How often to keep this blog updated? I am inpressed. I would like to see more. Thanks…

Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Pianoforte Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

One can say this is a signal of how tired quite a few people are becoming of Obama already. Republican gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia have won some early elections for those states in America (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)….

Maybe you were. I wasn’t.

So your argument was that Texas was saving on health care costs by addressing tort reform in areas that have nothing to do with health care?

Can we also save on health care costs by switching to GEICO for our car insurance?

The only reference I ever made medical malpractice costs was to note that the tiny savings you were sneering at were actually pretty important to the doctors who were paying the malpractice premiums.

Which is a pretty stupid argument when the issue is whether medical malpractice costs significantly reduce health care costs overall. Not whether it significantly helps the doctor’s bottom line. But I would not expect you to either understand the difference.

chapoutier said:

I did? Where? Please link then and PROVE it.

Wow. Your cognitive dissonance from one post to the next is amazing.

Wow, it’s really amazing that you either didn’t read my post or neglected to add that I wasn’t around when you made these posts.

Wait a sec. Weren’t you the same person, hailing from this same district, that said Owens would win? Ummm, okay.

Other posters as well have said the same thing. How am I any more wrong than them (especially the ones who were around when you decided to “speculate”).

I don’t remember you giving a “ceiling” to Owens’ support or you qualifying your prediction.

I said this too… also admitting I didn’t remember because I wasn’t around when you gave Owens a “ceiling.”

That’s really funny…your sudden back-tracking deniability. You never made “that” call. C’mon…

Other commenters are basically saying what I’ve said. At first it was a prediction, then speculation, then you you didn’t take into account Scozzafava dropping out and endorsing Owens.

It’s all about context, Chaps. I basically admitted I didn’t know what you said when you made the post about the “ceiling.” The only cognitive dissonance seems to be coming from you.

On November 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm, chapoutier said:

You may be able to read, but you don’t show much understanding of what it is you’re reading, which may be why you try to snow people with a blizzard of useless and irrelevant statistics. By trying to treat health care costs in isolation, you ignore the financial benefits from tort reform overall – which, once again for the terminally stupid, goes in the same pockets.

On November 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm, chapoutier said:

We were discussing med mal tort reform and you know it. Don’t try to be cute.

Maybe you were. I wasn’t. The data is clear. We saved a bunch on tort reform (even prior to the 2003 law, which seems to be the only one you’re aware of.) The only reference I ever made medical malpractice costs was to note that the tiny savings you were sneering at were actually pretty important to the doctors who were paying the malpractice premiums.

AlohaGuy said:

OT
Michelle has a Mac and probably uses whatever Commie browser comes on that religious apparatus.

Yeah, OT, but the issue off page display has come up several times, so it’s an excusable OT.

I believe Michelle uses Macbook Pro and I’m guessing she also uses Firefox for Nac for doing some webstuff. Apple’s default browser is Safari. The Windows version of it is pretty good.

BTW – I once wrote a browser for a class I was auditing. They’re way easier to code than you might think.

Making a browser is relatively easy to do, AlohaGuy – making a good browser is another animal! As the interwebs get more complex – e.g diff streaming media formats – you gotta constantly be rewriting the code. Then they’s the always ever-new virii and other nasty netbugs to factor in.

But it’s fun to have a “hobby browser”.

Ah, for the simple days when there were no browsers, just BBS….

I tried to have a debate about that. No one was interested in actually debating with facts.

No one was interested because a) you’re a liberal b) you’re in a profession too invested in a “lack of” tort reform. Some states have it with mixed success.

Yes. When you misstate what I predicted, you are indeed wrong.

Actually, you were all about how Hoffman would “split” the vote which would make the race go in Owens’ favor. Ummm… that was a scenario you played, right?

No. When someone claims to recall what I said, and calls me a liar when I say that is not what I predicted, and then is proven wrong when I actually show the posts, then you have lost the argument.

Actually, I wasn’t around for most of your “speculations.” I’m not saying you lied. I’m saying you denied that you speculated that if Hoffman split the vote, Owens “could” win (prediction padding). Perhaps, I wasn’t specific? I haven’t lost the argument because there was never an argument to be had. You like it both ways. You padded your outcomes with language such as “could.”

Listen, emjem. You want to mess with me, fine. You seem to get off on that a lot lately. But don’t get all huffy when I directly challenge you, especially when you claim to know what I said better than I. You know what they say about the bull and horns.

I’m not messing with you. There’s nothing to mess with. You’re like every other liberal in my life who’s ever BS’d me. You would be the last person to know what I “get off” on. Liberals like to think they know “better” when they don’t. When you call me “sweets” isn’t that just to demean me because you look down on people? You condescend and I’ve grown used to it but I don’t excuse it. So, if you want to continue down the whole “emjem has grown huffy because she doesn’t like being challenged,” line of thought then so be it. Any poster who’s “acquainted” with my contributions knows differently. For someone who says I know what they said more than the actual poster, it’s interesting that you’re speculating my own motivations. You don’t know. And you never will.

You “claim” you know the Republican party too, but you don’t. Not really. Republicans don’t. Politics is a shifting, fluid thing. It’s not static, just as polls, allegiences, positions aren’t.

In the end, I’m beginning to wonder if you know anything about humans at all if they don’t exhibit the same patterns, thoughts, beliefs, etc. that you do.

Yeah, that’s the one – when you were claiming that tort reform had no effect on health care costs. Of course you never seemed to realize that it doesn’t matter which dollar you save – it’s the saving that counts, and as I pointed out we saved around 40% of our tort costs. That translates into a net savings to the state (and businesses and individuals) of about 10 billion dollars, which leaves more money for other obligations like, oh, for instance, health care.

On November 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm, chapoutier said:

And maybe you should stop pretending to know more about Texas than I do. We started passing tort reform legislation in 1995. The 2003 bill was just the most recent piece. I could give you a link, but you wouldn’t read it anyway.

Yeah, that’s the one – when you were claiming that tort reform had no effect on health care costs. Of course you never seemed to realize that it doesn’t matter which dollar you save – it’s the saving that counts, and as I pointed out we saved around 40% of our tort costs. That translates into a net savings to the state (and businesses and individuals) of about 10 billion dollars, which leaves more money for other obligations like, oh, for instance, health care.

Oh, txvet. That is a doozy. Try reading your own source. That $10 billion figure is for THE ENTIRE tort system, which includes a LOT more than just med mal. You should have known that based on the fact that the study was done 3 years BEFORE med mal reform.

Are you going to live blog tonight?