A tort is a wrong. There must be reciprocity for a wrong, either by civil liability or criminal incarceration. We cannot just eliminate Justice from the equation for the sake of business viability.

How is this at all a union thing? I am in no union, and I don't want to have to pay *for* my generous health care benefits, nor the taxes on them. When I saw Polimom's original question about decoupling health care from employment, what I thought of was all the workers and employers, not unions any more than the rest of us. It is in my company's interest to keep me healthy, so they pay out $2500/year to give me insurance. It is in my best interest not to go out an seek a job that I might like better — or start my own business — because $2500 is a helluva a lot of money, and would be much more if it were just little me seeking out a policy vs the huge company I work for.

Now, of course, if the American public could act like one big union or one big company and collectively bargain for a good deal on health insurance, that might mean we could decouple insurance from employers. However, too many seem to think that's a bad idea and suddenly we're talking about hippy pinko commies.

On tort reform, no such gem, but I may be jaded from all those years as a litigation attorney.

Knowing that the Dem accusation against the opposition ignores the philosophical reasons, I was making the assumption that the reverse holds true. i.e.: that there must be something more profound about ignoring tort reform and/or decoupling health insurance from employers.

On tort reform, there are ways to control malpractice costs that would not infringe on the rights of damaged plaintiffs, but would stop or reduce frivolous suits and pull back trial lawyer fees…without artificial caps on awards for actual malpractice.

And do you and CStanley agree with the Dem accusation that Republicans are fighting the public option because they're protecting insurance companies?

Here's a health reform idea that the unions in Michigan are holding up, indeed. Fiefdom and feather-bed protection, at taxpayer expense. (Dillon is a Democrat who merits the governorship due to this.)

(Michigan is the state which California rejected to house excess prisoners, due to high costs, BTW.)

http://www.freep.com/article/20090902/NEWS06/90…

http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15057/dill…

There is also background noise about deals with the drug industry to keep them from jumping onto the opposition bandwagon. All of this is just another example of how both parties operate, often protecting their special interest supporters at the expense of the broader public welfare.

Health insurance is so expensive these days for individuals let alone family
plans. You need to check out this company; i got an insurance plan for my wife
and two kids for $250.00 a month.

[URL DELETED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY] /Y3JpZD0zNzA1OSZjYXQ9MzYwJmxpZD0xNzU5JmltPTEmYWN0PWNsaWNri9Yy5BA0kHQXz1T2R_eX4w

For correspondence about this email, just reply or send a letter to:

[redacted]

Reporting a fact is no different than saying the earth is round, when that fact is pertinent.

Next issue…

* * *

“But what about decoupling health insurance from employers? What's holding that idea up?”

And other reforms that have nothing to do with expanding the scope of Washington in health care?

No answers to those months-old questions, so far. Don't expect any answers now, either.

I think this is kinda bugging me. I may have to put a wider call out to the Dems and/ or Liberals, and see if they can articulate some reason these elements are being ignored so baldly. I'm curious is there are valid arguments that make sense (besides protecting union benefits from taxes).

But when I hear complaints about how the only reason people are resisting government-run health care (or expanded government involvement, or whatever) is because the insurance companies are “paying them off”, the allegation that Dems are protecting campaign contributions from tort attorneys makes me skeptical.

Too easy. (Maybe that means it's the right answer? KISS and all that)

But what about decoupling health insurance from employers? What's holding that idea up?

Tort reform would take a giant chunk out of the campaign contributions that Dems receive from tort attornies.