no, if you actually do your history you'll find out that Hoover tried every monetary/government trick in the book to avert the depression. The only change FDR institutued was he was a better speaker and made people feel better. Sound familiar?
Suing is far too easy. There are too many massive settlements and awards handed down from judges. Although not in the medical arena, the McDonald's coffee case comes to mind.
this is a crock at this point. how have medical costs come down since tort reform ran through the states? remember all those promises related to House Bill 4 here in Texas? it takes a freaking act of congress to be able to sue a doctor now. punitive/exemplary damages are capped at $200,000. attorneys who used to work in med malpractice have found different lines of work. and healthcare costs are higher than ever.
Oddly enough it does bare many similarities to today, but without the massive tax raises that Hoover started to pay for the programs. FDR was more adverse to deficits than Obama is.
that mcdonald's case was reversed on appeal...damages were brought way down. suing a doctor, a hospital or a nursing home in the state of texas is not easy at all.
I think that has a lot to do with people getting rich off doctors. Doctors do pay an awful lot in malpractice insurance.
Where are the numbers on this? This is like the myth of the estate tax effect on the family farm, it never goes away.
yeah, from what i hear, those costs didn't come down after tort reform either. so the insurance companies capped their liability and still kept prices rising higher and higher. who do you think lobbied hardest for House Bill 4? and the Texas legislature served it up to them proudly.
Interesting dynamic there... do we have more health care than we need because doctors can make more money off the tests and procedures? If so, it would stand to reason that the more things you do, particularly if they are of questionable necessity and increasing complexity, the greater the chance of screwing something up. At any rate, I don't see a lot of doctors living a spartan lifestyle because of their insurance premiums.
tort reform does not equal medical malpractice reform. The premiums doctors pay in medical malpractice drives up the costs. Finding ways to cut that cost will help bring down health care. I agree, the biggest driver of health care costs is hospital fees and drug costs. Obama has to find a way to work with drug companies to provide drugs at a substantially discounted rate to those who are not covered if there is to ever be a national healthcare plan. But to get it done, he also as to reform medical malpractice. Way to easy to sue a doctor for a myraid of things. Lets face it, doctors are going to make mistakes, they are human. The question really is were the grossly negligent in anyway. That should be the litmus test.
are you aware -- without looking it up -- of what it takes to sue a doctor on a claim of medical malpractice right now in Texas and other states where there's tort reform? it is anything but easy.
Its my experience that doctor's offices don't do a lot of testing, but the hospitals are ridiculous. Doctors do make good money, but its nothing compared to my commerical construction, government contractor, or insurance higher-up clients.
Fair and balanced? not ABC [rquoter]The notion that any journalist can remove completely their own ideas and preferences from their work is a myth that only the very best of journalists pursue, let alone always achieve. In the face of ABC's pending Obamanation on health care reform, that's especially troubling given the tremendous imbalance in ABC's record of recent political contributions. None of the four McCain contributors, which includes Elizabeth Hasselbeck, are from journalists at ABC. Meanwhile, approximately 130 ABC employees gave money to Obama. That's close to a 33 - 1 ratio. Yet, ABC officially announced that they and they alone would manage what questions were asked of Obama about his program, including from the audience. It strikes me as simply unwise to entrust such a significant portion of the debate around a policy that will impact American lives, potentially forever, to just one organization with such an imbalance in their political views. An analysis of contributions to the Obama and McCain campaign shows that ABC employees contributed more than $160,000 to the Obama campaign versus less than $5,000 to the McCain campaign.[/rquoter]
so a network's employees' campaign contributions is a guage for being fair and balanced? howbout fauxnews?
An analysis of campaign contributions shows that Obama was a record fund raiser and any analysis of any company would probably show that he wiped out any politcian in individual contributions from that company's employees.
Yeah, nothing like drinking coffee that causes 3rd degree burns over 6% of your body. Initially, I was in the same boat. What a stupid lawsuit! I can't belive the stpid lady burnt her self on the coffee! lulz. But, I actually read about the case. (A law class professor made us cover it.) McD's deserved to be punished. They knew their coffee was too hot and it repeatedly caused 3rd degree burns. 3rd degree! Go google some images of those injuries. (The punitive damages was equal to 2 days of McD's coffee sales. The horror, right? <- I didn't remember that part, I had to refresh my memory w/ a quick google.) Jury, not judge. The judge reduced the damages. So, yes.. lets talk about judges being out of control.
if they were hosting a "debate" on a particular issue from w/in the Bush WH, and had full control over all questions, then absolutely.
Your right that it was a jury and not a judge. I'm not used to thinking jury in civil trials, though there was one for hers. We discussed this case in college too. I don't think McDonald's did anything wrong. There was no law regulating the heat coffee could be sold at. It's right up there with when I caught my hands on fire with a zippo lighter after refueling the lighter. No where on the lighter did it warn me, but I caught my hands on fire due to my own stupidity.
