Sen. Durbin Destroys Republican Arguments on Malpractice Reform
At Health Care Summit, Sen. Durbin Destroys Republican Arguments on Malpractice Reform
visit: http://firedoglake.com
Duration : 0:4:58
At Health Care Summit, Sen. Durbin Destroys Republican Arguments on Malpractice Reform
visit: http://firedoglake.com
Duration : 0:4:58
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@eshnajizzle, cont. …
@eshnajizzle, cont.: I’ve seen no evidence demonstrating that gov. is responsible for economic growth, but plenty demonstrating that it retards or reverses it.
Finally, what do any of your assertions have to do w/ my remarks that rights derive from property, & that if gov. can take it away at will, we effectively have no rights? And btw, this describes communism, pure & simple in case it matters.
I would love the opportunity to see what happens when we get gov out of the way – /completely./
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@eshnajizzle, cont. …
@eshnajizzle, cont.: W/ more people working, & no taxes, people would keep more of what they earn. Employers would have a lower operating cost, so they could better compete & offer products at a lower cost, so income would go further.
Concerning your assumption “money used by gov oft. benefits” me – how so? With illegal wars? The PATRIOT Act? Police “protection”? (Funny, I don’t /feel/ safe.) Eminent domain? Public school w/ grads who can’t read or write? USPS & its gov sanctioned monopoly?
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@eshnajizzle: On …
@eshnajizzle: On what experience do u make these assertions? Where have u seen these scenarios demonstrated b4 / after government?
Would some low-skill jobs pay less than min. wage? You bet, but this would allow MORE low-skill/non-experienced workers to enter the job market, more people employed who wouldn’t be otherwise. Higher skilled employees would have higher wages. And no one would b /forced/ to take a job that didn’t pay appropriately, since they could leave it for one that did.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Without government, …
Without government, your wages would most likely be lower.
Without labour-laws employers would set wages at a very low level, which you would be forced to take. Even with taxes, your income is better with government than without.
The money used by government most often benefits you as well.
Public good have enabled much of the economic growth up to this day. There would be less jobs without the government
There are issues, certaintly, but you are allowed great power to influence them.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@secti9
Your …
@secti9
Your rights root from other people accepting your claims of ownership. You have no rights without this acceptance. You can do, eat, drink, smoke whatever you please, as long as someone else doesn’t please to steal your food, drink and smoke (that would be a ‘do’ of the other person).
You also have a right to change “taxation, eminent domain, search & seizure” according to procedural rules. You even have a right to change the set of rules. Or to leave the society, you don’t like.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Durbin is talking, …
Durbin is talking, so, he’s obviously lying. CONTROL that is ALL the regressives want. Disgusting ambulance chasing profligate.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@theseeker88: Not …
@theseeker88: Not true. We fought the British because of taxation, & we didn’t have any taxation for the first few decades after we beat them, other than to pay back the French.
Unfortunately, the new government did what all governments tend to do: began expanding its power & in doing so set up taxation.
We no more need taxation than we need corruption.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@papercrow27: you …
@papercrow27: you cannot have liberty without rights. Rights derive from property (i.e. My body is my property = > I can do, eat, drink, smoke whatever I please. I own my land, & I can say or do whatever I want on it.). If you have a system that coercively takes away property (taxation, eminent domain, search & seizure) at will of a government, we effectively have no rights.
Taxation is theft of money/property I’ve rightfully received in accordance with the agreement with my employer.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
(cont’d) Also, …
(cont’d) Also, insurance companies don’t ALWAYS love gov. reg.. For example, they would love a mandate because hey, new customers, right? However, they’re not going to particularly like the fact that they have to pay out more often because they can’t discrim on pre-ex conditions (a VERY loose phrase). And I do agree with some idea of disregarding reg., such as the anti-trust exemption that applies to insurers (which will foster greater competition between companies). all in all: tripod
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I don’t think you …
I don’t think you meant to do this, but you just outlined my point. There is NO possible way to get rid of pre-ex policy without mandating insurance. If you cut all gov. regs. to insurers, they’re just not going to pick up sick or injured people (or possibly pay out due to ‘recission’) for any reason because it’s not economical to do it, which defeats the point of insurance. It’s NEVER profitable for this type of business to pay out, you see?
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The real costs are: …
The real costs are:
(1) 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits.
(2) Robbing Medicare and SocialSecurity to fund this healthcare bill.
(3) First 10yrs adds $500 billion to deficit. Second 10yrs adds $1.5T
You read it right, 2nd 10 years adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit. Obama’s team has not yet responded to this criticism by Republican Senators. Majority of Americans do not want this bill passed, but Democrats will try to jam it through using reconcilation tactic.
.
.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@papercrow27: …
@papercrow27: you’re on the right track, but that light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
In your mirth you’re ignoring that the thief may usethe stolen $ for things you find objectionable: assassination of foreign leaders whose politics are incongruent with corporate interests, expand “war on terror,” nuke proliferation, increased welfare spending, funding Rep. / Dem. political campaigns, etc.
Here’s an idea: keep your money – all of it – & pay for what YOU want (i.e healthcare charities)
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Ignoring semantics …
Ignoring semantics for the moment, I will grant you that the pre-ex issue is extraordinarily challenging. Nevertheless, gov. mandating carriers waive it is tantamount to driving w/o insurance wrecking the car then calling GEICO & demanding they cover it. Why should they? Gov. mandating we all buy insurance is as abhorrent as seatbelt laws.
FYI: ins. carriers LOVE gov. regulation b/c it keeps new competitors from entering the market. Better: remove ALL gov. regs. so they’ll have competition.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
EXACTLY!
EXACTLY!
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I don’t know… …
I don’t know… your analogy makes me kind of smile a little (I know that wasn’t your intention, but thank you). man: “gimme 15% of what you got in your wallet.” me: “what for?” man: “can you figure out what 15% is?” me: “yeah.” man: “has it helped?” me: “yeah, i went to college and graduate school.” man: “that’s because I paid people to teach you to do that with 15% of other people’s money.” me: “oh…well, ok!” hehehe… thank you, man.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Look, this whole …
Look, this whole thing reform deal is a tripod. No one is advocating free health care; everyone still has to pay in one way or another. One of the most universal things we can all agree on is that the “preexisting conditions” fees have to go; it’s a terrible policy. Unfortunately, we can’t get rid of it without bankrupting the insurance industry. Therefore, we have to mandate that everyone be covered. However, some people still can’t afford it and therefore, subsidies.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Why in the world is …
Why in the world is this video titled: Sen. Durbin Destroys Republican Arguments on Malpractice Reform? Most of Sen. Durbins donors are trial lawyers. The people with the most to lose if there’s real tort reform are trial lawyers. He’s just another back room democrat deal maker looking out for who gives him the most cash.
This whole health care legislation is a mess and will only pass if it’s forced upon the American public.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@papercrow27: you …
@papercrow27: you pose a number of “if / then” assumptions (i.e. if forced to chip in for healthcare, my property value are maintained). They’re wrong, but forgivable: politicians condition all of us to think this way.
If / then assumptions are often wrong (yours included) b/c they assert there are only 2 possibilities: “If you’re not w/ us, you’re w/ the terrorists.”
“If you’re against reform, you put profits > people.”
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
And Canada has an …
And Canada has an excellent system and so does Australia, in fact 17 industrialized countries have some form of public health care. You sound like someone working in Durbin’s office whose job it is to respond ever so politely. The Democratic leadership is as bought and paid for as the Republican and Durbin gives lip service to health care without really standing and leading. He’s part of the problem not part of the solution. It’s time for action not some sad story to make him seem sympathetic.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@papercrow27: “If …
@papercrow27: “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait ’til it’s free.” ~ PJ O’Rourke. I /wish/ everyone would “pitch in” & that the result would be cost decrease. Assuming for argument’s sake the latter always follows the former, I would be on board IF the “pitch in” part were voluntary. Sadly, like every gov. program, the current proposals use /force/. For the same reason I think defense, infrastructure, etc. should be voluntary funded, so I think healthcare reform should be funded.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Though I understand …
Though I understand your frustration, single payer isn’t the only option in terms of coverage. France works in a combination of private and public insurance. So does Germany. Switzerland has no public insurance, but rigorously regulated private insurers, a mandate, and subsidies.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Again, suits are …
Again, suits are about .5% of the total health care costs. That’s from the CBO’s cost estimate report. I’m not certain of the validity of the claim that patients can’t sue their doctors in Europe, but I am certain that your overall assertion is incorrect. France actually has the best doctors and health care in the world, and they are partially socialized.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
He may want to …
He may want to extend access but I haven’t once heard him advocate for Medicare for all (Single Payer Health Care). I didn’t hear him say that at this meeting or on the floor of Senate. When is he going to start standing up for it? Cause I’m waiting? Using obscure language isn’t going to do it. If he’s for it say it plainly but like Obama the insurance companies might slap him down and I don’t think Durban wants to start crying on the senate floor again. Apologizing for stating the truth.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Republicans have …
Republicans have never seemed more partisan, more stupid and less ethical than they do today. What a disgrace to America.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
You should title …
You should title this video, “Sen Durbin blocks tort reform and stands shoulder to shoulder with powerful trial lawyer lobbyists.”
He’s just one of 42 US Senator bought and paid for by the trial lawyers being able to prevent the nation from enjoying the benefits of tort reform.