Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kidnostad3

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 71
1
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 08:42:45 PM »
Yes. Let's look at a couple shall we? Tillerson: Exxon mobil boss with very close relations with Putin and was awarded the Friend of Russia medal, appointed as Sec of State, who has decimated the diplomatic corp, knowing that Trump wants to pile money into the military, but then bizarrely said war was unlikely.

Then there's the Commerce sec, Wlbur Ross. Deputy chairman of Cyprus bank. Home of rampant Russian oligarch money laundering.

Then of course there's all the family members in official and unofficial capacities. All amply qualified because they're lawyers, pampered hoteliers and family members.

Steve Bannon; ex editor of Breitbart.. oh yeah, appointed to the Security council and had seven years in the navy and the displacement of members of the joint chiefs who do know what they're talking about.

I don't give a rat's ass if he hires Doc, Dopey, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy and Bashful as long as he does what he said he was going to do. 


2
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 06:57:31 PM »
Sorry to overly snip this post but I am pressed for time today and can't get into the ring here tonight as I would like.

I would quickly say in response to this is that we have elected a man who stocked his government with captains of industry, the very people you claim are a source of mistrust.

None of this stands up to hard scrutiny.

Would you prefer farmers, printers, or vacuum cleaner salesmen?  The people Trump chose have relevant experience and have risen to the top of their professions.  Maybe you would prefer the same sort of political hacks and chronies that Obama appointed.  Virtually all of Trump's cabinet are taking a huge pay hit to serve. 

3
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 06:39:54 PM »
Really? My old man worked like a dog from being a teenager until his first angina attack aged 53. After that he 'enjoyed' ill health after a triple by pass, heart attack until finally he died aged eighty one from a perforated duodenal ulcer and organ failure. (In other words 'sick'). There are many like him; So presumably anyone who is used up because they worked too hard and didn't see their family grow up shouldn't be treated the same as such as Trump who never did hard work in their life? Few lame people got there through choice, they had accidents or were born with problems; do they get discarded through no fault of their own? Aren't you lucky, confident in the knowledge you'll never be disadvantaged, ever.

Yes, and I know I've had similar feelings too. Then I remember we've evolved from the middle ages and how lucky we are compared with their lives.

My dad dropped dead at 58.  He worked hard all his life too and paid for his own medical insurance.  I don't recall him complaining about his paying his own way or about the quality of medical care he recieved. 

4
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 06:18:23 PM »
Are you saying the sick shouldn't have access to the same level of care as those who work?  Have you ever thought that maybe the sick would love to work for a living but have their hands tied because of their illnesses?  And maybe treatment would allow them to work in the future. If that it what you are saying, I have to part with you there.

No.  I'm contrasting the sick and the lame with the lazy.  Of course we should take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. I do have a problem with paying for the medical care of those who abuse drugs and alcohol, smoke a lot and weigh 600 lbs.  Their medical problems are the result of lifestyle choices and something for which others should not have to pay the price.

5
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 05:28:03 PM »
The US is the only country in the industrial world not to offer universal health care to its people. If you can't look to your government to provide basic services, what good are they? A difficult question, I know...but there it is.

Meanwhile...several Don-Don and his Trumpettes attempt to cross the line into the land of humanity.



Of course, the sick, lame and lazy should be treated the same as those who work for a living and contribute to society.  Why should there be any incentive to work. Let's just put everyone on a stipend and take care of all their needs to include cell phones and their drug of choice.

Sometimes I think there is something to be said for Social Darwinism on the basis of one's worth to society.    It would improve the gene pool across and within races. 

6
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 05:12:45 PM »
Don't get sanctimonious unless you're also going to take to task the odious bigots that infest this forum with their bile. And to be honest, Trump hasn't exactly shown his class when it comes to his behaviour to those who are disadvantaged or not his family.

You forget who you're talking to.  I have taken on those who post racist shit on this thread without regard to source.  Don't make me repost examples.  You need to pay attention so you are better able to keep your antagonists straight. 


7
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 04:59:28 PM »
Podesta is a prick and a scumbag, and his ass should be thrown in jail if he broke the law. That doesn't mean DT and/or his cronies deserve a pass for anything they did. There should be one standard of integrity for everyone, and one person's malfeasance doesn't excuse or cancel out anyone else's.

Of course you're right and I wouldn't have it any other way.  I just like to point out the god-awful hypocracy on the part of the Democrats.  How about Hilliary's role in the Russians gaining control of 20% of our uranium deposits and the concomitant contributions to the Clinton Foundation?  Let's just keep it real.

8
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 02:19:55 PM »
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT JOHN PODESTA OWNED 75,000 SHARES OF STOCK IN, AND SAT ON THE BOARD  OF A RUSSIAN ENERGY COMPNY IN WHICH PUTAN INVESTED $35 MIL.  THIS WHILE SERVING AS PAID ADVISOR TO SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON AND OBAMA.










9
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 01:15:02 PM »
Baron has that vague mentally diminished pout and apish demeanor and look the other two mouth breathers have. He must be the spawn of Trump*

Once again you prove yourself to be a classless twit.  (Dam, I'm glad I didn't spell "twit" the way I  was initially tempted to spell it.  But then again you don't speak French do you?) Who are you going to take on next Ivanka's toddler. 

10
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 12:58:31 PM »
I recall CHANGE!!!!!!!!! heralded from the mountaintops in 1992 and 2008 - funny how ephemeral that was. It was more stale than weeks-old Chinese leftovers an election cycle later.

And we will have CHANGE!!!!!!! in 2020, and I suspect more CHANGE!!!!! in 2024/28, and the sad loop goes on and on and on and we never learn a thing from it.

Here's an idea, crazy I know: Why don't we elect a fucking moderate to the office for the first time in forever. Just to try some real "sea change". Because electing another Obama or Trump? That way lies madness.

The anthropology of the 2016 election will be one of the defining historical works of our time. We need to know so much more about this electorate to understand what went on here.

I'm all for electing a moderate but how well did moderates do in the primaries? 

The Times They are a Changin'.  I witnessed the tumult of the sixties and early seventies up close and personal.  I was in D.C. when the hippies protesting the war in Vietnam formed a circle around the Pentagon in an attempt to levitate it and later went swimming naked in the reflection pool.  I lived through all the political assassinations and civil rights demonstrations to include Resurrection City and was just leaving Washington when the Watergate Burglary took place.  I came back in 1983 and spent the next 19 years in the greater D.C. area.  Not once during those years did I witness anything approaching the low esteem in which the average American holds the political establishment that has produced our Presidents and Congressional Representation since the Reagan era.  The same can be said about their view of once cherished government institutions such as the judiciary, federal law enforcement, the  intelligence community and especially the Justice Department and Department of State.  (There is also a prevailing deep distrust of corporate America and Academia and, although related, they are rightly the subject of separate discussions.)

Not to be overly dramatic but it is only during periods such as we now find ourselves that any meaningful change is brought about and I have never experienced a time when the demand for change was nearly as profoundly felt, widespread and stridently pursued by the electorate.  This is not something that will pass in a few election cycles as you suggest. The dissatisfaction is too great and won't be assuaged easily.  We have Clinton, Bush and especially Obama to thank for bringing all this to a head.  Who knows, some good may come of it. 

11
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 06:01:00 AM »
Yes, "stupid" (uneducated, old, bigoted, frightened, "Christian", whites) is a very big part of it. That, combined with Hillary/Dems not focusing enough time/energy in the mid-rust-belt states, plus Trump *lieing* to them massively that he was going to bring back 'the good old days" again, pretty much explains it -- their being seduced and hood-winked by a con-artist, that is.

No, it just highights the fact that ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, automation, and big-moneyed-cons aren't entirely unique to the the United States, and also that the true "assult" upon Western Ideals from the Far Right Nationalist (Fascist, Racist) horde is invading ALL of Western Civilization world-wide at this sad moment in history. You'all are far more dangerous than the imaginary coming "Glodal Caliphate" Muslim "problem", or Black or Mexican "problems", or Liberals "problem" or Press, or Science, or Arts, or Environmentatist, or Academia/University "Problems" combined. YOU(all) are the cancer! How are *you* ever to be "assimilated" BACK into civilized "Humanity" is the bigger question and "problem" facing the world and ALL of it's creatures right now and for some time yet to come! You are just as (factually) poisonous and a true threat to "The West" as those who you would claim are -- i.e. those you would collectively scapegoat and blame for all your "problems". YOU, are "The Barbarians", the ultimate Anti-Western Anti-Cultural, Heartless and "Godless" Heathen.

Sorry, I don't speak jibberish.  It must be embarrassing to those who share your political views that someone so addle brained and emotionally unhinged as you presumes to speak for them. You have noticed haven't you that they ignore your posts so as not to be associated with your foolishness.  There's even a persistent rumor that you are a Trump plant whose assignment is to make leftists look even nuttier than they are.  Mission accomplished

12
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Today at 04:40:59 AM »
"Viable candidates" ... please, let's be serious.

They were both excrement and anyone paying attention knew it.

Like GWB, the popular-vote loser has a bedrock base of a third of the country (this would explain the 30s approval rating in the latest Gallup poll). The rest are the disaffected and others who don't want to adapt to a changing economy. You want to make this some grand historical movement - look, it's just not. Hope and Change was portrayed with similar pronouncements. See how that turned out.

Do you think that Bernie could have made the headway that he did and Trump could have defeated a field of 17 in the primaries and then go on to win the presidency if the elecftorate was happy with the political status quo?  The politicians who make up our congress are even less popular than the President.  It's less hope and change that people are looking for than it's their wanting a president who is responsive to their needs and will do the things that he said he would in his campaign speech which center on putting America first.  The current zeitgeist that made it possible for a billionaire reality show host and non politician to be elected to the presidency is indeed a movement that is unparalleled in American history.  If you think what's going on politically in this country is a flash in the pan or can be guaged by conventional standards and norms you are wrong.  A sea change has occurred in the body politic and reguardless of whether Trump succeeds or fails there will be no going back. 
 


13
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Yesterday at 11:33:42 PM »
"and the DNC has requested resignation letters from all current staffers."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/embattled-dnc-asks-all-staffers-resignation-letters-n739676
What would happen if the workers refused to write their resignation letters?  Can a business force you to write such a letter, if you refused to do so? Or if you write a good one you might get a future job at some government bureaucracy or DNC job later? Is the forced letter writing some way around having to pay unemployment, contract, or some kind of labor issue? Why not just fire them? They obviously did a crappy job consider the election losses and were often corrupt (pulling dirty tricks against Bernie) so just can them, why the letters?

It's a way of avoiding the unpleasant task of telling each employee face to face that they are out of work and not having to deal with the often emotional and sometimes violent reaction that this kind of news tends not to evoke.  Asking employees to submit their resignations gives employees some basis for hope that the resignation will not be accepted thereby heading off, at least for the time being, any untoward actions on the part of the employee that might require the intervention of security staff. 

14
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Yesterday at 10:03:58 PM »
I abstained from the vote because I wasn't going to get behind a pile of garbage either way.

You lined up with Senda and Scott Baio. Congratulations. You must feel vindicated.

You will never convince the stupid in the rust belt they chose poorly, but some of them have just enough neurons to rub together to begin to wonder when their factory jobs are going to return. (Hint: Never.)

You do realize your president was once a Clinton Democrat. You do understand that, yes? I mean, you have retards on this thread who admitted they voted for Al Gore. Some of you don't even know what the fuck you are.


So those who worked factory jobs in the Midwest and didn't vote for Hilliary or for any of the third party candidates who combined recieved a whopping .04% of the popular vote are stupid?  Do you think there is something about their geographical location that causes their stupidity or maybe it's due to a massive amount of inbreeding that heretofore has gone unnoticed?  Clearly any intelligent person would have done what you did and not make a choice at all so, like you, he could cop a pissy superior attitude and bad mouth others for choosing to vote for one of the two viable candidates

What you fail to understand is that Trump's election, for better or for worse, is part of the rejection of establishment politics that is currently taking place in a number of countries where some form of elective government exists.  Your wholesale branding of those who chose to vote for Trump as stupid is an indication of your own lack of mental acuity.  Furthermore, your affectation of being above it all and possessing superior insight makes me wonder if you could possibly be that much of an asshole or if there is a substance involved that induces the state of delusional grandiosity that you exhibit.  I'm asking for some friends in the Rust Belt. 



15
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Yesterday at 01:13:05 PM »
You'll no doubt be delighted then that Trump has passed the overturning of regulations that forced firms to not pollute rivers and streams? Way to go donny!

You may be surprised to learn that there is another side to the question that if you took the time to consider would augment your superficial, one-line quip driven understanding of why the Stream Protection Act was so heavily opposed.  Why don't you take a look at the articles linked below just for shits and giggles.  Who knows, you might actually learn something you don't know.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-coal-mining-stream-protection-rule

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/inconvenient-truth-in-britain-skepticism-on-the-rise/

16
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: Yesterday at 08:41:00 AM »
Humans pollute the planet then argue and point fingers over whether the resulting environmental degradation is natural or man-made. Our fondness for burning fossil fuels and spoiling our waterways with ground pollutants have created health hazards for earth's inhabitants. Climate change or not, clean energy is something we should all embrace while we get busy cleaning this shit up.


* IMG_2829.JPG (63.71 kB . 641x446 - viewed 199 times)


* IMG_2830.JPG (75.2 kB . 600x340 - viewed 195 times)


Here, here!  What reasonable person wouldn't agree with what you say.  However. Let's not let the issue be exploited by politicians looking for votes, scientists looking for grant money and commercial interests looking for profits.  Implementation of draconian regulations, that too often are based on half baked science or biased institutional zealotry,  drive up the cost of doing business which is passed on to the consumer and  effect  the livelihoods of tens of thousands.  Scientific research must be depoliticized and the influence of "carpet baggers" seeking to gain in some way from efforts to mitigate damage to the environment must be removed.  Devising a scientific research and decision making regime that is impervious to these corrupting influences should be the first order of business in the effort to minimize the impact of humans on the environment. 

17
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 27, 2017, 09:55:40 PM »

18
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 27, 2017, 09:54:49 AM »
Just learned Trump has been to the golf course 13 times from February 4th - March 26th.  Looks like he's the goofer, I mean, golfer, in chief.  Nobody knew that healthcare is so complicated! Kind of like a sandtrap on the back nine...

I will bet that Trump spends many more hours actually  on the job than did Obama .  As a matter of fact, Obama was known for his lax work habits and "not being available."

19
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 27, 2017, 09:45:10 AM »
Re the high cost of US healthcare...

I think one example of what could be seen as an unnecessary test would be too frequent CT scans. Years ago, when CT scans were first used in hospitals they weren't seen as a routine test. The older scanners took forever and there's the issue of radiation exposure. Over the years as the scanners have become faster, they are often a quick way to get a definitive diagnosis. They aren't cheap, however, and require a reading by a radiologist, and there's still the issue of radiation exposure. I think most providers still rely on their clinical skills, and don't over-order CTs, but consider this...

ERs across the US are becoming increasingly populated with patients who are there because they're drunk. Typically when a drinker is found down at home or on the street, 911 is called and medics attempt to walk the patient. If they can't walk they are brought to the ER to sober up. Yes, ERs are modern day "drunk tanks". Alcoholism causes liver damage leading to clotting disorders, meaning they are prone to bleeding. So if they fall and hit their head, which they often do, the ER staff has to question if their reduced level of consciousness is due to being drunk, or having a head injury.

Conservative treatment would be to observe them in the ER on a gurney as they sleep it off for several hours, then "road test" them to see if they're safe for discharge. Sometimes our ERs are full of these "MTF" (metabolizing to freedom) patients, who can be belligerent and high-maintenance. Many sober up enough to slip out of the busy, over-crowded ER unnoticed. As you might imagine, these patients are considered high-liability cases. I've seen some providers order head CTs on all of their altered drunk patients because they are so high-risk. Some of our regular "frequent flyers" (weekly, even several times a week) have had dozens of head CTs.

When I see someone like Paul Ryan pontificating on America's healthcare problems it makes me crazy, as he's just another clueless politician who has no fucking idea what's happening on the front line of healthcare today. I'm sharing one real life example here to highlight the challenges we face. The example I used not only illustrates the high cost of chronic diseases such as alcoholism, but shows that something is seriously wrong with a govenment that is so out of touch with the physical, mental, and social health of the populace that the administration would attempt to cut the very services we so desperately need.

Point taken.  Unfortunately not many doctors or nurses get elected to congress and the lawyers (for the most part) who do can only be guided by input from medical professionals and other stakeholders. The same holds true for any other piece of legislation.  Not many truck drivers serve in congress either but that doesn't stop legislators from enacting laws effecting the way they do business. 

 Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi pontificate on health care?  We all know how that went. 


20
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 26, 2017, 07:56:19 PM »
Tort Reform
_________________________

So tort reform laws appear to have had some impact on the cost of medical malpractice in the US, but the effect is modest at best and they’re obviously not the only factor in reducing these costs. Also, even very strict laws aimed at reducing medical malpractice costs appear to be ineffective in certain States (e.g. Massachusetts, Louisiana). But most importantly, a 27% drop in medical malpractice costs in the US has coincided with a 64% rise in overall health care costs. Clearly, tort reform laws have done nothing to reduce overall health care costs and are only partly responsible for reducing medical malpractice costs in the US.

http://truecostofhealthcare.net/malpractice/
California was among the first states to implement effective tort reform (below link refers.). It's not surprising that the doctor is happy with what he is paying for malpractice insurance, but, as he concedes, there is considerable variance in the cost of malpractice insurance between states and the cost in certain states is exhorbatant.  Apart from the cost of insurance, doctors don't relish being sued for malpractice with all the inconvenience and damage to their professional reputation that a successful suit can bring.  My point in yesterday's post was not that higher insurance rates increase the cost of medical care but that the difference in laws between the states is bound to create an imbalance between the quality and availability of medical care among the states.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

I think the Doctor is being just a bit cavalier in dismissing the cost of defensive diagnostics.  He tells us that the actual cost is difficult to determine but even if the estimated cost of $650-$850 billion a year is accepted it only represents a small percentage of the total cost for healthcare.  Really?  If that cost was eliminated and the savings passed on to consumers of medical care or used to insure more Medicare patients would that not be a good thing? 

As you probably have already found, there is a lot of opinion available on the internet in favor of tort reform.  Why would you not be in favor of it if only to foreclose on ridiculously high punitive awards and to discourage frivolous suits.  Doesn't fairness enter into the equation in your thinking or is the sky the limit?
 

21
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 26, 2017, 04:54:21 PM »
Oh ffs, don't flatter yourself. Bonkers? You're just not worth it. Spending your days typing different versions of the same "Its all about me, fuck everyone else".

What PB consistently does very well is is provide a clear statement of his position on a matter and back it up with solid reasoning and argumentation.  He also readily provides amplifying information and expanded rationale in rebuttal to counter arguments. What you regard as merely a rewording of his original argument any objective observer would recognize as his offering a different slant on the matter to foster a better understanding on your part of the point he is making.
 
When engaging in a discussion of issues with you and like minded individuals who frequent this forum, those of us who offer an opposing view too often are met with a refusal on your part to respond to fair questions when your argument begins to sputter.  We either get an unresponsive post that is loaded with sarcasm and attempts to change the subject or you go dark for a period of time and the question is left dangling.  It is more than just a little ironic that the very next time the issue arises you trot out the same argument that you abandoned by leaving a key question unanswered.  As has happened in this instance, you then accuse us of being rigid, unimaginative and boaringly repetitive. 

 I fully understand PB'sfrustration?  How many times must we walk the same people through the same issue only to have them bail out with the ball remaining in their court.  It would be refreshing if the point of departure for old subjects that have already been hashed out numerous times on this thread could be somewhere other than ground zero for the the benefit of a few.  This tactic is taxing our collective patience. 

22
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 26, 2017, 09:30:10 AM »


Yeah, I know, I must be a racist and probably hate sick people.


And you probably kick little chickens into the creek.

23
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 10:08:35 PM »
Although many of the "squared circle" did the carnival circuit, unfortunately bear wrestling like in the old days has been banned.  :( Though, honestly, it was sort of abusive and I would dare, even an WWF guy, to REALLY, fight a bear (Davy Crockett excepted, of course! He killed his at 5, as I recall, so not allowed per rule; child labor, child welfare, etc.)

Gorgeous George and "Wild" Red Barry were family favorites of ours as we sat around the old 19" black and white Philco on Saturday nights.  Of course on Friday nights we tuned into the Gillette Cavalcade of Sports for a couple of 3 round preliminary bouts and a 10 round Main Event.

24
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 09:48:18 PM »
Silly people do silly things. Like thinking that cutting lights off for a day to celebrate WWF Wrestlers will help the world. Strange people. I wonder how much better it would be if they cut the POWER-OFF for the night to celebrate those in the "squared circle" instead? That would be fun. To see how much looting and what-not...

That reminds me, we're going North for few days and I have to get my panda skin stadium coat out of cold storage. 

25
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 08:57:19 PM »
FYI: 10th annual "Earth Hour" (global Lights Out -- in support of Climate Change Fact) is TONIGHT Sat March 25th at 8.30 pm your local time till 9:30 pm. (as in started half-hour ago on East Coast USA/Canada etc.)

BREAKING NEWS---CNN just announced that the blackouts are in reality a brilliantly timed and executed cyber attack by Putin on the power grids of western nations.  Reportedly he was overheard laughing maniacally and saying in Russian what roughly translates to "Wait 'til those limp wristed tree huggers try to turn the lights back on!!!!!

26
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 07:27:53 PM »
And I have a White Russian in mind.

Not this one:



But, this one:



Kailua, vodka and cream.  What's not to like?

27
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 07:13:28 PM »
I think a good idea would be some kind of division between the various damages awarded. You have been damaged by malpractice but the award is "capped" to some point, to be determined, so that your healthcare if provided, you are compensated for your damage, legals fees plus a profit to the lawyers (but maybe a cost-plus arrangement defined by law) but the punitive portion of the award (which isn't to benefit the plantiff but to punish the doctor/company/etc) would go into some kind of fund to help out others indigent, without insurance, etc? And not go to the lawyers or the victim. No "Lottery" lawsuits, in other words, but relief to the victim and punishment to the perpetrator but the punishment part goes to society in general. Just a random thought.

Good idea. 

28
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 06:53:16 PM »
Tort reform has been tried at the state level for at least 40-years. The English common law system was refined over 800- years to be fair to both parties. Beginning in the late 70s the insurance companies repeatedly pressed the legislatures for tort reform. Just about every change resulted in disaster for the insurance companies because of unintended consequences. I see no reason future changes would be any better.

There are a number of states that have enacted some measure of medical tort reform with varying  outcomes.  You can find as much pro as you can con on the subject.  Congress has shied away from enacting any federal legislation since 1970.  Obama Care included nothing in the way of limitation on future damages for patients injured by medical negligence which the medical community and many in congress regarded as being of key importance.

If the federal government is going to undertake the managements of health care then it had better establish effective measures to limit awards and combat frivolous lawsuits in the form of laws that are uniformly applied throughout the country.  Doctors are already gravitating to states like Texas and Mississippi that are rated among the top states in which to practice medicine because of tort reforms that have resulted in fewer suits and lower payouts with attendant lower malpractice insurance rates.  What does an imbalance in both availability and quality of health care from state to state created by an exodus of MDs from states more congenial to malpractice suits to those that have set limits bode for the success of any Federalized health care system.  I believe enactment of tort reform at the federal level is an essential precursor.

29
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 04:36:41 PM »
I don't like the idea of government controlling healthcare but you make a lot of excellent points regarding why our healthcare is so expensive and I completely agree.  The litigious nature of our society particularly over the last 50 years has been one of the key reasons why the cost of our healthcare has skyrocketed.


Tort reform is key to the success of any medical plan but both parties have studiously avoided the issue for years.  It must have something to do with the fact that most politicians are lawyers. 






30
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« on: March 25, 2017, 12:27:04 PM »
Excellence TL.


WHAT WOULD THE COST BE FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE-- ANY IDEA?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 71