres. Bush.

I also remember when the national debt and budget deficits were huge moral topics addressed by many of the moral majority. From the "where are they now" files - James Dobson's outing Sponge Bob and I'm not sure what Falwell and the John Birch Society are up to. But reducing the national debt takes money out of the pockets of the Rockefellers and other international bankers. I guess we're taking them to raise.

I got a chill when Pres. Bush called out Iran. Are we heading there next?

There were some positives in the speech. Just thought I would stir things up a bit.

Hey you've succeeded lol !

I always watch these speeches, though I'm not sure why anymore - "Our State of the Union is [great/getting better], we [party in power] rule, you drool. Here's why...".

Perhaps I'm getting cynical.

I don't go much by appearance, Clinton sure looked like he understood my pain - but the promised tax cuts never came . Lincoln wouldn't be electable now. And I'm sure the Dems have folks on that giveaway thing, yep.

Bush spoke well, I'd rate it VG (according to Goldmine standards ). That's unusual IMO. The GOP rank-and-filers LOVE him right now (He's better than Reagan!!) but I feel that, now that the GOP has become a "big government" party, the true conservatives are going to end up being just a leetle bit ticked, as actually winning elections is important to the parties (except for the commies and greens, oh yeah and LaRouche lol). Neocons are very powerful now.

See how managamous (sp) I am. I didn't include Democrats in that "winning elections" statement :lmao: ! But that's 'cause they don't belong in that group, as evidenced by how much they've been talking values lately. We'll see how well they sell it.

The real success here is how Bush managed to setup and underline the vote in Iraq. 1st with the inaugural (we are for freedom), then the vote (true vindication - succeed or fail those Iraqis will never forget it), then the State speech. Excellent, true planning, grand strategy. Superb, and the rest of the world knows it.

Which leads to Iran. I'd much rather scare them into compliance than have to fight, and boy should they be scared. And they are. Or stupid - look at Saddam. N. Korea, Syria, etc, they SHOULD think they're "on the list". Far, far better then sending our kids in.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Hey, Pete. After the grueling election season I'm just now regaining my appetite for politics. Talk about burnout! But we've got some important legislation coming up that doesn't get as much air time as keeping the tax cuts permanent or restructuring/privatizing social security. The federalization of all medical negligence cases is being debated. A Congressional hearing was supposed to be held today at which patients injured by medical mistakes and their family members were supposed to be able to speak. An indictment came down today against WR Grace and some of its top officials for hiding information relating to its asbestos mine in Libby, Montana. It's not coincidental that Pres. Bush attacked "frivolous" asbestos claims in his speech.

We have a Federal No-Fault automobile insurance bill co-sponsored by Sen. McCain of all people on the horizon that is mislabeled as a choice for consumers, but if you read the legislation all the favorable choices lie with the auto insurers. Remember, only drunk drivers like no-fault insurance.

GE Protective just petitioned the Texas Dept. of Insurance to increase its rates because it says that Texas' caps on non-economic damages have had no effect on their bottom line. This is happening all over the country in states where insurance companies have won tort reform battles for caps claiming that their rates would either go down or remain steady then after winning they come back and say that lawsuits never had much effect on their rates to begin with. Tort reform was recently defeated in Maryland and there's a huge battle going on in GA right now in which the Texas Insurance Commissioner was invited to speak on the virtues of caps. I don't think he expected GE Protective's application to increase its rates, but the good guys in GA will be ready for him.

Anyhow, it's a never-ending battle to maximize the potential recovery for my clients.

[piece-it pete]

Hey, Pete. After the grueling election season I'm just now regaining my appetite for politics. Talk about burnout! But we've got some important legislation coming up that doesn't get as much air time as keeping the tax cuts permanent or restructuring/privatizing social security. The federalization of all medical negligence cases is being debated. A Congressional hearing was supposed to be held today at which patients injured by medical mistakes and their family members were supposed to be able to speak. An indictment came down today against WR Grace and some of its top officials for hiding information relating to its asbestos mine in Libby, Montana. It's not coincidental that Pres. Bush attacked "frivolous" asbestos claims in his speech.

We have a Federal No-Fault automobile insurance bill co-sponsored by Sen. McCain of all people on the horizon that is mislabeled as a choice for consumers, but if you read the legislation all the favorable choices lie with the auto insurers. Remember, only drunk drivers like no-fault insurance.

GE Protective just petitioned the Texas Dept. of Insurance to increase its rates because it says that Texas' caps on non-economic damages have had no effect on their bottom line. This is happening all over the country in states where insurance companies have won tort reform battles for caps claiming that their rates would either go down or remain steady then after winning they come back and say that lawsuits never had much effect on their rates to begin with. Tort reform was recently defeated in Maryland and there's a huge battle going on in GA right now in which the Texas Insurance Commissioner was invited to speak on the virtues of caps. I don't think he expected GE Protective's application to increase its rates, but the good guys in GA will be ready for him.

Anyhow, it's a never-ending battle to maximize the potential recovery for my clients.

Whoosh!

That's the sound of something going over my head .

I like your last statement though. If I need a lawyer I'll call you!

I do know a bit about the asbestos thing, as I've been in the insulation industry for many years. The vast majority of folks affected by mesothemania were also heavy smokers. I met a couple of these old timers. Horrible disease.

Agreed there were/are some real slimy characters involved in the stuff, and it's still being sold by US and Canadian companies into the third world and developing countries.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth that companies that never sold it are being sued by folks never exposed/sick. My company has passed on a number of otherwise excellent acquisitions because of possible exposure to asbestos liability. So this one issue is causing a big problem for this industry - just about every player has sold asbestos (it is an EXCELLENT insulation/fireproofing product).

Of course I would not knowingly approve of an unConstitutional method of dealing with it . I'll leave it for you guys to figure out!

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.

Interesting that premiums are still going up in those states. What can we do, short of nationalising the insurance industry (shudder)?

Pete

[jeskibuff]

If the reasoning behind Bush's policies just makes sense then enlighten me. Why does Bush's way of tackling these issues just make sense?

First of all, you're not really interested in finding out the truth, or you'd listen more than you jabber. There is little use in trying to explain something to someone who really isn't interested in listening to anything that opposes their ingrained conceptions. Besides, it's more fun shooting down the idiotic theories that liberals come up with as they vainly try to convince everyone that GWB is Stupid Satan.

Second, I'm not about to write a book, and while...
"Social Security
Economy
Gay Rights
Environment
Unemployment"
...may be a collection of a mere 7 words, nobody in their right mind could explain those on an internet message board forum and would be a fool to waste their time doing so, especially to someone like you. You need another reality check.

War in Iraq (the argument on this should be based on the ORIGINAL reason we went)

This subject has been debated for years now. If you haven't got it yet, you never will. Apparently dean_martin has had some enlightenment, which is a good thing:

I do agree with Bush's basic premise that if you bring liberty and freedom to the places of oppression where terrorism breeds, terror won't be able to hold out.

I am dying to know what "common sense" has been or will be applied to these issues. I have been reading about these on my own but I am dying to hear the "sense" from the horse's a$$, oops.....I mean mouth.

It's comments like these which will just keep your status intact as my chew toy. You don't deserve direct responses to your fishing questions because it's obvious that you're not really interested in the truth. All you really want to do is try to explain away someone else's position by implying that they're brainwashed by watching only Fox News.

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.

Pete....shhhhhh!

Now repeat after me, for the benefit of our Democrat fellows:
"Dean is good. Dean holds the future for the Democratic Party. Democrats should follow Dean whereever he leads them."

[JeffKnob]

It is interesting to see that you aren't willing to explain your views to me yet you expect me to explain mine but at the same time even if I did explain mine to you you would never listen. You just find it more fun to use condescending terms and expressions toward me than to actually explain why you feel you are right. I am making an honest effort to hear a real explaination of your views. All I have heard so far is that it is just common sense. I don't feel it is common sense. 49% of the people didn't think it was common sense and a majority of the rest of the world don't think it is common sense. I really want to hear what this common sense is.

You keep stating that I am just falling in to the liberal propoganda. Wouldn't by you saying that the policies of this president are just common sense mean that you are just following the train of the conservative propoganda?

[dean_martin]

I do know a bit about the asbestos thing, as I've been in the insulation industry for many years. The vast majority of folks affected by mesothemania were also heavy smokers. I met a couple of these old timers. Horrible disease.

Agreed there were/are some real slimy characters involved in the stuff, and it's still being sold by US and Canadian companies into the third world and developing countries.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth that companies that never sold it are being sued by folks never exposed/sick. My company has passed on a number of otherwise excellent acquisitions because of possible exposure to asbestos liability. So this one issue is causing a big problem for this industry - just about every player has sold asbestos (it is an EXCELLENT insulation/fireproofing product).

Yes, there are some gravy trainers and with the sheer numbers of injured it's difficult to weed them out early on in the process. We've referred a couple of cases to a large firm in Dallas, TX that screens cases thoroughly by requiring the plaintiff to get forms signed by doctors. There are two serious issues that must be addressed up front: 1) The latency period for disease is often 20-30 years and most states have a "discovery rule" which tolls the statute of limitations until the harm or injury is or should have been discovered, and 2) by that time the company that employed the plaintiff or manufactured the product with asbestos is often either no longer in business or has been aquired by another company (a successor company generally aquires liabilities along with assets).

Here's a timeline of asbestos-related events:

1918-1929:
Medical articles describing asbestosis first appear in scientific literature.

Dr. E.R.A. Merewether, medical inspector of factories in Great Britain, publishes a landmark article on asbestosis describing the clinical characteristics of asbestosis, the dust control requirements to prevent the disease, and the importance of educating workers about the hazards of asbestos.

1932:
Manville Corporation, a major producer of asbestos, settles first asbestosis lawsuits.

1933:
Dr. Anthony Lanza of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company discovers more than 300 cases of asbestosis at the Johns-Manville plant. The cases are never published.

1934:
Two doctors publish the first major medical article associating asbestosis with lung cancer.

1948:
Owens-Illinois Glass Company (parent company to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation) gets results of study on Kaylo, a 15% asbestos-containing pipecovering product. The lab director, Dr. Vorwald, concludes: "...since Kaylo is capable of producing asbestosis, it is better to discover it now in animals rather than later in [humans].... the company, being forewarned, will be in a better position to institute adequate control measure for safeguarding exposed employees and protecting its own interests."

The final report on Kaylo (1952) shows Kaylo dust can produce a peribroncheolar fibrosis typical of asbestosis. No brochure warning about Kaylo's health hazards was ever published.

Owens-Corning (OCF) becomes a national distributor of Kaylo (1953) and publicizes Kaylo in a 1955 sales brochure as: "Light weight, pleasant handling and non-irritating and non-toxic nature contribute to worker well- being."

1949:
Johns-Manville Corporation adopts policy not to tell employees when their medical exams show they have asbestosis.

1953:
Dr. O. A. Sander, medical consultant for Southern Asbestos Company, publishes an article stating, "Asbestosis is compatible with good health and a feeling of well-being."

1962-64:
Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, a producer of asbestos pipecovering, hires Dr. Thomas Mancuso to investigate asbestos. Mancuso reports, "there is an urgent need to protect the company's employees and customers from the danger of Philip Carey asbestos products." Mancuso is immediately fired. His report is buried. No warnings are placed on Philip Carey products.

1964:
Many major asbestos manufacturers attend an international conference (organized by Dr. I .J. Selikoff, Environmental Sciences Lab director at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York) about asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma (a unique asbestos cancer of the lining of the lung). Copies of the proceedings and scientific papers and findings were widely distributed. From a study of 117,000 industrial workers in the NY/NJ area: Up to 80% of asbestos insulators were contracting asbestosis after a latency period of 20 years.

1964:
The Manville Corporation recommends the placement of an asbestos caution label on boxes of asbestos products. The labels were 2" square, stamped in small print on the bottom of 3-foot cardboard boxes.

1965:
The Director of Safety for OCF writes a confidential memo to top management: "Our present concern is to find some way of preventing Dr. Selikoff from creating problems and affecting sales."

1966:
A letter from E.A. Martin, the purchasing director of Bendix Corporation, states: "My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it. There's got to be some cause."

1967:
Louis P. Gray, assistant head of the Pipecovering Department at Newport News Shipyard, writes a memo to four foremen advising respirators are "mandatory" when working with or around asbestos. Gray gives no reason for the respirator use. Workers never see the memo, which is not enforced. Twelve years later Gray testifies: "...it boils down to the fact that if you tell 300 people that what they are working with might cause cancer, you might not have anybody show up the next morning."

1968:
OCF's medical director, Dr. Jon Konzen, responds to an inquiry from OCF lawyers: "Asbestosis was well known and well-documented in the literature... [since the early 1940s]." OCF lawyers later state under oath: "OCF has no information or belief that prolonged use of its products containing asbestos fibers will cause asbestosis."

1969:
OCF's sales manager asks Dr. Konzen about a memo regarding the use of warning labels on Kaylo: "Are you saying that we have to do this now? I naturally would like to delay this requirement as long as possible."

1975-present:
2,500 Newport News Shipyard workers contract asbestosis, lung cancer and/or mesothelioma.

1989:
The EPA issues a ban on the manufacture, importation and distribution of most asbestos-containing products. The industry challenged the ban and it was partially overturned.

1990:
John Thomas, former president of OCF in the 1960s and top executive of OCF since the 1940s, testifies the company knew all the way back to the beginning of his employment that asbestos products were dangerous, that respirators should be worn when working with asbestos products, and that OCF should have warned workers about the dangers of its Kaylo asbestos products.

1999:
Asbestos companies ask Congress for liability relief


I'll leave it for you guys to figure out! - It's not easy but with current public awareness a filing cut-off date is a certainty.

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.

I'm not sure how the top of the Democratic Party is handled, but down here we would call it the "good ol' boy network".

Interesting that premiums are still going up in those states. What can we do, short of nationalising the insurance industry (shudder)?

Pete

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, there are 3 main problems causing medical malpractice insurance rates to increase. Although the number of medical malpractice claims and payouts has remained steady for more than 10 years, the dollar amounts of the payouts have increased. I can think of 2 reasons for this - better lawyering and increased health care costs. Most patients injured by medical mistakes require further and future medical care. The payouts are based on the stated prices of certain medical treatments and projected medical inflation. Interestingly, when someone with health insurance goes to the ER or hospital for a particular procedure, their health insurance company is not charged what an individual without health insurance would be charged. But, damages for future medical expenses are not based on the prices contracted between health care providers and insurers.

The second problem is that between 1993 and 2002, insurers' return on investments have decreased from a whopping 44% to 18%. Much of this has been made up by increasing premiums. (But I don't think 18% is all that bad, do you?)

The third problem identified is Greek to me but has something to do with the cyclical nature of insurance including the mysterious reinsurance industry which brings into play all insurance, not just medical liability. Therefore, catastrophes such as hurricanes and 9/11 are dragged into the mix.

Here are some interesting quotes from insurance industry execs. and tort reform leaders:

"We have not promised price reductions with tort reform."

~Dennis Kelly, American Insurance Association spokesman, Chicago Tribune, January 3, 2005.


"There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring."

~Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2004.

“Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%.”


~GE Medical Protective regulatory filing with Department of Insurance (TDI), October 30, 2003. The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians’ premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.

"I don't like to hear insurance-company executives say it's the tort system - it's self inflicted."

~Donald J. Zuk, chief executive of Scpie Holdings Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.

"No responsible insurer can cut its rates after a [medical malpractice tort 'reform'] bill passes."

~Bob White, President of First Professional Insurance Company, the largest medical malpractice insurer in Florida, talking about a proposed $250,000 cap in the January 29, 2003 Palm Beach Post.

"I don't think we would argue that the premiums are likely to go down. We believe it will have the effect of reducing the increases in the future. And one of the reasons the premiums won't go down is that even if noneconomic damages are capped, the losses for economic loss, medical expenses, for example, are still in this current environment escalating at, medical inflation is running in the double digits. I forget exactly what it was last year. So even if you were to cap noneconomic damages, the economic damages will still cause acceleration in the premiums. So it would not go down, I want to clarify if I misspoke and said I thought the premiums would go down."

~Cliff Webster, representing the Washington State Medical Association & Chairman of the Washington Liability Reform Coalition, testifying before the Washington State Legislature, House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 21, 2003.

"Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings..."

~From a press release published March 13, 2002, by the American Insurance Association (AIA).

"[M]any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and 'I've never said that in 30 years.'"

~Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, as paraphrased and quoted in "Tort Reforms Don't Cut Liability Rates, Study Says," published in Business Insurance July 19, 1999.

"We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates."

~Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association, as quoted in "Study Finds No Link Between Tort Reforms and Insurance Rates," Liability Week, July 19, 1999.

"Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in. An insurance company today can't do that."

~Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, "Dose of Legality," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 20, 2003.

"While MICRA was the legislature's attempt at remedying the medical malpractice crisis in California in 1975, it did not substantially reduce the relative risk of medical malpractice insurance in California."


~James Robertson, Assistant Vice President and Associate Actuary, SCIPIE Indemnity Company (California's second largest medical malpractice insurer), in written testimony responding to a question from an administrative law jugdge who is overseeing a case in which SCIPIE has requested a 15.6 % rate hike. April 30, 2003

To answer your question what can we do, I think all interested parties should honestly identify the problems first.

[dean_martin]

Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?