From: George Kerby on



On 9/14/09 7:48 AM, in article 7h6sdrF1ues95U1(a)mid.individual.net, "Rol_Lei
Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry you don't appreciate our logic....How about, "When guns are
>>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" It's perfect logic, no
>>>>> matter how many times we say it, or how sick you are of hearing it..
>>>> It's not the guns but the people.
>>>>
>>>> In Switzerland every man over 18 has his military assault rifle at
>>>> home. (Because every able bodied man is in their equivalent of the
>>>> National Guard) However gun crime is Switzerland is practically
>>>> zero and has been for years.
>>>>
>>>> It is all to do with the people and culture.
>>>>
>>>> Swiss are safe with guns
>>>> Americans are not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Because in Switzerland, most kids stop playing cowboy by the age of 11
>>> or so....
>>
>> I thought that kids in Switzerland played William Tell.
>>
>> So what's _really_ different between the Swiss and the US?
>>
>
> Seriously, I wasn't (only) being ironic:
> The Great American Myths are those of the Frontier, the Wild West, Wide
> Open Spaces, Opportunity and the Self Made Man (often seen as a coyboy,
> a fighter & a great hunter; definitely as a tough, macho self-sufficient
> dude who is willing & able to handle a saloon fight).
>

Fukin' A!!!!!

"God, Guns n' Guts made America GREAT!"
��John Wayne

From: Allen on
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-09-13 12:24:05 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> said:
>
>>
>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and
>>>> it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to
>>>> succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the
>>>> pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea
>>>> that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no
>>>> one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical
>>>> professionals who will save money but who should be out of the
>>>> business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully
>>>> won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional
>>>> repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep
>>>> them out.
>>>
>>> The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance
>>> companies
>>> nearly always settle for something, because the cost of defending is
>>> greater than the cost of paying something on even the most frivolous
>>> claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it encourages
>>> medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive medicine.
>>
>> Actually, people who have looked at medical malpractice cases find that
>> frivolous claims are few and far between and almost never get paid
>> (and, as
>> above, the ones that make it to trial do badly).
>>
>> Inversely, the number of cases where people are hurt by medical
>> malpractice
>> and don't get compensated is large. Many don't even turn into claims, it
>> would have been difficult to sue), and many valid claims get discarded,
>> rejected, or lose in court. The bottom line is that the reason there
>> is so
>> much paid out to patients from malpractice insurance is that there's
>> so much
>> malpractice.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12baker.html?_r=1
>>
>> http://www.insurance-reform.org/issues/MedMalMedmalErrorsFactSheet2009F.html
>>
>>
>> And the amount of money changing hands in malpractice cases is
>> insignificant
>> and falling.
>>
>> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php
>>
>> Thus there are three problems in medical malpractice system: (1) (as
>> above)
>> too few people are being compensated, (2) the malpractice insurance
>> companies aren't lowering their premiums even though the number of
>> cases and
>> awards has been falling (and thus are ripping off the doctors*, but
>> not by
>> an amount that has any significance at the policy level), and (3) the
>> doctors don't want there to be any malpractice system at all, i.e. don't
>> want to take responsibility for their mistakes.
>>
>> *: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/070328.html
>
> Generally the only people who believe these claims are the trial lawyers
> lobby and those who are beholden to it.
>

You left out the people who can read and comprehend; this of course
excludes those who are frightened to death about children hearing a talk
about the value of education.
Allen
From: David J. Littleboy on

"Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote:
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-09-13 12:24:05 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com>
>> said:
>>>
>>> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php
>>>
>>> Thus there are three problems in medical malpractice system: (1) (as
>>> above)
>>> too few people are being compensated, (2) the malpractice insurance
>>> companies aren't lowering their premiums even though the number of cases
>>> and
>>> awards has been falling (and thus are ripping off the doctors*, but not
>>> by
>>> an amount that has any significance at the policy level), and (3) the
>>> doctors don't want there to be any malpractice system at all, i.e. don't
>>> want to take responsibility for their mistakes.
>>>
>>> *: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/070328.html
>>
>> Generally the only people who believe these claims are the trial lawyers
>> lobby and those who are beholden to it.
>>
>
> You left out the people who can read and comprehend; this of course
> excludes those who are frightened to death about children hearing a talk
> about the value of education.

Living in a country with almost no trial lawyers, I've learned that the
trial system is the (imperfect but at least existent) means by which people
who are harmed by the actions of others get redress and that not having such
a system is not a good thing. (Fortunately, I've not had to learn this from
experience.)

It's so much fun to rant about the (both real and falsely claimed) excesses
of the system that most Americans don't even undertstand what it's for any
more.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Twibil on
On Sep 14, 12:34 am, "Bill Graham" <w...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Talk about stereotyping......I'm sorry to inform you that my conservative
> friends can think circles around the liberals around this neck of the
> woods....Especially when it comes to logic.

Not to mention self-aggrandizing hyperbola.
From: Twibil on
On Sep 14, 12:40 am, "Bill Graham" <w...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's a free hint: everything you dislike isn't automatically
> > "socialist" or "communist".  Those words have real definitions, and
> > using them the same way some folks yell "NAZI!" at anyone they dislike
> > only devalues the words and convinces everyone who has even a marginal
> > grip on reality that you don't.
>
> Its a category I put those into who are afraid to make any decisions for
> themselves.

But that category has *nothing* to do with either Socialists or
Communists.

And how in the World do you expect to win any respect for your
position if you insist on playing Humpty-Dumpty and defining words to
suit only yourself?

> They want the government to do it for them, so they can't be
> accused of screwing up if things don't turn out so well. They are afraid to
> choose their own educations, get their own jobs, and make their own
> investment decisions for their own retirement. It's so easy to just let the,
> "wise old government " do it all for them. Then, if things don't go so well,
> their hands are clean.
>  And why don't I want to go along with this? - It's called slavery, baby.

No, it isn't. (Just like your category of people who don't want to
make their own decisions has nothing to do with either Socialism or
Communism.)

In every society on record -Capitalist, Communist, Semi-Socialist,
Democratic Republic, or What-Have-You, there have always been a few
movers and shakers and a whole bunch of folks who are just along for
the ride and who are content to let others take the risks.

That's simply human nature, and it has nought to do with any political
syatem.

> I want to be free. Even if it means I stand a chance of screwing up.

Even in a dictatorial society such as the former Soviet Union there
are still free men who will stand up and be counted (Alexander
Solzenitzen comes to mind), and nothing in America's future looks to
be anything at all like the now fortunately defunct Soviet Union.

Unless, of course, the far right wing fruitcakes get their way and
surpress everything that they dislike: which is pretty much everything
that doesn't come out of their own mouths.

And that ain't "freedom" an anyone's book, Bunkie.