From: C J Campbell on
On 2009-09-14 11:55:18 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)> said:

> "Allen" <allent(a)> wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-09-13 12:24:05 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)>
>>> said:
>>>> 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.
>>>> *:
>>> 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.

You have a funny idea of fun. Apparently you have never run a business
where you got hit by frivolous lawsuits several times a month. I have.
It is not fun. It is a huge expense. And it is extremely aggravating.
The woman who slipped and fell on county property next door -- not even
our property -- was paid $13,000 by our insurance company. Then they
raised our rates $30,000 per year.

Or the smoker who took the batteries out of the smoke detector in his
apartment -- then sued us because he was burned when the smoke detector
didn't work. Our insurance company dropped a claim we had against him
for over $600,000 because they were fearful of getting sued.

There was the employee who sued me for religious discrimination when
she was fired, even though we go to the same church.

There was the Russian who sicced her pit bull on our groundskeeper,
then sued us for discrimination when we evicted her. She also sued for
triple damages when we didn't give her her deposit back -- even though
she had not paid a damage deposit. She fraudulently claimed that the
deposit on her son's apartment (which we had already refunded) was
hers. Even though we could document all of this, it was cheaper to pay
her off than defend.

There were the armed gangsters who descended on our apartment complex
and surrounded the office, refusing to let any employees leave until
they rescinded an eviction notice given to one of their members who was
dealing drugs out of his apartment. He was also sodomizing little boys
who lived in the complex. When we called the police, the gangsters
left, but they sued us for violating their civil rights. They also told
me that they were going to hunt me down and kill me, but the police
could do nothing about that.

There was the guy who left a burning cigarette on the arm of his couch,
starting a fire that did more than $1 million damage. His dog died in
the fire. We had to drop our claim against him, though -- apparently he
left a can of lighter fluid on his deck which helped spread the fire.
Even though residents were not allowed to keep barbecues on their
wooden decks for that very reason, he somehow thought that must have
been our fault. Plus, he was hurt when the can exploded and blew him
off his second story deck.

There were people who ran over curbs and into their apartments. They
sued us because the curbs were not high enough. Others damaged their
cars on the curbs. They sued us because the curbs were too high. People
threatened to sue us because the power company had a transmission line
that went through the property next door. They threatened to sue
because their unattended children started fires in the halls.

So you want to tell me that there is not a huge problem here? You are
really full of it.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: Bill Graham on

"D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)> wrote in message
> On 9/14/09 02:55 , Bill Graham wrote:
> precisely the reasons you state.
>>> My point was that 'chipping' brings with it the worst kind of
>>> potential for abuse.
>> Perhaps so. Fingerprint reading, Eye markings. even instant DNA
>> analysis, (which I believe is in the near future). I don't really care
>> how they do it. My point is that if they can't control our borders, then
>> they will have to identify us individually....
> This is not a matter to be taken lightly. Constitutionally, the
> government is precluded from gathering the kind of information that would
> permit this. The founders, you're aware, had just extricated themselves
> from a government of the worst kinds of human abuse. In their wisdom, they
> established a set of rules which would prevent the government from
> gathering the kind of power which would permit the widespread infringement
> of individual rights. Hence the 'negative rights' Obiteme is so fond of
> speaking about. The Constitution specifically limits the power of
> government to infringe on the rights of the People. Your 'shall not be
> infringed' argument re: The Second Amendment is well made, here.
> In this light, limiting the power of the government to infringe on the
> people also means limiting the power of the government to take from the
> people, redistribute to the people, or oversee the activities provided for
> the people. In other words, the entire spectrum of 'social programs' so
> carefully crafted to spend the money of the people.
> Surrendering the power to gather the kind of information needed to
> personally identify each person within its borders would be a cost far too
> dear in individual liberties. There are better ways than letting
> government handle any of this.
> The problem is that once government had gotten involved, especially with
> protectionist legislation in the health care industry, the laws of
> unintended consequences created obstacles for the free market solution to
> many of these problems. They also created opportunities for corruption,
> and enormous profiteering, on the part of insurance, and medical
> providers. Remove these protections for insurance and medical providers
> and they suddenly have to compete to survive. In a stroke, the providers
> would have to weed out the illegals in order to survive.
> They can be dramatically more efficient than government.
> Simply opening insurance policies to portability would render much of
> the profiteering extinct. Permitting purchase of insurance across state
> lines would continue these benefits. Precluding the standard practice of
> sending one bill to the patient while sending a second and different bill
> to the insurance companies would eliminate a great deal of the fraud and
> corruption in the system.
> Bear in mind that the government is notoriously ineffective at
> protecting personal private information. This is the same entity that put
> 20 million social security numbers on the internet.
> If you like the Post Office, you'll LOVE the government being personally
> able to identify you, and your movements, at will.
Good points, and I agree with most of them. But my problem is the government
insists on taking my tax money and giving it away to "the poor", or anyone
else who makes less than I do, and I don't know how to stop this. It isn't
their money. It's mine. But they have the power to steal it from me under
this socialized system, and I don't know how to stop that. During election
time, they advertise that if you vote for them, they will steal money from
the rich and give it to the poor, and, since there are more who think of
themselves as poor than rich, these people vote for them, and then they
deliver what they promised. Obama, (for example) is giving people several
thousand dollars to buy a more efficient automobile with. I saved gasoline
all of my life, by pedaling a bicycle to work, and/or riding a 110 mile per
gallon cycle to work, but I don't get anything for this. And the people on
the news say, "Obama's cash for clunkers program is a big success" - Well,
of course it's a "success"! Why wouldn't giving my money away be a success?
It's no success to me......But it's a big success to those who qualify for
it.....How can I stop income redistribution, when the average person has
less money than I do, and is willing to vote in these thieves to steal it
from me and give it to them? What this tells me, is that democracy is a
failure......It has to eventually fail, because those who have less can vote
in thieves to steal money from those who have more, and give it to them. The
only thing that has saved us this long has been the constitution, and it is
being eroded away to the point where it can no longer do an adequate job of
protecting us.

From: Bill Graham on

"Andrew Cook" <nospam(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>> If price fixing is prevented, and free competition is forced... ...But I
>> don't see how free competition in this industry can ever be worse than a
>> government sponsored program
> I'm having difficulty working out how free competion works in health
> care.
> Say I've just been shot / had a heart attack / have some other
> immediately life threatening illness. How does 'free competion in
> healthcare' help me? I don't have time to shop around between multiple
> providers - my options are get in the first ambulance and go to the
> nearest hospital, or die.
> Them when I can't afford the co-pay, I either don't have it, or con the
> hospital I can afford it then go bankrupt later - competition doesn't
> help me there either.
The free competition allows you to buy a very good health insurance policy
for a minimum amount of money. Because there are many insurance companies in
the US who, when they have to compete with one another will sell you a good
policy at a good price. When they band together and lobby (read, buy off)
our congressmen to let them price fix, then we get screwed. If you can buy a
good health insurance policy at a reasonable price, then when you have your
heart attack, you will get the best care and have a good chance of surviving
it. Especially if there is some way of identifying you and knowing you are
well insured by a reputable company. Right now, the hospital has no way of
knowing this, and treats you like any bum off the street. And they have to
treat all the bums on the street by law, anyway, so why would they really
care? They are going to get some minimum amount of money from the government
every year for their emergency rooms anyway. Also, right now, all the young
people have no health problems anyway, and so they don't buy any insurance
at all, and us geezers who are old enough to have health problems have to
pay through the nose for out policies. If everyone had to be insured, then
the price would be reasonable for everyone. Everyone who drives a car has to
have liability insurance by law. So why can't they make a law that forces
everyone to buy health insurance? If you have the right to expect to be
treated by all the emergency rooms when you are sick, then you should have
to buy a policy, shouldn't you? You can have a "cerebral accident" just as
easily as you can have an automobile accident.

From: Bill Graham on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)> wrote in message
On Sep 14, 12:40 am, "Bill Graham" <w...(a)> 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

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

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

> 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.

Sorry, but my scenario is more logical. I have been listening to the
liberals all of my life, and I know the way they think and have figured out
why they think that way. They are afraid of making their own decisions, and
are willing to give up their freedoms (and mine) for security. You want an
example? They want ME to wear a helmet, so THEIR insurance rates will go
down. The logical extension? - They will want all of us to live in a padded
cell so everyone's insurance rates will be as low as possible.

From: Bill Graham on

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message

> Don't you think it's kind of hypocritical that on the one hand
> right-wingers oppose abortion, calling it murder, and yet on the other
> hand, they support the death penalty?

Not at all. The death penalty is for those who have had their chance to live
useful lives obeying the rules of the society, and failed to do so.....They
had their chance, and, "blew it". Abortion, on the other hand, takes away an
innocent's chance even before it existed. It is a, "death penalty" for no
crime at all. To compare the two is illogical.