McCain: No More Republican/Democrat Co-operation

[sunnyside]

Mikey's right about the star thing. I remember seeing Obama on the cover of Time magazine as a rising star/hotshot/presidential possibility long before 2007. Though while many thought he would make a presidential run, I don't know how many of those thought he'd do it in 2008.

[Captain Seafort]

Mikey's right about the star thing. I remember seeing Obama on the cover of Time magazine as a rising star/hotshot/presidential possibility long before 2007. Though while many thought he would make a presidential run, I don't know how many of those thought he'd do it in 2008.

The Times for starters. The first time I heard of Obama was back in 2005/6, while I was still at uni, when they predicted that he'd have a crack at the White House in 2008, with a good chance of winning.

[Tsukiyumi]

...I'm not sure about malpractice caps, though I think at some point that's reasonable especially on the parts for "mental stress" and such beyond treatment costs...

Here's something to consider: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

I know it's old, but it hasn't gotten any better from what I've seen.

I was witness to malpractice almost killing my best friend. It was a simple task, and they screwed it up; she's lying there dying, gasping for air because they didn't watch out for her lung tube when they moved her. They were totally unconcerned. They finally reached the doctor who performed her surgery after an hour, and then the douche said she'd be fine without it. Two days later, they had to do a third surgery to put another tube in, because her lung collapsed again. At least that time she had a competent surgeon.

Let's just say that any lump sum payment wouldn't cover her loss to me...

This sh*t needs to stop immediately, and none of the reforms I've seen put forth even mention it (although doctors whine and cry about the cost of malpractice insurance at what seems like every turn). They want malpractice caps? Cool. Stop f*cking killing people due to incompetence and maybe people would back it.

[Monroe]

To a degree the Republicans have a point. Most of the bipartisanship was invitations to fall into line and agree with the democrats, not actually present ideas and debate.

What debate did you watch? There are over 150 Republican amendments and ideas in the health care bill. Its more a Republican bill than a Democratic one.

I think this non co-operation has really hurt the government. The Senate can't even go past 2 PM. There's a whole slew of things that are being affected by Republican bullshit. People in Afghanistan are paying the price just the other day by having a meeting to discuss Afghan police unable to convene.

[Monroe]

Therefore, until someone fixes the loophole, which the Democrats are wildly unlikely to do anytime soon since it favors them, it means that any cooperation at all is just handing them a blank check to do whatever they want.

How can you expect anybody to cooperate in an environment like that?

How is it a loophole to have majority rule? I didn't see Republicans complaining when 50 + VP voted for those huge Tax Cuts through the same process. No government can survive on a super majority (67 used to be the needed to pass). Voting a simple majority is not some heinous break in government or a loop hole.

[sunnyside]

How is it a loophole to have majority rule? I didn't see Republicans complaining when 50 + VP voted for those huge Tax Cuts through the same process. No government can survive on a super majority (67 used to be the needed to pass). Voting a simple majority is not some heinous break in government or a loop hole.

It's a loophole regardless. Tax loopholes don't stop being loopholes if people don't like taxes or if other people use it.

And the more than majority requirements make sense in that it usually means that a bill has to be something that's accepted by multiple parties, and it prevents a total about face of the government every time a single seat changes hands.

Having something like reconciliation makes sense too, otherwise programs could simply be killed by choking off funding (or the government would lock up).

But this is way more than a budget change, this is one of the biggest peices of legislation in a long long time.

I wouldn't support the Republicans using the process if they got a slim majority to pass whatever they wanted either.

[Monroe]

Dude, you're not talking about malpractice caps, are you?

Mmm I think what had happened was a restructuring of the law in the state emphasising reducing extranious lawsuits.

I agree that something should be done about mal practice clams because its pretty outrageous but I've heard it will only lower costs by like 0.5%.

[Mikey]

...I'm not sure about malpractice caps, though I think at some point that's reasonable especially on the parts for "mental stress" and such beyond treatment costs...

Here's something to consider: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

I know it's old, but it hasn't gotten any better from what I've seen.

I was witness to malpractice almost killing my best friend. It was a simple task, and they screwed it up; she's lying there dying, gasping for air because they didn't watch out for her lung tube when they moved her. They were totally unconcerned. They finally reached the doctor who performed her surgery after an hour, and then the douche said she'd be fine without it. Two days later, they had to do a third surgery to put another tube in, because her lung collapsed again. At least that time she had a competent surgeon.

Let's just say that any lump sum payment wouldn't cover her loss to me...

This sh*t needs to stop immediately, and none of the reforms I've seen put forth even mention it (although doctors whine and cry about the cost of malpractice insurance at what seems like every turn). They want malpractice caps? Cool. Stop f*cking killing people due to incompetence and maybe people would back it.

That's a terrible anecdote, but anecdote it is. The fact is, spurious lawsuits have combined with "doctors make money so they're always evil" mentality to ensure that the resulting malpractice insurance puts healthcare in the position it's in. I don't believe that you really think that more doctors hurt people than help people. To make it personally relevant - wouldn't it be great if, because of the affordability derived from not worrying about uncapped malpractice regs and non-punishment of spurious litigators, you had been able to afford private coverage when you hurt your knees?

[Monroe]

And the more than majority requirements make sense in that it usually means that a bill has to be something that's accepted by multiple parties, and it prevents a total about face of the government every time a single seat changes hands.

I agree but when the Republicans are too childish to do any kind of cooperation nothing you can do can get Republican support.

[sunnyside]

I agree but when the Republicans are too childish to do any kind of cooperation nothing you can do can get Republican support.

In regards to this thread, they aren't being childish. Imagine if e-bay worked in a similar way where buyers could just take any amount of their money back after recieving the product if they felt like it. It would simply not work. The Republicans are in a similar situation now. Usually bipartican deals involve various concessions to the other side, maybe even some straight up pork.

While it might be hard to turn a bill on education reform into legalized gay marriage, it would be trivial to slice out concessions, such as funding to assist homeschooled children or something like that.

IF the situation were one where it was always 51 to win I think it would make for a wildly unstable system, but OK. However the Republicans are placed in a ridiculous position at the moment.

[Tyyr]

Here's something to consider: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

I know it's old, but it hasn't gotten any better from what I've seen.

I was witness to malpractice almost killing my best friend. It was a simple task, and they screwed it up; she's lying there dying, gasping for air because they didn't watch out for her lung tube when they moved her. They were totally unconcerned. They finally reached the doctor who performed her surgery after an hour, and then the douche said she'd be fine without it. Two days later, they had to do a third surgery to put another tube in, because her lung collapsed again. At least that time she had a competent surgeon.

Let's just say that any lump sum payment wouldn't cover her loss to me...

This sh*t needs to stop immediately, and none of the reforms I've seen put forth even mention it (although doctors whine and cry about the cost of malpractice insurance at what seems like every turn). They want malpractice caps? Cool. Stop f*cking killing people due to incompetence and maybe people would back it.

And that's your experience with it. It's a case where there was a genuine screw up that was made but it's hardly representative of malpractice litigation. For every genuine case of malpractice you've got many more where someone is just looking for a payday. Maybe a deathly ill family member just happened to ya know, die in the hospital. Doctor's can't save everyone. Sometimes people are sick and are going to die, yet people will still sue for malpractice when their 95 year old grandmother with terminal cancer dies. And just because the lawsuit is frivolous doesn't make it any cheaper for doctors who have pay lawyer fees and take time out of their work and their offices work to collate records and defend against these lawsuits.

The real cost of all this malpractice litigation isn't in the pay outs or the lawyer fees. It's defensive medicine. It's doctors running every single test and calling in every single specialist they can think of so they don't find themselves in the middle of a lawsuit in six months explaining why they didn't run test X on their patient and trying to explain why that wouldn't have helped to 12 people who get their medical information from House and reruns of ER. There's some degree of milking Medicare or an insurance company for everything they can get there but it's a game of cover your ass that doesn't help patients at all and drives up costs.

[Mikey]

Right on the money, Tyyr. When my cardiologist told me that he doesn't think that tere was any thickening of the heart tissue or arrhythmia under stress, he then went ahead and ordered a stress test and echocardiogram. I told him I trust his judgment, and he told me it didn't matter. He was bound to order all related tests "just in case" something un-indicated occurred that may have shown up on a test that there was absolutely no call for; and if he didn't order a test that wasn't indicated, he was still either liable for a malpractice suit or would at least have to pay - in time and money - to put down such a suit.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm not saying there are no frivolous lawsuits, or that there aren't people out to scam money from the system. What I'm saying is that over a hundred thousand people die every year over here from stupid mistakes that could be prevented if the assholes in the hospitals would give a sh*t for a few minutes instead of treating it like a "job".

[Mikey]

I'm not saying there are no frivolous lawsuits, or that there aren't people out to scam money from the system. What I'm saying is that over a hundred thousand people die every year over here from stupid mistakes that could be prevented if the assholes in the hospitals would give a sh*t for a few minutes instead of treating it like a "job".

I'd be interested to see the statistical analysis that arrived at "over a hundred thousand people." I'd be willing to bet that a statiscally-relevant number of them aren't people who died from malpractice per se, but died in cases that are tied to malpractice suits or allegations. I'd also be willing to bet that the number of people who benefit from conscientious medical care are far greater than that "over a hundred thousand."

To go back to anecdotal evidence - and I'm going to dispense with trivialities like seasonal allergies, the seasonal flu, cuts and abrasions, etc. - without the medical care received, none of which was a repair of earlier malpractice, my:

- father would be room temperature. Failing that he'd possibly be paralyzed, or missing a foot.
- mother would have lost use of at least one of her hands, be blind, and perhaps lost extremities.
- sister would have a horribly deformed spine and likely be confined to a wheelchair.
- wife would be room temperature. Failing that, she'd be confined to a wheelchair.
- self would be room temperature; at the very least, have suffered a coma, be blind, and very likely would have lost extremities and developed necrotic ulcerations. Oh, and also have suffered either a heart attack or congestive heart failure, possibly cerebral hemmorhage a/o a burst aneurysm as well.

My point is that yeah, there's always a chance of true malpractice. But that chance is far lower than 50%. A cap on malpractice suits, a/o (I like this one) severe penalties against the bringers of frivolous litigation, would help to keep the care I described above available to people.

[Tsukiyumi]

Did you see the link I posted?


Anyways, also as an anecdote, if someone I care about dies from an injury or illness, and the doctors fought to save them, I'd be terribly upset, but I'd owe them for trying to save that person.

If they died from some stupid medical "mistake", I'd owe them something else.

Sorry, but cutting these people slack is why so many people die from "mistakes" in hospitals every year. If you'd like, I can find other info on the problem.