1) He recognizes it is a wealth redistribution and doesn't have a problem with it.

2) Doesn't have a problem with death panels and admits they do exist under Obamacare. When asked why a 70 year old that paid health insurance premiums for 40 years should be denied a life saving operation over a much younger individual who never paid a dime he said "we should spend our healthcare dollars where it will extend someone's life the most"

So someone that has put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands into the government coffers should be turned away to save a deadbeat that may never contribute anything.

That's not Wealth redistribution, that's Health redistribution.

3) Thinks government involvement will bring down per capita spending.

In reality it will simply take from providers and give to government overlords.

4) Thinks single payer is just dandy.

I didn't bother to try to explain to him that India the fastest growing capitalist economy has a system more like ours than the US. It's simply cheaper due to less government regulation and stricter tort laws.

Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

I have let to see anything factual that says there will be "death panels" that deny people needed surgeries. I know this has been a talking point by those opposed to the ACA but I have yet to see any proof of this.

(10-10-2013 05:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I have let to see anything factual that says there will be "death panels" that deny people needed surgeries. I know this has been a talking point by those opposed to the ACA but I have yet to see any proof of this.

You don't recall the 10 year old girl that was going to be denied a life saving lung transplant because she did not fit the Obamacare protocol for an adult lung transplant? That's the death panel - de facto but Kathy S. wouldn't grant exception and she sits at the head of the death panel.

(10-10-2013 05:18 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  1) He recognizes it is a wealth redistribution and doesn't have a problem with it.

2) Doesn't have a problem with death panels and admits they do exist under Obamacare. When asked why a 70 year old that paid health insurance premiums for 40 years should be denied a life saving operation over a much younger individual who never paid a dime he said "we should spend our healthcare dollars where it will extend someone's life the most"

So someone that has put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands into the government coffers should be turned away to save a deadbeat that may never contribute anything.

That's not Wealth redistribution, that's Health redistribution.

3) Thinks government involvement will bring down per capita spending.

In reality it will simply take from providers and give to government overlords.

4) Thinks single payer is just dandy.

I didn't bother to try to explain to him that India the fastest growing capitalist economy has a system more like ours than the US. It's simply cheaper due to less government regulation and stricter tort laws.

Most admitted true progressives value life very little. Unless it's their own of course, or that of someone they know and care about. Then they will work tirelessly to skew the system in their favor.

Otherwise as we have seen here countless times, it can often be more of a ledger balance decision.

Meh, she's sick, (enter whatever phrase devalues this life in this instance here ______) so she's better off dead. And it will cost a lot less, too! Bonus points!

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

(10-10-2013 05:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

As a lawyer I can't say that isn't logical. It's a double edged sword though. What does a person with no money who can't afford a lawyer do when they are wronged and need legal protection? What happens is the lawyers that are available to those folks won't, or can't, take on cases. I effectively limits access to the law.

Forcing the lawyers to pay regardless has the same effect.

If you want to cut out frivolous lawsuits you can do it through the judiciary. Pay close attention to your next judicial election or who your governor etc appoints.

Just to throw this out there, many cases aren't as frivolous as they may appear. Remember the McDonald's coffee case, which is the classic example. Did you ever see the woman's legs?

(10-10-2013 05:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

Herd you are in NC as well. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the laws in NC such that they prevent frivolous lawsuits already. The bar for the plaintiff is very high. Medical malpractice lawsuits aren't really a problem here are they?

(10-10-2013 05:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:18 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  1) He recognizes it is a wealth redistribution and doesn't have a problem with it.

2) Doesn't have a problem with death panels and admits they do exist under Obamacare. When asked why a 70 year old that paid health insurance premiums for 40 years should be denied a life saving operation over a much younger individual who never paid a dime he said "we should spend our healthcare dollars where it will extend someone's life the most"

So someone that has put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands into the government coffers should be turned away to save a deadbeat that may never contribute anything.

That's not Wealth redistribution, that's Health redistribution.

3) Thinks government involvement will bring down per capita spending.

In reality it will simply take from providers and give to government overlords.

4) Thinks single payer is just dandy.

I didn't bother to try to explain to him that India the fastest growing capitalist economy has a system more like ours than the US. It's simply cheaper due to less government regulation and stricter tort laws.

Most admitted true progressives value life very little. Unless it's their own of course, or that of someone they know and care about. Then they will work tirelessly to skew the system in their favor.

Otherwise as we have seen here countless times, it can often be more of a ledger balance decision.

Meh, she's sick, (enter whatever phrase devalues this life in this instance here ______) so she's better off dead. And it will cost a lot less, too! Bonus points!

Isn't that a little over the top? You don't really think a large segment of society devalues human life because of a particular political viewpoint do you?

(10-10-2013 05:30 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I have let to see anything factual that says there will be "death panels" that deny people needed surgeries. I know this has been a talking point by those opposed to the ACA but I have yet to see any proof of this.

You don't recall the 10 year old girl that was going to be denied a life saving lung transplant because she did not fit the Obamacare protocol for an adult lung transplant? That's the death panel - de facto but Kathy S. wouldn't grant exception and she sits at the head of the death panel.

I do recall this child. But this didn't have anything to do with Obamacare protocol. It was a challenge to the organ donor protocol that has been used for many, many years.

"The child with end-stage cystic fibrosis received the lung transplants in June after a federal judge intervened on her parents' behalf and allowed her to be considered earlier on the adult lung transplant list for her region. The move sparked a furious national debate about lung transplant allocation and changed the way the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network considers cases of severely ill children waiting for the transplants."

Dawgitall, just look at other systems around the world. Look at the UK or Canada. They HAVE to ration care and the reason given is cost control.

(10-10-2013 05:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:18 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  1) He recognizes it is a wealth redistribution and doesn't have a problem with it.

2) Doesn't have a problem with death panels and admits they do exist under Obamacare. When asked why a 70 year old that paid health insurance premiums for 40 years should be denied a life saving operation over a much younger individual who never paid a dime he said "we should spend our healthcare dollars where it will extend someone's life the most"

So someone that has put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands into the government coffers should be turned away to save a deadbeat that may never contribute anything.

That's not Wealth redistribution, that's Health redistribution.

3) Thinks government involvement will bring down per capita spending.

In reality it will simply take from providers and give to government overlords.

4) Thinks single payer is just dandy.

I didn't bother to try to explain to him that India the fastest growing capitalist economy has a system more like ours than the US. It's simply cheaper due to less government regulation and stricter tort laws.

Most admitted true progressives value life very little. Unless it's their own of course, or that of someone they know and care about. Then they will work tirelessly to skew the system in their favor.

Otherwise as we have seen here countless times, it can often be more of a ledger balance decision.

Meh, she's sick, (enter whatever phrase devalues this life in this instance here ______) so she's better off dead. And it will cost a lot less, too! Bonus points!

Isn't that a little over the top? You don't really think a large segment of society devalues human life because of a particular political viewpoint do you?

Within the context of what i wrote, yes. Go read (if you haven't) the, as I said, TRUE progressives from the turn of the century types. That philosophy still exists, the sterilization movement, abortion on demand, eugenics and the sort.

By and large todays "progressives" are nothing more than run of the mill Liberals who has decided to try and lose that particular label and find one that polls better. Too much hippy baggage sewn into "Liberal". Thus, see "progressive". See Clinton, Hillary. When did she lay claim to that particular name for her beliefs system? Should be telling.

I believe this conversation happened about as much as I believe I'll wake up in the morning on the International Space Station.

(10-10-2013 05:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:18 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  1) He recognizes it is a wealth redistribution and doesn't have a problem with it.

2) Doesn't have a problem with death panels and admits they do exist under Obamacare. When asked why a 70 year old that paid health insurance premiums for 40 years should be denied a life saving operation over a much younger individual who never paid a dime he said "we should spend our healthcare dollars where it will extend someone's life the most"

So someone that has put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands into the government coffers should be turned away to save a deadbeat that may never contribute anything.

That's not Wealth redistribution, that's Health redistribution.

3) Thinks government involvement will bring down per capita spending.

In reality it will simply take from providers and give to government overlords.

4) Thinks single payer is just dandy.

I didn't bother to try to explain to him that India the fastest growing capitalist economy has a system more like ours than the US. It's simply cheaper due to less government regulation and stricter tort laws.

Most admitted true progressives value life very little. Unless it's their own of course, or that of someone they know and care about. Then they will work tirelessly to skew the system in their favor.

Otherwise as we have seen here countless times, it can often be more of a ledger balance decision.

Meh, she's sick, (enter whatever phrase devalues this life in this instance here ______) so she's better off dead. And it will cost a lot less, too! Bonus points!

Isn't that a little over the top? You don't really think a large segment of society devalues human life because of a particular political viewpoint do you?

Think it's more a Life Distribution.

Do not believe many think it is a certain political view, but just how the government will handle which people will get operations and if age will determine them doing so.

(10-10-2013 06:14 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  I believe this conversation happened about as much as I believe I'll wake up in the morning on the International Space Station.

So you think conservatives cannot have a conversation with liberals? This ain't made up, but I didn't get into the details that really pissed me off when I gave real life examples of people I know and he's like the money should be spend where it can extend the most lives longer. Never mind being willing to throw away lives of older people that paid for healthcare benefits their whole life and never used the benefits for more that routine stuff.

I have had insurance that I paid for, most times with some employer subsidy so why if I maintain coverage shouldn't I get any treatment I need regardless of age or other factors? Someday I know I will need a major medical procedure it would be nice to know that I won't have to wonder if it fits the Obamacare protocol.

(10-10-2013 05:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

Herd you are in NC as well. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the laws in NC such that they prevent frivolous lawsuits already. The bar for the plaintiff is very high. Medical malpractice lawsuits aren't really a problem here are they?

I practice in Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi so I can't answer that honestly. Here, the bar is the same as any tort but there are a few privileges a defendant enjoys. I know in some states there are outright protections for defendants of different kinds.

(10-10-2013 05:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

Herd you are in NC as well. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the laws in NC such that they prevent frivolous lawsuits already. The bar for the plaintiff is very high. Medical malpractice lawsuits aren't really a problem here are they?

Not any more, the tort reform in NC focused mainly on medical malpractice and probably went too far in favor of physicians. With Duke and Wake Forest and UNC law schools (among the top in the nation) NC legislature won't do too much to put those guys out of business.

(10-10-2013 05:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I have let to see anything factual that says there will be "death panels" that deny people needed surgeries. I know this has been a talking point by those opposed to the ACA but I have yet to see any proof of this.

Google Sarah Murnaghan and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

(10-10-2013 05:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I have let to see anything factual that says there will be "death panels" that deny people needed surgeries. I know this has been a talking point by those opposed to the ACA but I have yet to see any proof of this.

Death Panels exist. Not in the form of a bunch or bureaucrats sitting at a table deciding who lives or dies but in the form of restructuring coverage levels.

Example : my grandmother died of stage 4 lung cancer having never smoked. Near the end her doctor recommended she be put on oxygen. But Medicare said she didn't qualify. Her blood saturation levels were in the 80's. So, she didn't get it. That's what I mean when I say death panels. Moving the needle for what's covered so they can say it's still a covered benefit but fewer people will qualify that need it. That saves costs and saves face. Despicable. So, lots of stuff will TECHNICALLY be covered but only a lucky few will get the treatment. Democrats are evil.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016 now Free

(10-10-2013 07:17 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. LOL

Still, Obamacare pretty much just shafts everybody hard: lawyers, patients, doctors, the works.

Part of tort reform I would like to see is attorney's have to "pay to play" if a plaintiff loses their attorney foots the legal bill for the winner. I would say that change alone would stop 99% of Frivolous lawsuits. Right now ambulance chasers have nothing to lose by suing everyone since all the lose is a little time. By the same token if the defendant loses their attorney pays the legal bills for the plaintiff so defense attorneys don't drag things out in court to discourage justified lawsuits.

Herd you are in NC as well. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the laws in NC such that they prevent frivolous lawsuits already. The bar for the plaintiff is very high. Medical malpractice lawsuits aren't really a problem here are they?

Not any more, the tort reform in NC focused mainly on medical malpractice and probably went to far in favor of physicians. With Duke and Wake Forest and UNC law schools (among the top in the nation) NC legislature won't do too much to put those guys out of business.

To give you anecdotal evidence of the effect tort reform often has, my mother had major surgery in Texas and the hospital 'forgot' to give her pain medication. They had a policy of only allowing the surgeon who performed the surgery to release heavy duty pain medication within 12 hours of surgery. The problem is, the surgeon went home and turned his phone off having forgotten. The result was she laid in a hospital bed hours after a major surgery without pain medication.

Texas' tort law said no damages existed.

Tort law exists to, more so than make money etc, provide a vehicle for the judiciary to force companies/people/doctors to improve their practice and policies to ensure things like this don't happen.

As it stands, they mess up in that manner and who cares?

I know you aren't saying gut tort law and that stands apart from minor tweaks to it. My point is just that changes to it at all have huge ramifications that reverberate across the system.

I think that allowing counter suits against frivolity would be a good answer, but i stop short of making the, compulsory counter claims through civil procedure rules. Still, as a lawyer I don't see much in the way of the frivolous lawsuit to be quite honest.