Tort reform might save me money, but will it save you any?

As a doctor I am all for limits on personal injury or tort reform. Limits may ultimately lead to reductions in my malpractice insurance. Good for me, but I don't think it is going to be as big a cost saver to the system as people think.

I agree tests and treatments are sometimes ordered frivolously, but that is not all because the doctor is scared of being sued. Well, maybe it is. But that fear comes from the general public's expectations and it's influence on standard of care.

For an example of this is look, what happened last year when a body looked at mammogram recommendations. When the group looked at the recommendations for how often screening should be done the whole country got in arms about possibly changing the recommendations. Because even if studies shows you have to screen 1000 extra people to catch one extra cancer (being facetious) society wants those screens. Nobody wants to be that one in a thousand who isn't caught.

Now in order for tort reform to be effective for the public, and not just for me, there would have to be reform in the practices of medicine. This would involve looking at standards of care to see the cost/benefit/risk ratio of doing certain test in certain situations, or when to or not to treat certain conditions. Sound like the "death panels" the dems were accused of creating, right? But how else are you going to change the culture in medicine?

The funny thing is when dems mention creating bodies to evaluate these risk/benefit ratio's they are called death panels. When repubs call for tort reform which will ultimately lead to the creation of the same panels they aren't death panels anymore.

I think we need to look at the overarching similarities between both sides proposals. Finding the commonalities between the two points of view should make it easier to find compromises--makes sense to me

I dont think Congress would know what a compromise was if instead of slapping them in the face it lightly kicked them in the butt....

Compromise
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands

.


That seems a simple enough concept, so why is it so hard to get our Congress to grasp that?

My biggest problem with the whole healthcare debate isnt that I am not getting everything I wanted out of the bill. It is just that I dont feel that I am getting anything for those things that I wanted but are disappearing. I dont expect to get everything I want that is not true compromise.

There is no true compromise going on. In a true compromise I would expect to hear one party say what they previously were not willing to accept that they will now accept given condition X is met. I have yet to hear that from the republicans.

From the the democrats standpoint I would expect them to say we will only make X concession if doing so would gain support for Y. I havent seen that either. Not across the isle. In the democratic party there has been compromise because of a few "blue dog" democrats trying to tenuously hold on to purple seats.

With all do respect to President Obama, Ried, Gibbs et al., I dont want you all to slow down on healthcare. I think more than three decades is slow enough. What I want is you guys to sit down to at a table on TV and say: "If I give serious tort reform a try, will you try a form of some kind of public option? Two possible responses

1) Yes," ok lets bang this out" or 2) No: "Ok reconciliation and I'll holler back in 2010, and 12"

Sounds simple, makes sense to me.

There is no such thing as "Reverse Racism"

Not going to be a terribly long article.

I just want to point out Reverse Racism doesnt exist. I mean the term is used alot but there really is no such thing. There is only racism.

The term Reverse Racism implies that racism is supposed to only go in one direction, typically thought as from whites to non whites. To call it reverse racism when it happens the other way implies that it is not supposed to happen in that direction. It says hey it was OK when it was happening to everyone else but now its a problem, its own special problem.

Now I am not suggesting that whites arent facing discrimination in today's society, but I just reject the notion it is any different than the same thing other minorities have been facing all along. Understand? Makes common sense to me.

If you lose your current insurance plan under "Obamacare" dont blame the government, blame "the free market".

PolitiFact.com rated Obama's assertion:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
As half true.

They point out that there is no provision requiring employers to take a public option, but acknowledge many employers would opt for that plan if it is cheaper.

Given the fact that in order to lose the health care you have the employer would have to opt for the cheaper plan, is it the government's fault if you end up with a new plan?

I dont believe it is. It is capitalism, it is choice, it is common sense to me.

The economy, more Lipstick on a pig

One thing I have never understood is how giving relief to corporations translates into relief for the middle class without regulation from the government. This is a belief usually toted by the right and supported by Senator McCain

One concept I don't understand is why people feel giving corporations tax breaks and benefits will stimulate the economy. This is nothing new that McCain is pushing. It was called "Reaganomics" by Reagan and "Trickle Down Economics" by Bush senior, Bush Junior would have called his tax policy something trendy had he been clever enough. But anyway the basic premise is this: You give big companies more money they will in turn create more jobs and the economy will grow. Now each administration of the three examples that I just mentioned: Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all had recessions during their terms. Why is that? If easing the load on the top was better for society shouldn't each of these administrations have been the most profitable periods in history?

The answer is simple trickle down economics as a theory maybe sound, but so is communism as a theory. The problem is it is never implemented in its theoretical form.

To put it simple for those of us who have siblings lets say mommy gave oldest brother $100 and said give your younger brothers some without saying how much you had to give them what would happen? In theory you would split your good fortune equally, but in reality what would probably happen, if you didn't pocket the whole thing, is that you would give your sibling the smallest amount you could without them telling mommy. Now if they never knew you got any money they would be happy for whatever you gave them.

Same thing happens when you give industry breaks with the expectations it will improve society. Companies get to increase their profits, the shareholders get more profits and what do we get? We get to watch companies and shareholders increase their profits. Companies have already figured out in times of economic hardships they can increase productivity with out increasing work force (i.e production cost) by just making you work harder. They know when times are rough people are too scared of losing their jobs to complain. What's more is they don't have time to complain thanks to the extra work they have to do. Jobs still get shifted over seas because they can. Why would they reduce their profits by paying you minimal wage when they can go where there is no such thing? More money in big brother's pocket (and you thought big brother was the government.)

Now on the other hand if you strengthen the middle class you create more consumers, thereby increasing demand for products and services which in turns increases the need for companies to expand to meet this demand by creating jobs. Simple huh, makes common sense to me.

I started writing this post obviously before the big news of the markets crashing. Now McCain is all for governmental regulation of the market. I wonder if I would have never published this at all would he have changed his mind on Top down economics

Why school vouchers wont work

The following is my response to a debate that me and a friend have been having on school vouchers he states states he is the product of public schools and goes on to say:

"I believe make efforts to educate our children. I also however believe that there are students that are comfortable with the current enviroment and don't have a desire to gain more than athletic and social interaction within school."

My reply:

Well, I too am the product of public education. One thing I would like to point out is you cant make the assumption that kids who dont take advantage of voucher arent "academiclly" focused as those who do. The problem is a lack of education. It is not a simple matter of lack of motivation.This is one fundamental problem I have with the right. Its the assumption that people dont succeed because they dont wont too. Trust me nobody who knows better wants to be ignorant. That is the definition of ignorance "the persitant lack of knowledge" People arent ghetto, hood, redneck white trash or whatever derogatory label that they might even assciate themselves with, because they like it. They are that way because they dont know any better. If you give a person a pig intestines their whole life they will love the taste and will teach their children to love its taste as well. And this would be acceptable unless by some chance they get to taste steak, then they would know there was something better. I know it seems as though I digress, but the point I am trying to make is that it is an incumbent responsibility of those of us who have made it to teach people who have fallen in love with the taste of chitlin that they too can have a steak dinner. And how can we do that if we take money from public school systems and from afterschool programs and the arts in poor so called "under performing schools".

We cant solve a problem of the masses by giving opportunities to the few. Parent should have the rights to have their child educated. But they shouldnt have to bus their child cross city. Every school in America should be a good performing school. That is the only was the country can remain competive globally with foreign countries who consitently out perform us in education. Makes sense to me

Are there really only two kinds of Americans?

I initially started to name this Article "Throw your set up. GOP-v-Dems". I had this whole colorful tirade ready comparing our two party system, and the gang mentality we have when it comes to our allegiance to them, to the Crips and Bloods (you know red state vs blue, clever right?). But then it donned on me how incredibly offensive to the Crips and Bloods that would be.

Well, I guess there are a lot of similarities between political parties and street gangs:

1) They both act like they are concerned about the welfare of their members when they are really only concerned about those things that keep them in power:

Like gangs political parties offer very little to its members. In gangs, the profit from its members( ie. corner dealers etc) goes to its leaders and is then redistributed. In politics the members of the parties contribute money in return the candidates the party chooses gets support, but all the constituents get are cookie cutter politicians who have to appeal to a base regardless of its members personal likings. Works great if you are running for office. In major parties you already have voters and money waiting there for you. But what do we the average voter get? A sorry consession. That's what we get. You get to settle for a politician who will have to tow a rigid party line with no room for independent thought. Which brings me to my second point

2) They both demand you follow their ideologies with out question:

In a gang you are defined by how the gang defines itself. If you are a Blood, you wear what all bloods wear, think like all bloods thinks. I see very little difference between that and staunch party loyalists who tow party line ideals with little deviation(ever notice the dress of the parties at the state of the union, black suited GOP grey suited Dems?). Want a candidate who is pro-choice, and pro 2nd amendment, going to be hard to find. Want a candidate who supports drug legalization and wants tax reform, not likely in these two parties.

3) They both fight over territory.

Red neighborhoods versus blue neighborhoods; Red States versus Blue states-- Sound familiar? Gangs don't fight hard over areas they already control. Neither do political parties. This hurts the voters because campaigns concentrate on "swing states" areas that may or may not be representative of the majority of the country. Red states -v- blue states gives a feeling of disenfranchism to people who disagree with the politics of which ever state they live in. This re-enforces the also flawed system of the Electoral college which really has outlived its purpose. I would have to start another post to get into this good.


Well I guess the comparison between "Crips and Bloods" and "Dems and Pubs" is fair after all. Well, maybe since they are similar they can learn from each other. The failure of Congress to pass legislation on topics both sides feel are important, like energy, the economy, security; shows that currently political parties are more concerned about who gets credit for the solution, than the actual solution itself. I mean street gangs are able to call a truce and stop fighting when they see the need for the common good (although their common good maybe bangin' or drug dealin).


It seems to me that our political system would benefit from the same competition they say our free market needs. We need more independents and more groups to pick from, but in the meanwhile can our two parties call a truce and work for America? Seems like you should worry less about what "set you claim" and how you can solve America's problems-- Makes common sense to me.

Guns don't kill, people. Dumb Cats with guns do

This wont be a very long post. I just want to know why a ban on assault riffles and hand-guns is a bad idea to some people. I can buy into the hand gun for protection idea if there was evidence that possessing them actually saved anyone from crime. Think about the last time you saw "Hero" footage on the news of somebody stopping a robbery by pulling out a .44 and going Clint Eastwood on somebody. In fact the last couple of times when I have seen on the news somebody thwarting a theft they weren't armed. It is usually some grandma whooping the hell out of someone with her cane or a 7-11 clerk with a broom just telling the thief "NO!" and beating him with a broom.

The truth of the matter, well in my opinion, is that if hand-guns and assault rifles were banned then there would be less hold ups. I could almost buy into low powered hunting riffles being legal for sport. I still think that would cut down on stick ups. I mean its not impossible to do, but it seems like it would be kinda hard to mug someone with a hunting riffle. Could you imagine Elmer Fudd trying to rob a Qwicky Mart?

Again I'm not saying all guns should be illegal, just certain types. How would this help reduce crimes? Simple. If hand guns and assault riffles were illegal then it would decrease demand for production, resulting in less guns in circulation. Also guns recovered from illicit activities would be destroyed. This would also raise the black market cost for guns so maybe they wouldn't be as easy to get as boot-leg movies. Eventually some guns would be rare to come by until they are rare to have at all. Makes sense to me

God and Country?

As I was getting dressed this morning, I was undergoing my usual morning lobotomy: CNN, Fox News, Headline News. While on CNN I came across a commercial advertising that the presidential candidates were having yet another forum on faith. Again each candidate had to explain to the American people that they are faithier than their opponent and that their faithiness qualifies them to lead our country.

I often wonder why this isn't a more disturbing image to more people. People will often point out that our founding fathers were Christian and that Christianity is ingrained into our culture as Americans. They would be quick to pull out some form of currency and say "See, it says in GOD we trust!". And I wouldn't argue with them there. The founding fathers of this country were immensely Christian, and probably did view this country as one set on Christian beliefs. They also were elitist who's vision of America was from the reference of rich white men. Lest we forget the only people who originally could vote were land-owning white men, and they saw fit to call my great,great,great,great grandparents 3/5ths human, extending them a very christian reception to forced labor after that free cruise.

But I digress. The original settlers established this country in refuge from governmentally instituted religious intolerance. In establishing our government they sought to ensure that the same religious intolerance that plagued them in England would not follow them across the Atlantic. Drawing on their experiences with a government(the king) instituted religion, they chose to separate church and state in order to protect their freedom of religion. The fact that they were only truly concerned with protecting Protestant Christianity is moot because in separating church and state, despite any apparent hypocrisy I might point out in their beliefs, they were smarter than themselves. In the constitution church and state are deliberately separated to maintain the integrity of both institutions. So why now are we trying so hard as a society to integrate them into one entity?

Many people ask me,"Whats so bad about a candidate making decisions based on their personal moral compass or faith?". I say absolutely nothing. My problem isn't that people have deep religious views that they use to inform GOOD RATIONAL decisions. My problem is that the political climate today focuses more on rather the person has faith than the decision that faith is supposed to be helping them reach. The idea is if they are able to sell themselves as a person of high moral and religious value than people just assume they are making moral decisions in office without consideration of the actual issues of their campaign. My example of this is in 2004 on CNN a woman who lost her husband to, and had a wounded son returning from the Middle East conflict was interviewed. They asked her if she supported the war--no, If she felt the country was domestically better off --no, Would you vote for Bush again--yes, Why? "'cause he's a Christian."

Again, I am a Christian myself and this isn't a suggestion that people shouldn't be allowed to profess their faith, but it should not be the premise on which we choose our leadership or expect our government to base law. More war, pain and suffering has been caused in history by people professing to be religiously moral people. We should let their acts and testimonial speak to their morality not the other way around. It was silly when Kennedy had to defend being catholic, and it is silly now to hear candidates now having to proclaim their personal faith. If people have good ideas that are in line with the issues you care about than would it matter if they came from a Christian, Muslim or Atheist?

Makes Common sense to me.