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


>> 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.

America has a peculiar civil litigation system that exacerbates the problem
of frivolous law suits. It is not inherent in trial systems per se. In
countries that use the British model, those who lose a civil suit by default
have to pay not only their own legal costs but those of the other side as
well. The rationale is that a person who is found to have acted within the
law should not be penalised by. In practice, judges recognise that in many
disputes there are degrees of wrong on both sides and splitting of costs is
common, but that is at the judge's discretion. The prospect of taking
someone to court frivolously knowing that you could be bankrupting yourself
in the process is an effective deterrent. If you should ever be in the
position of threatening to sue someone in such a jurisdiction and they
respond, "Go ahead, I'll enjoy living in your house," you'll know why.

From: Neil Harrington on

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in message

[ . . . ]
> Congress has not learned its lesson. Bush's approval ratings were
> justifiably low. Congress' were even lower and they remain lower today.
> And it isn't because they haven't passed a health care package. It is
> because they are idiots. They haven't learned that taxpayers are tired of
> paying for earmarks, bailouts, and gigantic government programs that
> accomplish nothing. No wonder the public does not trust health care
> "reform" -- not one member of Congress (or even the President) has set
> forth even a single goal that health care reform is supposed to
> accomplish. All we get is vague mumbling about lower costs, without
> explaining how adding an additional layer of government bureaucrats (who
> all must be paid and given offices in which to 'work') along with their
> attendant consultants, contractors, endless studies, and inevitably
> confusing rules and regulations, all of which will be the source of
> endless litigation, will lower costs.
> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have been
> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that there
> aren't as many banks.

And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be as
many doctors.

This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
headline saying:
"45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.

"Two of every three practicing physicians
oppose the medical overhaul
plan under consideration in
Washington, and hundreds of
thousands would think about
shutting down their practices or
retiring early if it were adopted, a
new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

"The poll contradicts the claims
of not only the White House, but
also doctors' own lobby - the
powerful American Medical Association
- both of which suggest
the medical profession is behind
the proposed overhaul.

"It also calls into question whether
an overhaul is even doable; 72%
of the doctors polled disagree
with the administration's claim
that the government can cover 47
million more people with betterquality
care at lower cost. [ . . . ]"

> In fact, both the percentage and the total amount of risky loans in banks'
> portfolios is actually higher now than what caused the collapse a year
> ago. And all those perks and bonuses that the public hated so much?
> They're bigger and better.
> Economists originally predicted that the recession would end in June or
> July. After trillions spent on bailouts and stimulus, Congress and the
> Administration have managed to push that back until at least October,
> while squandering all the capital that would be needed if a real emergency
> arose. We're broke. If a major war broke out now, we couldn't afford to
> fight it. Another Hurricane Katrina? Forget it -- FEMA is so broke that
> they might not be able to handle so much as a wastebasket fire. If we
> actually got another hurricane like Katrina, Obama might have the singular
> distinction of making the Bush Administration's response look good.
> All Bush wanted to do in Afghanistan was catch a bunch of rascals who were
> reduced to hiding in caves. Well, he could not even do that. So now Obama
> wants to pacify the whole country, something that the Russians and British
> and several other European countries have tried to do for centuries with
> no success whatsoever. Even Alexander the Great couldn't do it.
> Oh, and lest we forget: Obama is still tapping phones; all he has done is
> change the way the President pretends to get permission to do it. He
> hasn't closed Gitmo; and if he does, all he really wants to do is relocate
> it, probably to the district of some Congressman he doesn't like. All the
> 9/11 insecurity measures and Patriot Act are still in place (unless, of
> course, the President wants to terrorize New York City by buzzing it with
> Air Force One again -- heck, if I was him, I'd be doing it every day).
> Homeland Security is still around. So, really, if you hated George W.
> Bush, you have to completely despise Barack Obama.
> Not that Obama actually knows anything about security. His idea of foreign
> policy appears to be allowing North Korea and Iran to continue to get away
> with continued development of nuclear weapons and threats to wipe their
> neighbors off the map. Draws a sharp tsk, tsk from Obama, but nothing
> else. So now two of the most dangerous regimes in the world will be armed
> to the teeth with nukes, convinced that the US is a paper tiger, with
> every incentive to actually use them and little to no apparent
> disincentive.

All well and truly said.

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)> wrote:
>"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in message

>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have been
>> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that there
>> aren't as many banks.
>And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be as
>many doctors.
>This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page

Ah yes. IBD.

Do you remember their earlier screed against health care reform?
They claimed that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he had to rely
upon Britian's socialized health care.

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in
the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of
this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is
essentially worthless.

Pretty funny given that Hawking is a professor at the University of
Cambridge in the U.K. and is quite alive thanks to NHS.

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"Andrew Cook" <nospam(a)> wrote in message

>> 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.

If you consider $1000 to $3000 per month to be a "minimum" amount of money.

Ray Fischer

From: Twibil on
On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, "Neil Harrington" <sec...(a)> wrote:
> When I was a kid there was no such thing as health insurance, or if there
> was I never heard anyone mention it. Certainly my family didn't have it, and
> still got medical care. But that was a long time ago -- you know, back in
> the '40s and '50s that leftist-"liberals" nowadays tell us never existed.

Erm, I've yet to hear a "liberal" tell me anything like that, and
*you're* trying to pretend that nothing else in the health equation
has changed in the interim, and it *has*. (Bigtime!)

Example #1: When I was a kid in the '40s and '50s, doctors still made
house calls, and the going price in our town was circa $6 to $10
dollars; medications extra but still cheap.

Example #2: When I was twelve I had to have an emergency appendix
operation. The total cost, including doctor's fees, medications, and
four or five days in the hospital came to well under $1,000.

Try that today and you'll likely be looking at over $1,000 per day
just for the hospital room itself, without even considering the
doctor's fees, medications, etcetera that can more than double the

Fact is that the cost of medical care has risen all out of proportion
to the income of the average wage earner, and medical problems that
could easily be paid for in the '40s and '50s are now costly enough to
put the guy on the street into a bankruptsy court if he has no medical

If the fact that medical care in the US today costs slightly over
*twice* what it does anywhere else in the world doesn't make you
suspect that something has gone rotten in the medical industry, you're
simply not paying attention.