Palin Hit Another Hard One

Why Texas Auto Insurance Consumers Have Not Benefited from "Tort Reform"

A Response to the Texas Department of Insurance

Austin, TX -- Insurance Commissioner José Montemayor will soon announce his decision on "tort reform rate reductions". This announcement will be the last of five annual tort reform rate reduction decisions by the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). As in the past, we expect TDI to claim hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to consumers from "tort reform." For private passenger automobile insurance, TDI has already claimed the following savings:

1996 $178.5 million
1997 $177.9 million
1998 $247.4 million
1999 $247.4 million

These claims are simply do not hold up under scrutiny. In fact, Texas auto insurance consumers have not seen reductions in premiums as a result of "tort reform." Rather, CEJ’s August 1999 report on Texas auto insurers profitability shows the following overcharges to Texas auto insurance consumers

1996 $728.9 million
1997 $1,193.3 million
1998 $960.4 million
Press Release on Tort Reform Savings
 
“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”
The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs
 
“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”
The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

LOL

Saving 1.5% of 16% of the GDP annually is not "real money"

What a fucking moron!
 
Why Texas Auto Insurance Consumers Have Not Benefited from "Tort Reform"

A Response to the Texas Department of Insurance

Austin, TX -- Insurance Commissioner José Montemayor will soon announce his decision on "tort reform rate reductions". This announcement will be the last of five annual tort reform rate reduction decisions by the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). As in the past, we expect TDI to claim hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to consumers from "tort reform." For private passenger automobile insurance, TDI has already claimed the following savings:

1996 $178.5 million
1997 $177.9 million
1998 $247.4 million
1999 $247.4 million

These claims are simply do not hold up under scrutiny. In fact, Texas auto insurance consumers have not seen reductions in premiums as a result of "tort reform." Rather, CEJ’s August 1999 report on Texas auto insurers profitability shows the following overcharges to Texas auto insurance consumers

1996 $728.9 million
1997 $1,193.3 million
1998 $960.4 million
Press Release on Tort Reform Savings
Auto insurance??????

Well, I guess tort reform in auto insurance for physicians might apply, but I'm just laughing pretty much.


“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”
The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

LMAO. So, saving only 1.5% of 15% of the GDP is insignificant.

Clowns to the left of me....
 
Well, I guess tort reform in auto insurance for physicians might apply, but I'm just laughing pretty much.

While I KNEW in my heart drawing a comparison to failed tort reform measures in a similar insurance field would be too much of a stretch for your little brain, I gave it a shot anyway.
 
She did it to rejuvenate the conservative base. She's doing a great job too

So, her base appreciates her lying about "death panels"? That speaks volumes about the conservative "base"....

Ooo the base would hate it if she lied about death panels. But . . . she didn't lie! Can't you see that rationing would lead to death? No? Here's how:

Sarah Capewell, the young mother of the preemie, says that doctors told her that they were just following national guidelines, guidelines that wouldn’t allow them to help her premature son. In the UK, guidelines say that children born before the 22nd week of pregnancy should not be helped.

Medical guidelines for National service hospitals say that babies born before 23 weeks should not be given intensive care. So some panel of doctors or health professionals sat around somewhere and decided when a child’s life was viable, they evidently decided on 23 weeks. I thank God that my daughter was born right here in the USA, she was born at 22 weeks.

Well hooray for National guidelines, this UK premature baby dies because of rationing, cost cutting or some other state authorized excuse. That doesn’t really hold water when you’re a 23 year old mother spending the only two hours you’ll ever have with your son.

The doctors told Sarah Capewell to treat the birth as a “miscarriage”. Yes, I’m sure that worked, Sarah says little Jayden was breathing on his own, kicking, actually pushed himself over with his hands. Sounds just like a miscarriage to me.

UK Premature Baby Dies: It Was Against The Rules to Save Him » Right Pundits
 
Well, I guess tort reform in auto insurance for physicians might apply, but I'm just laughing pretty much.

While I KNEW in my heart drawing a comparison to failed tort reform measures in a similar insurance field would be too much of a stretch for your little brain, I gave it a shot anyway.
LOL.

1. You'll have to demonstrate those similarities - more cheap talk (means no foundation for the premise of your conclusion)

2. And, if you are actually able to demonstrate those similarites, then you will want to tackle why one sector (automotive) is not so successful in savings through tort reform and the other (healthcare) is (trust others when they say that even 1% of 16% of the GDP is a chunk of money).


Logic is pesky.
 
She did it to rejuvenate the conservative base. She's doing a great job too

So, her base appreciates her lying about "death panels"? That speaks volumes about the conservative "base"....

Ooo the base would hate it if she lied about death panels. But . . . she didn't lie! Can't you see that rationing would lead to death? No? Here's how:

Sarah Capewell, the young mother of the preemie, says that doctors told her that they were just following national guidelines, guidelines that wouldn’t allow them to help her premature son. In the UK, guidelines say that children born before the 22nd week of pregnancy should not be helped.

Medical guidelines for National service hospitals say that babies born before 23 weeks should not be given intensive care. So some panel of doctors or health professionals sat around somewhere and decided when a child’s life was viable, they evidently decided on 23 weeks. I thank God that my daughter was born right here in the USA, she was born at 22 weeks.

Well hooray for National guidelines, this UK premature baby dies because of rationing, cost cutting or some other state authorized excuse. That doesn’t really hold water when you’re a 23 year old mother spending the only two hours you’ll ever have with your son.

The doctors told Sarah Capewell to treat the birth as a “miscarriage”. Yes, I’m sure that worked, Sarah says little Jayden was breathing on his own, kicking, actually pushed himself over with his hands. Sounds just like a miscarriage to me.

UK Premature Baby Dies: It Was Against The Rules to Save Him » Right Pundits


Indeed! Obama himself has indicated the end of life costs are too high.

So then, one must assume the alternative to that cost would be.......

ObamacareKevorkian.jpg
 
Show me the difference dumbass. She wants to paint "Washington" as making promises they cannot keep. How is she any different? She took an oath to serve her term as Governor and she failed to keep it. Who the fuck does she think she is?

I thought I already covered your failure?

That's because this conversation is outside of your pre-manufactured talking points.....you have nothing to offer. Good luck with that.

HAHAHA this from a guy using the "quitter" talking point to try (and fail) to deflect from the very valid topic at hand.

I know it's hard and I sincerely feel bad that you have to try and deflect for Barack and Plugs. It must be hard to apologise 24/7 for those clowns. :lol:
 
I thought I already covered your failure?

That's because this conversation is outside of your pre-manufactured talking points.....you have nothing to offer. Good luck with that.

HAHAHA this from a guy using the "quitter" talking point to try (and fail) to deflect from the very valid topic at hand.

I know it's hard and I sincerely feel bad that you have to try and deflect for Barack and Plugs. It must be hard to apologise 24/7 for those clowns. :lol:

Please tell me again, specifically what the "very valid topic at hand" is?
 
That's because this conversation is outside of your pre-manufactured talking points.....you have nothing to offer. Good luck with that.

HAHAHA this from a guy using the "quitter" talking point to try (and fail) to deflect from the very valid topic at hand.

I know it's hard and I sincerely feel bad that you have to try and deflect for Barack and Plugs. It must be hard to apologise 24/7 for those clowns. :lol:

Please tell me again, specifically what the "very valid topic at hand" is?

Wow we're 110+ posts in and you still don't know what we're talking about?


:clap2:
 
I can't believe that Obama has Eugenicists ready to take over US Health Care system and we're still having a civil debate about it
 
I thought Libs wanted a debate on Health Care? WTF?
I'm not sure thinking is a good thing to do when it comes to some libs. Just let them emote.

Too, funny....I'm reminded of a 'debate' I recently had with a BHO groupie. He didn't understand the concept of burden of proof, so I linked to the concept at fallacy files. His response: "Fallacy files? That's just some rightwing whack job site like Fox."

I am NOT kidding. Just happened this week. I do give him credit for making me totally speechless.
 
Last edited:
I thought Libs wanted a debate on Health Care? WTF?
I'm not sure thinking is a good thing to do when it comes to some libs. Just let them emote.

Too, funny....I'm reminded of a 'debate' I recently had with a BHO groupie. He didn't understand the concept of burden of proof, so I linked to the concept at fallacy files. His response: "Fallacy files? That's just some rightwing whack job site like Fox."

I am NOT kidding. Just happened this week. I do give him credit for making me totally speechless.

Lib left this thread probably for good because they can't win a debate with Palin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top