Mind you, I am not asking if you back the Obama plan. I am simply trying to get an idea of how many are satisfied with the status quo in terms of healthcare.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Poll: Are you for or against healthcare reform?
- Thread starter Cie
- Start date
too broad a question,brother....are you talking healthcare reform or health insurance reform?.....
if you are asking if i`m happy with my current health insurance AND care,i`d answer with a resounding yes.....tickled shitless with it...
if you asked if i want more gov`t involvement(i.e. car dealerships and banks)i`d say no.....
if the question is,"should the truly uninsured(those with pre-existing conditions,those in between jobs,those who through no fault of their own are destitute...and excluding illegal immigrants and yuppies that choose not to take insurance) have something legislated in the way of a safety net,then i`d say yes....
do i want some total upheaval of the status quo(around 80% are happy with their care/insurance)for something that leads to a governmental single payer system with no choices...so we can accomodate the minority?......
hell no!....
Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting wondered which insurance companies rejected the most claims. She found her answer in the AMA?s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card. The chart below appears on page 5 of the 16-page report.
if you are asking if i`m happy with my current health insurance AND care,i`d answer with a resounding yes.....tickled shitless with it...
if you asked if i want more gov`t involvement(i.e. car dealerships and banks)i`d say no.....
if the question is,"should the truly uninsured(those with pre-existing conditions,those in between jobs,those who through no fault of their own are destitute...and excluding illegal immigrants and yuppies that choose not to take insurance) have something legislated in the way of a safety net,then i`d say yes....
do i want some total upheaval of the status quo(around 80% are happy with their care/insurance)for something that leads to a governmental single payer system with no choices...so we can accomodate the minority?......
hell no!....
Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting wondered which insurance companies rejected the most claims. She found her answer in the AMA?s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card. The chart below appears on page 5 of the 16-page report.
Last edited:
there needs to be real reform, not socialized medicine rammed down our throats. It all starts with tort reform
Cie, I agree with Wease that its to broad a question. Personally I'm okay with my plan except for the % of rate increase year over year. I'd like to see more competition introduced into the market to drive prices down. Remove the state lines. As for the gov't. having an increased involvement I would say I'm definitely not for that.
agree with GW--have no idea what final bill will be--and have idea no one elase will before they vote on it.
Don't see how anyone could be against any reforms (cutting out waste/have accross state line options etc) that lowers our premiums.
What I don't want is another free ride on the tax payors back.
My biggest question on reform is--
How can a person or party be serios about reform--with bill that passes on tort reform--the largest and easiest of all probs to rectify.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Weise Nice chart--I never saw that before--found it interesting for other reasons also--thanks bud!!
Don't see how anyone could be against any reforms (cutting out waste/have accross state line options etc) that lowers our premiums.
What I don't want is another free ride on the tax payors back.
My biggest question on reform is--
How can a person or party be serios about reform--with bill that passes on tort reform--the largest and easiest of all probs to rectify.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Weise Nice chart--I never saw that before--found it interesting for other reasons also--thanks bud!!
Last edited:
Laughing my ass off. Love you guys. Still singing the tort reform mantra. Insurance companies continue to screw thousands on a daily basis and the uneducated still drink the bought and sold politicians blame the lawyers crap.
When will you people wake up and realize the tort reform garbage and defensive medicine garbage are just that. Insurance companies have been making billions and blaming lawyers with bought and sold politicians for decades.
When your right to a jury trial is gone, you will realize you have been screwed once again by corporate america. You shills are either very stupid or very evil.
Eddie
When will you people wake up and realize the tort reform garbage and defensive medicine garbage are just that. Insurance companies have been making billions and blaming lawyers with bought and sold politicians for decades.
When your right to a jury trial is gone, you will realize you have been screwed once again by corporate america. You shills are either very stupid or very evil.
Eddie
I choose not to answer, there seems to be people here of far higher intellect than myself.
However,
I do have an excellent Health Insurance/Care Plan as we as Full Coverage by the VA. I encourage anyone who hasn't sat through that GALLACTIC DICK DANCE to go sit in a VA Hospital waiting room just for checking in. Close to 60% of the Drs and nurses are foreign born and they treat the patients like shit. Good luck finding a clean latrine around there, let alone a stocked shitter with toilet paper. If you really want to have fun, go to the mental health clinic and see how overwhelmed they are and how the scarred troops are treated and herded and yelled at. Do I speak from experience?
FUCK YEAH I DO !
However,
I do have an excellent Health Insurance/Care Plan as we as Full Coverage by the VA. I encourage anyone who hasn't sat through that GALLACTIC DICK DANCE to go sit in a VA Hospital waiting room just for checking in. Close to 60% of the Drs and nurses are foreign born and they treat the patients like shit. Good luck finding a clean latrine around there, let alone a stocked shitter with toilet paper. If you really want to have fun, go to the mental health clinic and see how overwhelmed they are and how the scarred troops are treated and herded and yelled at. Do I speak from experience?
FUCK YEAH I DO !
They just regurgitate what the right-wing talking colostomy bags pollute the airwaves with everyday Eddie. The batshit crazy blowhards have convinced these lemmings that tort reform and healthcare reform are one in the same.
President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
By MATT MOORE
The Associated Press
OSLO ? President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
Enlarge photo Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, left, shakes hands with Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, before a meeting at the Moncloa palace in Madrid Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Arturo Rodriguez)
Enlarge photo File - Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a rally in this Feb. 16, 2008 file photo taken at Northcentral Technical College, in Wausau, Wis. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)
Enlarge photo File - U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in this Sept. 23, 2009 file photo. President Obama on Friday Oct. 9, 2009 won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)
Enlarge photo File - President Barack Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, in this Oct. 7, 2009 file photo before presenting 2008 medals of Science and medals of Technology. The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shockedNobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"
President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.
The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.
The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.
"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given too someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.
Nominators include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.
"We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty," the foundation said.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel's death.
The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.
................................................................
Change we can believe in !
By MATT MOORE
The Associated Press
OSLO ? President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
Enlarge photo Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, left, shakes hands with Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, before a meeting at the Moncloa palace in Madrid Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Arturo Rodriguez)
Enlarge photo File - Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a rally in this Feb. 16, 2008 file photo taken at Northcentral Technical College, in Wausau, Wis. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)
Enlarge photo File - U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in this Sept. 23, 2009 file photo. President Obama on Friday Oct. 9, 2009 won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)
Enlarge photo File - President Barack Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, in this Oct. 7, 2009 file photo before presenting 2008 medals of Science and medals of Technology. The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shockedNobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"
President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.
The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.
The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.
"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given too someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.
Nominators include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.
"We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty," the foundation said.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel's death.
The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.
................................................................
Change we can believe in !
Looks like the poll is sitting at 17-3 right now, which although a little one-sided, probably reflects a more public view than not. I think most people realize some reform is necessary, and some controls and focus on why our costs (or the costs to your employers, for those who are "happy" with their current coverage) are going up so fast.
Wayne, I note your ongoing focus on tort reform, and see that you failed to comment in my thread on medical malpractice companies who are raking in profits. These profits of course coming off the backs of doctors, who are subsequently passing these costs on to the citizens. From my understanding, a majority of states have already enacted forms of tort reform, but I don't remember hearing or reading much reform on insurance companies... which leads me to posting this here again, on point, and to allow you to address if you like:
Medical Malpractice Insurers? Profits Higher Than Nearly All Fortune 500 Companies
By DAPHNE EVIATAR 10/6/09 11:57 AM
The American Association for Justice ? the trial lawyers? lobby group ? has just released an astounding statistic: medical malpractice insurance companies? average profits are higher than those of 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.
As the nation remains mired in a debate over health care reform and how to keep down the costs of expanding coverage, AAJ is trying to point out that Republicans claims that medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the big cost drivers is completely misleading. In fact, though malpractice claims and so-called ?defensive medicine? does account for a small percentage of unnecessary costs, medical errors and the astronomical profits of malpractice insurers appear to be a bigger part of the problem.
AAJ?s report released today finds that the average profit of medical malpractice insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period; and malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent. The report also finds that malpractice insurers have publicly overestimated their losses and underestimated their profits in an attempt to suggest the insurance business and medical practice in general faces a crisis that must be resolved by so-called ?tort reform? ? i.e., making it harder for patients to sue and to collect damages for their injuries.
?Insurance companies are gouging doctors on their premiums to mislead lawmakers,? said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone, managing partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, in a statement released with the report. ?And today, injured patients are often left with no avenue to pursue justice, while health care costs continue to skyrocket.?
Wayne, I note your ongoing focus on tort reform, and see that you failed to comment in my thread on medical malpractice companies who are raking in profits. These profits of course coming off the backs of doctors, who are subsequently passing these costs on to the citizens. From my understanding, a majority of states have already enacted forms of tort reform, but I don't remember hearing or reading much reform on insurance companies... which leads me to posting this here again, on point, and to allow you to address if you like:
Medical Malpractice Insurers? Profits Higher Than Nearly All Fortune 500 Companies
By DAPHNE EVIATAR 10/6/09 11:57 AM
The American Association for Justice ? the trial lawyers? lobby group ? has just released an astounding statistic: medical malpractice insurance companies? average profits are higher than those of 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.
As the nation remains mired in a debate over health care reform and how to keep down the costs of expanding coverage, AAJ is trying to point out that Republicans claims that medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the big cost drivers is completely misleading. In fact, though malpractice claims and so-called ?defensive medicine? does account for a small percentage of unnecessary costs, medical errors and the astronomical profits of malpractice insurers appear to be a bigger part of the problem.
AAJ?s report released today finds that the average profit of medical malpractice insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period; and malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent. The report also finds that malpractice insurers have publicly overestimated their losses and underestimated their profits in an attempt to suggest the insurance business and medical practice in general faces a crisis that must be resolved by so-called ?tort reform? ? i.e., making it harder for patients to sue and to collect damages for their injuries.
?Insurance companies are gouging doctors on their premiums to mislead lawmakers,? said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone, managing partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, in a statement released with the report. ?And today, injured patients are often left with no avenue to pursue justice, while health care costs continue to skyrocket.?
relax eddie..even though it would save billions of dollars....and keep more doctors in business....
it`s off the table.....remember obama proclaiming "we won"?...that goes double for corrupt unions and the law lobby....
and as for the cutting of acorn funding?.....the funding that congress "defunded"....they also slipped a stipulation into the law that the "defunding" expires in at the end of october......
lol....the chicago way...
Thanks Chad:
I know many of you don't like Olberman, but tell me how this doesn't make sense:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/33217219#33217592
Eddie
I know many of you don't like Olberman, but tell me how this doesn't make sense:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/33217219#33217592
Eddie
GW:
Keep on drinking Cluster Fox's cool aid. How do you explain Chad's article above showing professional liability carrier profits way up and tort reform in place, malpractice suits down, caps in place and yet the republicans blaming lawyers for the high costs of medicine.
The problem was, is, and will be corporate america.
I've been saying that since my first post at this forum in February, 2001. The public has been fed lies thought the insurance industry and their lobbying group aka the Republican party.
Eddie
Keep on drinking Cluster Fox's cool aid. How do you explain Chad's article above showing professional liability carrier profits way up and tort reform in place, malpractice suits down, caps in place and yet the republicans blaming lawyers for the high costs of medicine.
The problem was, is, and will be corporate america.
I've been saying that since my first post at this forum in February, 2001. The public has been fed lies thought the insurance industry and their lobbying group aka the Republican party.
Eddie
of course the premiums are high..theres no cap on awards(as far as i know)...
it`s not the republicans blaming layers...it`s the doctors themselves...malpractice insurance premiums are driving doctors out of business at a time when we need as many doctors as we can get....
the doctors are scoundrels(particularly the ones,according to obama,that perform all those "excessive,unneeded procedures"..lol)
the lawyers?...they`re "the good guys"....that`s why they have such sterling reputations...
btw...i didn`t see the link/source of chad`s info....by design?
Last edited:
aaj?...that wouldn`t be the formerly known"association of trial lawyers of america",would it?....
obviously a totally objective organization...:lol:
/fox ,see henhouse..
obviously a totally objective organization...:lol:
/fox ,see henhouse..
Pumpkin:
There are caps on non-economic verdicts in most states. If the doctors are blaming lawyers its for one of two reasons:
1) lawyers do sue doctors and/or
2) they buy into the same bullshit about tort reform the insurance companies have been telling them.
If malpractice insurance premiums are driving md's out of business, who in the name of Jesus H. Christ is setting those premiums while raking in record profits. It aint the lawyers.
I believe the lawyers have such sterling reputations due to effective marketing campaigns by insurance companies, the republican party, the chambers of commerce, manufacturing groups, corporate america based on the actions of a small minority of lawyers.
Eddie
There are caps on non-economic verdicts in most states. If the doctors are blaming lawyers its for one of two reasons:
1) lawyers do sue doctors and/or
2) they buy into the same bullshit about tort reform the insurance companies have been telling them.
If malpractice insurance premiums are driving md's out of business, who in the name of Jesus H. Christ is setting those premiums while raking in record profits. It aint the lawyers.
I believe the lawyers have such sterling reputations due to effective marketing campaigns by insurance companies, the republican party, the chambers of commerce, manufacturing groups, corporate america based on the actions of a small minority of lawyers.
Eddie
ed...i`d iove to discuss the law lobby and other issues near and dear to your little black heart,but,i`m not sure if you heard....
OBAMA WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!!!!I
AND btw....obama`s giving out free money from his "stash"....:toast:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKekTG1qvDg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKekTG1qvDg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
OBAMA!!...OBAMA!!!.....:grins:
OBAMA WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!!!!I
AND btw....obama`s giving out free money from his "stash"....:toast:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKekTG1qvDg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKekTG1qvDg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
OBAMA!!...OBAMA!!!.....:grins:
Last edited:
of course the premiums are high..theres no cap on awards(as far as i know)...
it`s not the republicans blaming layers...it`s the doctors themselves...malpractice insurance premiums are driving doctors out of business at a time when we need as many doctors as we can get....
the doctors are scoundrels(particularly the ones,according to obama,that perform all those "excessive,unneeded procedures"..lol)
the lawyers?...they`re "the good guys"....that`s why they have such sterling reputations...
btw...i didn`t see the link/source of chad`s info....by design?
By design? Hardly... I have no reason to hide it, it seems pretty well referenced and researched, it's public records on profits, not promoted by those that benefit, of course. Here's the link, since it's important to you:
http://washingtonindependent.com/62646/medical-malpractice-insurers-profits-higher-than-nearly-all-fortune-500-companies
I realize you'll merely (and already have) diminish the story because of where it came from, but maybe you can tell us what is wrong with the numbers? Why they are wrong? You don't have to, of course, doesn't help your argument, probably.
By the way, you mention the lack of caps, causing the high rates. Eddie shows you there are caps in place for the most part, and how does that play into these companies showing such strong new profits? Would think if the tort problems were as you say they are, the companies would be paying out the exorbitant awards, which would cut into their profits? Doesn't hold water, does it?
Nah. You Glenn Beck neanderthals need to have it rammed down your throats, just like Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, banking regulation and all other worthwhile causes have been.
