StopJarrett.com
There’s a new website dedicated to exposing White House senior adviser/Chicago consigliere/real estate mogul Valerie Jarrett.
Policing Obama’s culture of corruption takes eternal vigilance.
Posted in: Corruption, Valerie Jarrett
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Corruption, Valerie Jarrett
Green Room
» Imagine No al-Qaeda, It’s Easy If He Tries…
Stop The ACLU
» Confirmed: global warming is a hoaxNewsBusters.org
» NYT Environmental Writer Confirms Probable Authenticity of Hacked Climate Change MessagesJustOneMinute
» Maybe They Can Switch Sides AgainConservatives4Palin
» Going Rogue in Cincinnati After Some Issues in Noblesville; Updated: Problems in Noblesville Staged?JustOneMinute
» Free Nate Silver!Riehl World View
» Berkeley Students Flee CapitalismRiehl World View
» Glenn Beck Is An Ass
There just is not enough salt to pour on these slugs living under the rotting log called Marxist/Liberalism
No kidding.
Part of Porkulus is free cell phones and minutes for welfare recipients.
Your tax dollars, helping stimulate the economy by facilitating crack deals.
Well hell, lets give em house they cannot afford also – oh! wait — underneath the Cummunity Reinvestment Act thats already happened.
OT;
Latest NY 23 Poll from Research 2000 (previous results in parentheses).
Scozzafava (R) 21 (30)
Owens (D) 33 (35)
Hoffman (C) 32 (23)
Full crosstabs here.
Hmm, if Dede dropped out, would that mean Owens’ numbers would go up?
Go for it! The closer to BHO a person is who falls, the faster this administration falls. All the radicals need to go, followed by all the enabling stupid members of congress.
Her (most likely unrequited0 jones for Jones (Van) is what prompted the
Fox ass-ault, i reckon…
unrequited0 = unrequited)
Thank you, thank you Michelle for keeping on top of jarrett. Glenn is doing a good job also. I just hope someone, somewhere, somehow will come forward with stuff on this gal to crater her, bho, and mo!
L
Blogging truth to power!
Given her roots I hope no one expects her to go quietly. And the “noise” she make will be loud, ugly and possibly a threat to the safety of those exposing her.
If Jarrett gets the axe, Obama will just make another one like her.
It might be more beneficial to keep her where she’s at…she keeps making the Administration stink, and we’re already on to her. A new person would just require us to start all over again.
You might be on to something…sort of a variation on, “Never interfere with the enemy when he is destroying himself…”
A.K.A. – give ‘em enough rope…
The last thing I want is for the weak minded to think that Obama is doing something about his internal problems. Just as well let it ride the way it is, cause it sure ain’t helping
Keep her in position and file charges when the evidence presents itself.
On October 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, chapoutier said:
A Daily Kos partly funded poll? Hmm.
Now all of your stats on tort reform are definitely called into question.
If DingBat Scozzafava comes in third that would really send a message to the airheads of Grand PooBah Land. I would hope Hoffman wins-but even if a Democrat takes the district the message is sent.
—-
Even if Ma Barker Jarrett goes she would stay-MamaBama can not function without her. Short of sending the scam artist to jail I am afraid we will be stuck with her for the current emergency–Czarina of the Grift? Special Counsel to the Board of Pardons and Parole?
—
A.K.A. – give ‘em enough rope…
That says your guy has gained 9 in a week? You sure you want to impugn that? At the very least, Research 2000 has twice the sample size and publishes all crosstabs and sampling data. Which the last two polls sponsored by Hoffman endorsers have not.
I was literally begging people to call into question my statistics with statistics of their own. Curiously, no one stepped up to the plate.
Good one!
Top o’the world, Ma!
(Let’s resist the threadjack.)
On October 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, chapoutier said
I’ll get right on that after you can convince me that it is right and proper for the State to force everyone to pay for your liver scraping.
I never said I was begging you. I was asking the people that argued for it in the first place.
JARRETT IS A CHICAGO THUG DEEP INTO THE TROUGH THAT IS COOK COUNTY.
Jarrett was born in Iran, and her dad was reportedly a Communist. Her mother worked closely with the parents of Bill Ayers. She is the left side of Obama’s brain, and his trusted confidant. She is borne of Chicago politics, and is a radical that has benefited from capitalism. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, she is determined to bring down the USA from the inside.
That’s all I need to know about her.
Answer a simple question; Is she, or is she not good for America? Your answer should be a resounding “no!”
Here’s another Kos poll for you. Highly unscientific, I might add.
If Bambi boots Jarrett, she will just go join van jones at the tides foundation or wherever all the other marxists go hide from the public.
I am standing by to pipe Jarrett ashore for good.
You could have done it yourself with a short Google search. As I recall, you didn’t source your stats, which makes them hard to evaluate and/or refute. But if you really have an interest in the subject, you might start here. In any event, tort reform wasn’t about malpractice insurance premiums as you appeared to be claiming, although they could be affected by it – (from the link: “”Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state’s largest liability carrier, reduced its premiums by 17 percent (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).”". As to whether Texas is better off, you might check the state of our economy against that of pretty much anywhere else. As far as California is concerned, no single remedy is going to cure their mess. They didn’t get where they are overnight, and they won’t be cured until they evict all of the Marxists who got them there. Including Ahnold’s wife.
I did. I just didn’t continually link to the same sources in every post I was forced to make, stating the same point.
And, yet again, the point you fail to grasp is that lowering malpractice premiums is not the same thing as lowering health care costs, because those premiums make up such an insignificant amount of overall healthcare spending, less than 2%. (See…there is my source)
On October 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, chapoutier said:
So you concede the more important and salient point that the State has no business forcing me to pay for your future liver cloning.
Or any of your other health care needs.
And you missed the point of my response – and apparently didn’t read the link I posted – that because the premiums were a small part of overall healthcare spending, that they were not insignificant to the doctors who had to pay them. From the link: “The five largest Texas insurers cut rates, which will save doctors about $50 million, according to the AMA (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).” In fact, as I recall, your claim was that malpractice rates had climbed something like 19%. In any event, once again, it wasn’t just about malpractice insurance premiums (I know, I’m repeating myself – you don’t seem to listen.) Once more from the link:
That’s 40% savings, not 2%, and only includes data through 2000, while the most recent installment of tort reform (HB 4) wasn’t even passed until 2003. I can see why you hate it, though. Most lawyers do.
A friend just sent me this. It is a cartoon made back in 1948, and is very poignant for today’s discussions about the direction this country is heading under the Obama Administration. This is something the left would ban if they could…Please take time to watch.
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
txvet,
No. I said insurers TRIED to raise rates 19% after the tort reform they claimed would cause them to drop their rates was passed. They were rightly smacked down by the Texas legislature which essentially forced them to drop their rates. That is why malpractice rates are lower in Texas. Not because of market forces.
And yet again, tort costs may be lower. HEALTH CARE costs are not. Please tell me you understand the difference. I can’t believe I have to point out this obvious distinction for the hundredth time.
chap,
You are not objective. Give it a rest.
The cost of liability insurance is passed on to consumers. That is true across the board and it is true in health care. What health care cost can be lowered because the cost of doing business goes down when insurance premiums go down.
It isn’t that complicated. Your bias shows up in your attempt to make something simple complicated.
No wait, you are a lawyer. You probably can’t help yourself.
No one expects folks who make a living from law suits to be on board with tort reform.
Your resistance is expected.
In the first place, I don’t see anywhere in your CBO source any discussion of health care costs in Texas (although they reference several other states, none of which have apparently passed any form of tort reform), or anything else relevant for that matter, so maybe you’re thinking of some other source for your claims. Or maybe you didn’t read your own source, just as you apparently haven’t read anything in the link I posted. It’s possible you claimed that they merely tried to raise rates – I remember differently, but then my memory is far from perfect. In any event, the rates were decreased. I see nothing in your source to substantiate your claim that health care costs haven’t dropped (or your claim that the legislature mandated an insurance rate decrease – my source would appear to imply that it was voluntary), but then that’s totally irrelevant to your original (implied) claim that tort reform was of no or insignificant benefit to the state of Texas. And as I pointed out above, tort costs for Texas dropped about 40%. Once more for the last time – read the link I posted. It does a very good job of explaining exactly what benefits we’ve derived from tort reform, which answers your original question. As for me, I’m off to other things.
Regardless, I am right.
And what I have consistently said is these malpractice premiums are such an insignificant percentage of overall health care costs that any savings on these malpractice premiums ha a negligible effect on overall health care costs. It’s not that difficult a concept. And it has the added bonus of being correct, seeing there is no correlation between the many states that have already enacted tort reform and lower health care costs.
Well, you are 0 for 2 on this one, because I do not make my living from lawsuits. If you think all lawyers do, it simply shows your ignorance. And I do not oppose tort reform. As many have shown, it can have positive benefits. Having a significant impact on health care costs is not one of them.
So? I didn’t cite it for that purpose. I cited it to tell you that malpractice premiums TOTAL make up less than 2% of health care costs, on average. I cited this so you would get an inkling of the fact that tort reform, at best only affects a small percentage of the overall cost.
Over half the sates have already passed tort reform. This is not a new idea.
It’s not possible. It’s fact.
Right. After Texas forced the insurers to lower their premiums. The tort reform legislation did nothing. But keep on believing in that free market approach.
Rates over the past 10 years have risen 91.6% in Texas. I cited this study and that was right in the middle with respect to other states. Feel free to confirm.
Wrong. See link above.
I never claimed this. I said it was of no or insignificant benefit TO HEALTH CARE COSTS in Texas. I have made this distinction more times than I can count and yet you still insist on claiming I said something I have not.
That Van Jones speech at the Power Shift conference makes you rethink the environmental movement.
Close the damn borders! Save the treason for natural born communist.
Sounds to me like they have a lot in common. She’s not going anywhere.
“After Texas forced the insurers to lower their premiums. The tort reform legislation did nothing.”
Sorry but that is again a misread by someone who is adamantly opposed to tort reform.
1. If there was no tort reform in place the state would not have had grounds to expect rates to be lowered. So yes, tort reform did have an impact.
2. All you are pointing out that in tort reform legislation there needs to be ties to rates being lowered for malpractice or any other type of insurance that tort reform may impact. What Texas indicates is not that tort reform is worthless. It indicates that tort reform needs to do a little more than Texas’s did initially. It points to a way to make the legislation better. The example you cite is not proof that tort reform is useless or ineffective.
I take your point that the tort reform was necessary before Texas could force the lower rates.
But yet again I point out I do not oppose tort reform. I just oppose it as a solution to health care costs.
“Regardless, I am right.”
Spoke like a true man of words counselor.
You get to “right” by arranging the facts to fit your preconceived bias regarding tort reform. Again expected. That’s what lawyers do. And after all their conclusions are “right” because look at all the facts they have lined up.
Sorry but you are wrong. Tort reform leads to lower cost to do business. Lower cost to do business leads to lower cost to consumers who consume that “business”.
Across the board the health care industry is burdened with outrageous cost simply to do business.
Tort reform is not an option IF the goal is to lower health care cost.
Follow the dots in California’s medicaid crisis as to why they have a bazillion patients who can’t find pcp’s so those patients end up using urgent care and ER’s which has driven the cost of providing for California medicaid patients through the roof.
PCP’s won’t join the panel from which medicaid patients can choose. They won’t because after you add up all the cost for doing business including the cost for the kind of malpractice insurance needed to protect pcp’s from law suits brought by slimy lawyers using medicaid patients as clients makes what PCP’s get reimbursed by the state of California about 15% less than it cost.
So for every patient a PCP signs up under California’s medicaid program, that PCP loses money.
California medicaid patients go to urgent cares and ER’s and the cost to California is excessive.
You don’t and you won’t find a study that links tort reform to California medicaid patient’s use of urgent cares and ER’s.
The research “dots” don’t produce the kind of dots needed to make those kinds of connections. Studies just don’t work like that.
BUT, it is true none the less. You get to it being “true” by common sense counselor.
Not by tweaking “facts” to support a already concluded bias to feel “right”.
No one expects people who make a good living from the current malpractice system to support tort reform. We get it. Keep posting if you want chap. You only keep adding to the evidence proving what we already know. Lawyers who have made, do make, or have loved ones who make money off of the current system do not want the current system to go away.
We get it.
But when it comes to the issue, we need tort reform to help lower cost of health care to consumers. If tort reform legislation needs to include the incentives or mandates for malpractice insurers to lower premiums hey, that’s ok. But we still need tort reform.
Frivolous law suits directed at nursing homes in Arizona are wiping out nursing homes. And yes, some patients get bad care. By far and away most patients do not. All one has to do is look at the seminars offered by and to hungry lawyers on how to suit nursing homes and realize these nursing home lawsuits are about money, not about some righteous indignation being corrected by honorable and Don Quixote type lawyers.
There’s a great deal of slime in your industry sir. And many of us are tired of paying to allow it to continue.
Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform…..
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS307751+31-Jan-2008+BW20080131
And its defeat along party lines:
http://wpln.org/newstranscripts/?p=6069
Good luck finding a decent caring home to put your parents in if we continue on the path that NOT having tort reform has created.
Hilarious. You cite California, which has had tort reform in place for over three decades?
I repeat, if it is so obvious and such common sense that health care costs are significantly reduced by tort reform it should be easy to find studies to back that up. There are literally dozens of states from which the theory can be tested. Not one person has linked to such a study. So spare me your folksy appeal to “common sense” that had not been borne out by FACT.
You know what is real common sense? It is common sense to understand that cuttin a fraction of the cost of something that composed a minute fraction of the overall health care costs is about as worthless as a bucket of spit.
Many people have pointed to real reasons to support tort reform, including it’s burden on individual doctors and it’s burden on the legal system. Why, in light of these legitimate benefits, you continue to glom onto a fantasy, which does not bear out logically or empirically, is baffling.
“that cuttin a fraction”
So if its so small why resist cutting it chap?
I guess the medicaid qualified patients in California need to start showing up at attorney’s offices for care.
Thanks for continuing to confirm your bias thought.
“you continue to glom onto a fantasy”
What fantasy is that? I worked on the legislative committee to attempt to address the issue of nursing home lawsuit abuse for the State of Arizona because I am a worker who works in nursing homes and see the impact of not having tort reform up close. I did that work because I am a worker bee. Not a politician nor an ivory tower type. I’ve seen the statistics. I’ve seen the politics. I’ve seen the money. I’ve seen the impact. All of it up close and personal.
There is no fantasy about it.
Your industry needs to be controlled. The negative impact of law suits is destroying options for care for folks who both need it and will need it.
No fantasy about it.
And no, I don’t expect you to change your mind chap. I expect you to continue to tweak your facts to defend yourself, your wife, your industry.
That is why if we are to get a grip on the cost of lawsuits voters and law makers will have to do it to you and your industry. Not with you. But to you.
May not happen. I’m hoping it will.
Who is Regardless?
First off, my wife has never sued a nursing home in her life. What she has done is exposed systemic abysmal and sometimes criminal care from nursing homes against people who often cannot fight back. Again if you are trying to drum up sympathy for tort reform you’d better come up with a better example.
But I ask you. Can you point to ANY studies showing that nursing homes in states with tort reform are in any better shape than those don’t?
And one last point. Arizona already has in place many aspects if tort reform, such as the collateral source rule, pure comparative negligence, elimination of joint and several liability… Did your extensive experience in this issue lead you to any conclusions as to their effect?
Since I brought the subject up…. The most disgusting thing about my experience working to attempt to get some controls and reforms in place to manage nursing home lawsuits in Arizona was not with the folks who want no reform. Just like chap’s post about the matter are no surprise, quite anticipated, quite bias, I expected the lawyers and their lobbyist to be against reform. Made perfect sense.
What was the most disgusting was the lobbyist who was on “our side”. And here’s why.
That lobbyist, and his company, made a good living off of representing the nursing home industry regarding legislation. Part of who he sold his services to nursing homes and nursing home groups is/was by focusing on the impact and fear of the law suits.
We had this point in the process where we could have made a huge step in controlling the cost and have a favorable outcome for nursing homes BUT “our guy” did not want the legislation to address too much too fast. The fear was doing too much too fast the entire bill would be voted down.
Ok, I’m a nurse. He’s the expert. Panel went along with it as well.
Later I spent some time with a close and long time friend who is an elected state level dude. He and I talked about it. That’s when I got disgusted. The guy on “our side” makes a good living off the issue. The issue IF resolved, his income goes away. So of course he is not going to fix it all at once. He isn’t stupid. He knows how the system works.
That’s when I realized I would never ever be a politician and run for an office.
That’s also when I realized the truth of this saying. “One should never see how they make sausage or make laws.”
I did not serve on the committee again.
Its a big dance. Both sides know each other. Both sides making money off the dance. The dance stops, both sides lose. Have to keep the dance going.
It is disgusting.
The fact that you again insist I am against tort reform means you are either retarded, disingenuous or illiterate. Either way, it is pointless to continue to argue with someone who refuses to engage the actual debate and refuses to substantiate his claim in any way.
“Did your extensive experience in this issue lead you to any conclusions as to their effect?”
Nope. Don’t care. Not needed to be for tort reform. You don’t seem to understand chap. We get it. You want to frame the conversation by defining what is or what “matters” in the dialog. Ok. That’s how lawyering works. Doing so doesn’t make you right. It makes you a lawyer.
To lower health care cost the cost of doing business needs to be lowered. To lower the cost of doing business the cost of malpractice insurance needs to come down. One of the ways malpractice insurance cost comes down is tort reform.
I don’t need extended studies to prove the “rightness” of that logic.
There are other things and they need to be included, risk management, self policing, etc., but tort reform has to be in the mix. IF we are serious about lowering health care cost.
There are also other ways to ensure patient care meets quality standards besides law suits.
Again IF the value is patient quality care.
Reimbursement levels are dropping like a lead balloon. Expecting more staff, better trained staff, all combining to equal quality of care is lunacy IF we don’t do something about lowering the cost of doing business.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6651903.html
And exactly what types of cases you or your wife participate in particular is irrelevant in regards to the only point I’ve made about it. It has been a general point regarding your bias. I don’t need specifics to justify my observation.
I too have the same bias in play. As a nurse I do not want socialized medicine. In part because in places where socialized medicine is in play, nursing salaries are lower. I don’t want my income to drop. Of course I’m against socialized medicine.
It is no crime to have a bias when it comes to protecting ones income.
Just don’t expect us to act like you don’t have a bias about it chap.
Wow. I knew you were pulling stuff out of thin air, but I never thought you would admit to it so baldly:
I think that just about does it for this topic.
“The fact that you again insist I am against tort reform”
You are FOR tort reform? Well I guess I sure missed that. My apologies. Please, and seriously, lay out for us what chap’s tort reform looks like. I’d like to see what you would propose.
“actual debate and refuses to substantiate his claim in any way.”
Sorry chap but that is incorrect. Time and time again you ridiculed what I did point out. You can’t both ridicule that something and then say nothing was “claimed” at the same time.
I’ve pointed out several things. What I have refused to do is take what you’ve offered and allowed you to frame the conversation. That means you bail? Ok. That’s what a loser does in my book. IF you can’t frame the dialog you quit it?
I will repeat myself.
To lower health care cost the cost of doing business needs to be lowered. To lower the cost of doing business the cost of malpractice insurance needs to come down. One of the ways malpractice insurance cost comes down is tort reform.
Can’t seem to find any fault with that logic and I’m not sure how I’m suppose to substantiate that. Even offered that “tort reform” should include rate reductions for the insurance industry.
“I think that just about does it for this topic.”
The best you can do is take something way out of context chap? That’s quite disappointing and kinda beneath you.
Clearly that comment is in regards to the kinds of cases your wife may or may not participate in and has nothing to do with the topic in general.
But given that is apparently the best you can do at this point, slide over to trying to take me down by taking a few sentences way out of context instead of engage in the dialog, I’d say I’ve won this round counselor.
When you resort to juvenile strategies such as your last post I agree the dialog is over.
So chap’s for tort reform argument is I’m stupid and he’s not.
Ok. I guess that about settles it.
Me I’m off to work as soon as I can find someone smart enough to dress me this morning. If I dress myself I seem to put my underwear on the outside, shirt inside out, stuff like that.
The fault in that logic is that a business can also lower costs by switching from Papermate to Bic pens. But that is such a small percentage of their costs that the effect is negligible. I have only pointed out 100 times that malpractice costs represent such a small portion of health care costs that even robust reform is unlikely to have an effect on health care costs. You continually ignore this crucial part.
Um the debate, is and always has been whether or not tort reform effectively lowers health care costs. It is not me that has obfuscated the issue by pointing to actual benefits that tort reform may have in other areas, benefits I have acknowleged.
I have also been the only one to provide any empirical data on how little effect tort reform has on heath care costs. I have continually been told how obvious it should be that tort reform will save medicine, yet not one supporter of this idea has pointed to a single study showing its effects. And not a single person has acknowledged the fact that tort reform already exists in half our states, yet costs have continued to skyrocket everywhere. I have cited studies showing malpractice premiums make up 1-2% of total health care costs. I have pointed to evidence that so called “defensive medicine” is a myth. I have pointed to states that have had tort reform for a long time (Cali) and ones that have had it for less than a decade (Texas and Miss.) and shown that the increase in premiums in those states is as high or higher than the average US state. I have pointed to the CBO, which has said that even with a very robust form of tort reform, savings would be about one half of one percent. You have pointed to…well, your feelings I suppose. If you linked or cited to anything else, I missed it. But of course, I am the one bringing my bias into the debate. I guess that and actual facts, but we’ll just focus on the supposed bias.
So yes. You are grasping onto a fantasy. But continue to delude yourself into thinking yo are not.
Oddly enough, several of the doctors who delivered my kids have abandoned the practice of Obstetrics and now only practice Gynecology specifically because of the high cost of malpractice insurance for Obstetrics.
Malpractice costs contributed to several different crises in Obstetrics in Virginia over the past 20 years.
Take a look at this 5 year-old document for more stats and information on the latest problem in Virginia. http://dls.state.va.us/groups/RiskMgmt/MEETINGS/110104/VDH_ppt.pdf
As I said:
Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential
The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!
While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:
“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”
Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042
Um…there are so many things wrong with that Hatch quote I don’t even know where to begin.
How do LAWMAKERS, by whom I guess he means government, save money by damage caps? Does the government provide malpractice insurance?
And $54 Billion over a decade, or $5.4 Billion a year, would not put the tiniest dent in health care spending, which topped 2.2 trillion in 2007.
Then why don’t we see significant savings and less defensive medicine in the many states that already have tort reform?
“Then why don’t we see significant savings and less defensive medicine in the many states that already have tort reform?”
Short answer is there is tort reform and there is tort reform.
A pretend pass it so it looks like there is tort reform bill is not necessarily effective tort reform. Using your own example of Texas. It is clear Texas needed to add a piece to its legislation that addressed the cost of malpratice insurance cost once tort reform is enacted.
It is too assumptive, global and generic to say “this state has tort reform so why hasn’t…” You’d have to look at a particular tort reform bill and see what it actually does.
Just like Obama’s definition of “tort reform” that he is interested in looking at will hardly be tort reform.
Your quesiton is built on an unsupported assumption that in those states that have tort reform, it is actually tort reform.
Are you going to describe what Chap tort reform looks like chap or are you just going to continue the junior highish Matilda argument? You know the one that goes like this, “I’m big, your small. I’m right, your wrong. I’m in realty, you live in fantasy.”
That is very robust, almost to the point of impeding legitimate claims. What is Texas missing, exactly, that you think is the silver bullet that will suddenly cause health care prices to drop?
AND wrt Texas, it is clear that the reforms did what they were supposed to do. Med mal claims were apparently cut in half within 18 months.
So if the reforms are working to significantly lower med mal cases, why isn’t it working to lower health care premiums in the state?