Hermenuetics

Comments

I appreciate Ms. Tada's ministry as well as the concerns she has listed here. However, I feel that it is problematic when she uses phrases like "this could" when discussing the possibilities of how the legislation will affect policy and practice regarding abortion or other issues. This is an unfortunate logical jump that too many evangelicals seem to be making. I personally am pro-life, but I'm disappointed that the general evangelical community (along with Ms. Tada) doesn't seem to have considered the positive impact that more accessible healthcare can have on reducing the abortion rate, among other pro-life benefits (see this article for some interesting details: http:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html).

Posted By: Aaron | March 17, 2010 5:21 PM

I echo Aaron's comments. I have heard interpreations on both sides about whether or not abortion is or is not covered in these plans that people can buy into and one group says the Hyde Amendment doesn't change and the other group doesn't. As far as rationing healthcare--the insurance companies already ration healthcare.

Posted By: RLynn | March 17, 2010 6:20 PM

There's a lot of debate about whether the Senate version opens a back door to taxpayer funding of abortion. Part of the problem with the Senate bill is the lack of clarity on this issue (as well as many other issues). Regarding rationing of health care, I speak as a health care provider: if you think we have rationing now you ain't seen nothing yet! What good will it really do to cover 30 million more people if they can't get in to see a doctor for weeks or even months! That's what will happen with this legislation, and it will be far more expensive than anyone can imagine.

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 17, 2010 9:49 PM

Thank you Joni for speaking out!

Posted By: jb | March 18, 2010 7:16 AM

I don't see much in this column that reflects an actual Christian ministry. The two key points - that health reform "could" lead to more abortions and "could" lead to the government ranking people by value to society - are speculative in the first case and have been thoroughly and utterly debunked in the second.

On the issue of abortion, the health reform bill may in fact help reduce the rate or number of abortions. Universal health care helps connect women to the health care system and could help to improve family decision making about sexuality and pregnancy. This is one reason Catholic nuns, representing 90% of women religious in the Catholic faith, have endorsed this health care legislation.

On the issue of health care rationing and devaluing people with disabilities, Joni is just downright wrong. I've read the bills. Comparative effectiveness research compares medical treatments to each other, and the legislation explicitly bars the government from imposing or using the results of comparative studies to deny or ration health care. Joni's misinformation twists the language of the bills to suggest that comparative studies will compare people and their relative value to society when in fact the comparison is between medical treatments and their value to people.

A lie is not always easy to recognize, but these lies are whoppers. I pray that readers do not mistake them for Christian ministry.

Posted By: T Concannon | March 18, 2010 8:45 AM

Before essentially calling someone a liar I think it's important we get our facts straight. We should tread gently here. I've read, or tried to read, parts of the health care bill passed by the Senate and it is unclear and speculative in many areas, the abortion funding provisions being one of them. Anything that needs a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret (and even they disagree on much) would seem to be dubious.

The stated purpose of the comparison studies is to identify the most effective care, but the net effect of the comparison studies could, in fact, be a covert rationing of care. Of course, nothing of the sort would ever be explicitly stated in any bill. One might expect rationing anyway due to the provider shortage.

One has to be aware of the law of unintended consequences.

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 18, 2010 11:07 AM

As someone with a lifelong disability as well, I would much prefer the government (which I elected and have a voice in) determining that all people (poor, handicapped, or otherwise) can have access to decent health care. As it is right now insurance companies with no oversight can deny me coverage because of my disability or lack of riches. Heath care is already denied to the least of these, I support health care reform so as to reverse that sin.

Posted By: Julie | March 18, 2010 1:23 PM

I think that most people would want our disabled citizens, and citizens that have chronic illnesses to not lose their coverage. There could be laws that insurance companies cannot drop people for getting chronic conditions, for when employment ends or people retire, and that there can't be huge increases in costs, etc.

The question is whether THIS health bill is what we need or want. It gives the government control over 1/6 of our economy. It gives coverage to illegal aliens. Canada's coverage does not, nor that of other countries. We are being asked to pay for health coverage for the world. There is no tort reform in this bill. Most Americans are happy with their coverage, and they don't want the entire thing overhauled and taken over by the government, for the sake of the few.

For the sake of the few, let's get coverage for THEM, but not for illegal aliens, and not for abortions. Yes, coverage for abortions is in the bill, and YES, Obama was lying. He cannot talk without lying. A lot of us are looking forward to November.

Posted By: Barbara | March 18, 2010 3:03 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18kristof.html?th&emc=th

This is an excellent editorial on health care and reform and up to date information regarding rates of abortion in other countries WITH universal health care coverage and the rate of abortion in our country. Pharma, medical device manufacturers, insurance companies, and those who benefit from the current system don't want to lose the hefty profits they make from private health care benefits.

Posted By: lovinknit | March 18, 2010 3:17 PM

No matter what you quote, I do not want my tax money paying for millions and millions of illegal aliens. That is nuts and this health care bill will end the middle class because of the taxes that will have to be paid, and bankrupt the country, and bring us closer to a one world government. But I guess that's the point, right? Read the real cost here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117623860083574.html

Posted By: Barbara | March 18, 2010 3:35 PM

I find it hard to believe that anyone has read the healthcare
bill. These things are hunreds of pages. Congress hasn't
even read the bill!
The reader sounds like a "seminar" reader listing a bunch
of talking points.
Also, the hate and vitriol toward Ms.Tada belies the fact
that they are Christian!

Posted By: Dennis Brostrom | March 18, 2010 4:42 PM

I have enormous respect for Joni, a fellow believer. She has the life she has partly because at the time of her accident she had health insurance. If a similar accident were to occur today to someone without health coverage, there would be one trip to the ER - no followup care, no special devices/wheelchair/medications/home renovations. This person would be uninsurable for the rest of his/her life and the family would go bankupt or watch their child day. There is indeed rationing already, and I prefer, as someone stated above, that it is the elected gov't in charge, not a heartless insureance company. (I worked for a major ins. carrier for 5 years - no, they are not in the business to help you, they are there to make a profit. As for the abortion issue, I am passionately pro-life, yet my insurance covers abortion and I have not dropped my coverage in protest. I would guess every person above who does not want their tax $ to pay for abortion is paying for abortion coverage with every insurance premium $ they pay. Are they willing to take a stand and refuse to have coverage under any private plan that pays for abortion? If not, why would they deny the opportunity for the poor to have similar coverage. The 2nd greatest command is "Love your neighbor as yourself" and I believe this bill, flawed as it is, will do a better job than the current system.

Posted By: Bethany Plante | March 18, 2010 5:23 PM

Undoubtedly there are opportunities for beneficial reform in health care, but you have to ask yourself why with all the aspects that have near 100% agreement we can have no health care reform without abortion funding and government control. Obviously those insisting on these agendas have no real compassion for the needs represented in adults and children that continue to go without.

Posted By: Ben | March 18, 2010 7:24 PM

Ben makes a great point. Regarding the comments just before his, the Medicaid program was designed for folks who may find themselves in this situation. There is a safety net with the current system. I'm not going to defend all the practices of insurance companies, but we have a very compassionate health care system as it now stands. We can make several moderate changes to make it better. I think the real reason that the current leadership in Washington wants to have such a massive overhaul is to give themselves more power and control. Then they will have the capacity to buy off votes in perpetuity. In that sense what they are doing is evil.

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 18, 2010 9:11 PM

A number of the comments in response to Joni's writing are out of date already since the bill facing the House of Representatives for a vote or going around the end zone as some have referenced it includes Gov't Paid Abortions or
we who pay taxes will be paying for abortions.

Posted By: Dennis | March 18, 2010 9:23 PM

Watch this for clarity and insight into the workings of Washington. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EjlXaBQFq8)
;-P

Posted By: Dan | March 19, 2010 11:15 AM

"Anything that needs a team of lawyers and accountants to interpret (and even they disagree on much) would seem to be dubious."

-- Everyone trashes the lawyers and the accountants until they need one, but when a "health care provider" speaks, everyone should listen? Yeah, right. Just because someone isn't trained to understand the precise terms doesn't meant that the precision in drafting isn't warranted. Drafting in broad, general language is actually much more susceptible to varied interpretations.

I've had enough of the "health care" profession in the last two years dealing with my parents' illnesses to know that our current "health care" system is neither about "health" nor about "care." The medical-industrial complex needs reforming and we have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, this bill leaves almost all of it in the hands of the private insurance companies and for-profit "healthcare" corporations, with a little federal government regulation sprinkled on top. This is hardly a "federal government takeover.

Ms. Tada isn't lying. She's just misinformed. And CT just lets her run on spouting nonsense without any effort to actually report on the facts. Yes, there's a dispute over what the precise language actually means, but there have been a number of careful analyses prepared and it would have been much more helpful to have presented some factual reporting than just an opinion piece regurgitating talking points from an advocacy group.

When the Catholic Hospital Association, and a huge number of Catholic sisters' orders, all support the Senate version of the bill, and dispute what the Bishops claim, you have to know it's just flatly false to claim that the Senate bill "funds abortion."

Since the vast majority of employer-provided or sponsored health plans cover abortion, the vast majority of Americans who already have health insurance have their dollars going into a pool of money that, in part, pays for abortions. Unless you're willing to forego your own coverage to protest such a comingling of your funds, please try not to impose that requirement on low-income women who will be eligible for subsidies for their health insurance policies.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 19, 2010 11:49 AM

Unfortunately, truthmeister calling himslf that doesn't make it true. One important oft-overlooked point: This health care bill, if passed, does NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS. All those crying disaster behave as if it cannot be changed after passage. This bill is a start. Stuff that proves good, we keep. Sruff that proves bad, we correct. Crying about bad motives, socialism, power grabs, unintended consequences, etc, etc. tells me nothing credible about those pushing the bill; it only tells me these opponents are paranoid, judgmental, or lacking in sense or character.

Posted By: stan baldwin | March 19, 2010 12:02 PM

So Christians will condescend to call the disabled "people in need of care", but not the poor farmer desperately seeking a job in America because US trade policies has kicked him off of his land? Does Christian compassion have borders? Are some people outside of God's grace? Are they not our neighbors God calls us to love? Do our politics trump Jesus' words - "I was sick and you cared for me?" I find it heartbreaking that people on a supposedly Christian site are publicaly saying that some people don't deserve our love. What happened to our faith?

Posted By: Julie | March 19, 2010 1:02 PM

Aaron said, "have heard interpreations on both sides about whether or not abortion is or is not covered in these plans that people can buy into and one group says the Hyde Amendment doesn't change and the other group doesn't."

Christ said that "you will know them by their fruits."

Ask yourself, why would Nancy Pelosi fight *so hard* against the Stupak amendment when adding it would probably get another 12 votes for her side - and likely result in passage. Why would she risk failure of the bill for an amedment that would, in her opinion, simply confirm what is already in the bill?

Answer: She is a liar. The current bill surrepetitiously covers abortions, and she *knows* it. Why else would she fight so hard to avoid including the Stupak amendment.

Posted By: Ted | March 19, 2010 2:54 PM

Christian Lawyer said, "When the Catholic Hospital Association, and a huge number of Catholic sisters' orders, all support the Senate version of the bill, and dispute what the Bishops claim, you have to know it's just flatly false to claim that the Senate bill "funds abortion."

Check your facts, brother, and don't believe the lying liberal media. There's nothing "huge" aoub the number of Catholic sisters' orders. There are a *few* that have hyper inflated their numbers. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/usccb_dissenting_women_religious_grossly_overstate_support_on_health_care/

A much larger, verifiable group Catholic sisters support the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001155.htm

What is false is to be so willfully ignorant of the facts. The bill supports abortions through the back doors of community health associations and funding for private insurance companies that provide payments for abortions.

Tell me, why would Pelosi fight so hard against the Stupak amendment if it really changed nothing about the plan? If she tells the truth and the bill doesn't fund abortions, then she would put the amendment in and get Stupak's crew's 12 votes.

No, she is a proven liar, and anyone who agrees with her on this issue is either ignorant or a liar.

Posted By: Ted | March 19, 2010 3:02 PM

It's clearly useless to try and offer correction to some of these angry comments since the folks making them appear to need something other than logic and facts to change their minds.

I do think Christian Lawyer would do well to appreciate the fact that you cannot correct perceived "misinformation" with.....MISINFORMATION! Case in point: She states: "...you have to know it's just flatly false to claim that the Senate bill "funds abortion.""

No, we don't, because, if anything's flatly false, it's her statement! As I stated earlier, the language in the bill is ambiguous on this point.

I'd be very surprised if part of Christian Lawyer's problems with her parents weren't due to governmental bureacracy. The government getting more involved in healthcare will be an unmitigated DISASTER! Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and this bill will only escalate the process. If you include the "doctor fix" in this, as it should have been, the program again starts increasing the deficit. This is a SHAM!!!

If you really examine the facts about giving you will discover that those who don't want "the government" to take care of everybody actually do give more to the needy than those who want to feign charity behind support for some governmental program.

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 19, 2010 3:24 PM

This may not have occured to you Stan, but possibly the people who are upset about the health care plan are much more knowledgeable and informed about it than you are.

There is no question that it DOES cover illegal aliens, since it will be illegal to ask for citizenship. Other countries do NOT cover non-residents. The bill covers abortions. The bill contains absolutely nothing about tort reform because they didn't want to ruffle the feathers of the lawyers. Let's fix these things first!

But of course they will not, because they WANT it in there. It will be very difficult to get it out later. This bill will bankrupt our nation. It's not necessary to pass a bill just to pass a bill, since main parts of it won't take effect until 2014. Insurance companies will still have the right to turn down coverage to people until 2014 per the Washington Post and other sources. They want to vote on it on tomorrow (Saturday) so they will not have the Republicans vote on it.

The majority of Americans have said they do not want this bill in poll after poll. I'm tired of the minority forcing their garbage down the throats of the majority. Let's have a well-thought out bill that will last. It's not like this will even take effect for a few years.

This "open and transparent" "bipartisan" presidency has been meeting in secret behind locked doors. There hasn't been anything open, transparent, or bipartisan about this presidency. They are doing what they want despite the will of the people.

Posted By: Barbara | March 19, 2010 7:36 PM

Ted, you can call people as many names as you want, but that doesn't make what you say true. Do you really think the Catholic Hospital Association is some lefty group? You obviously have no idea how the Hyde Amendment really works. It's an amendment added each year to appropriations (funding) bills. This health care bill only AUTHORIZES the money. To actually spend money, Congress has to BOTH authorize AND appropriate the money in separate bills. The Hyde Amendments are added to the appropriations bill. So, even though this bill authorizes money for community health centers, the bill actually providing money will have the Hyde Amendment attached to it. Nothing in the Senate bill takes that away.

The "status quo" on abortion funding has two parts to it. One is that no federal funding will go to cover abortions. The Senate bill keeps that part of the status quo in place. The second part of the status quo is that no federal legislation prohibits a woman from using her own money or her own insurance money to pay for an abortion. The reason Speaker Pelosi is opposed to the House bill even though it keeps the abortion funding status quo is that it abrogates the "using her own money" part of the status quo by outright prohibiting insurance companies on the new exchanges from covering abortion even if the woman were to pay a separate premium for such coverage. So, no conspiracy. Just false propaganda from the right.

On pg. 2071, the Senate bill clearly prohibits federal funding for being spent on anything prohibited by the current Hyde Amendment but allows funding for anything the Hyde Amendment allows. Here's the link to the Senate bill as passed. http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

BTW, the problems my parents encountered were strictly problems with the for-profit medical establishment and with private insurance company bureaucracy. Oh yes, and with more than a few completely incompetent "health care providers." Thank God for the few really good ones, but for the way-too-many others, I pray there will be a special place in Hell for them one day. And for anyone else who finds themselves going to bat for family members in the hospital and encountering serious difficulties in getting what's needed, the magic words, when you are at the end of your rope, are "I want to speak with the Administrator on Duty." One is on duty at all times and if they have to come, reports will have to be written, staff will have to be inteviewed.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 19, 2010 9:06 PM

Barbara, you've confused the "illegal alien" issue. Yes, at the point of health care, they probably can't ask for proof of citizenship, but that is the case now. But, what the Senate bill does is prohibit anyone who is NOT a citizen or who is NOT here lawfully from buying insurance coverage on the exchange, which means they will not be eligible for the government subsidies for low-income people to purchase these plans. There is NO prohibition on asking for proof of citizenship in the insurance application.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 19, 2010 9:17 PM

The reason "tort reform" isn't included in this bill is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it does almost NOTHING to reduce health care costs. They estimate it would reduce total U.S. healthcare spending by about 0.5%. Yes, one-half of one percent. Here's their updated report. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

More than half the states have already implemented some form of tort reform. Some states have chosen to implement stricter sanctions on lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits. My state has done that and courts take their responsibility seriously when motions for sanctions are brought. There is NO reason to federalize what has, for centuries, been a matter of state law dealt with in state courts. It makes no sense for conservatives to decry what they believe is a federal takeover of the health insurance industry, whch has been state regulated for decades, but demand federal takeover of tort law, which has been a matter of state law since before the country was founded.

FWIW, my practice would not be affected by tort reform.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 19, 2010 9:38 PM

Well, lawyers play their word games, and thankfully I'm not one. But even Obama said exceptions will probably have to be made for illegal alien children, and then went on to say how there will be a comprehensive plan so that there won't be illegal aliens, they will be "legal citizens", and you can bet he has no intention of deporting any one. Each one is a vote for his re-election. His ploy is that the illegal alien children will have to be covered to protect the children at school and on the playgrounds.

It's well known he is working on eliminating the middle class, and we'll be left with the upper class rich, and the rest of us scrambling to pay taxes to pay for all these extra millions of people who came here illegally. BTW, a very small percentage have the "jobs nobody else wants", and they are taking the jobs of the close to 20% unemployed people we now have.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5178652-503544.html

Posted By: Barbara | March 19, 2010 9:57 PM

Barbara, in order for you to be a lawyer you'd have to be better able to distinguish between fact and fantasy.

Obama spoke some 8 months ago of MAYBE making an exception for the children of illegal immigrants. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5178652-503544.html

That's not what's in the bill now. Who's playing word games?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 19, 2010 11:02 PM

"The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2

Posted By: Dan | March 19, 2010 11:59 PM

"The reason "tort reform" isn't included in this bill is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it does almost NOTHING to reduce health care costs."

The Prez doesn't necessarily agree with you.
"Obama identified his support of the Class Action Fairness Act tort reform bill." http://overlawyered.com/2008/05/barack-obama-and-tort-reform-is-he-really-bipartisan/
"While campaigning for the Senate in Illinois years ago, he [Prez BHO]said, "Anyone who denies there's a crisis with medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer." http://www.nctriallawblog.com/north_carolina_trial_law_/2008/08/mccain-v-obama.html

And, by the way, the CBO frequently revises their analyses. So unlike God's word, they are not inerrant and infallible.

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 10:30 AM

And then Dr. and Sen. Tom Coburn weighs in on the issue of tort reform.
"Coburn Rebuts Obama on Tort Reform, Medicare Cuts"
"Obama said today that tort reform would only save $5 billion a year, but Coburn replied this evening that tort reform would, in fact, do the most to save consumers money.

"The biggest cost driver that accounts for this 33% [of health care waste] is defensive medicine," Coburn said. Obama's figure, based on a CBO report, doesn't take into account all the tests doctors needlessly order to avoid lawsuits.

"You fix the tort system in this country and you’ll cut costs like crazy. It’s $250 billion a year in defensive medicine costs," Coburn said. "If you just got rid of half of that, in one year you’d cut everyone’s cost of health care five percent."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/coburn-rebuts-obama-tort-reform-medicare-cuts
Let's hear both sides!

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 10:47 AM

Dan, LOL! Medical malpractice claims cannot be brought as class actions. So, the Class Action Fairness Act cannot possibly have any effect on the number of such claims or the award of damages in such claims or do anything about "the defensive practice of medicine." Plus, it's already been enacted into law. So, no, the President wasn't disagreeing with me at all. Good grief.

CBO's analyses, although not infallible, are considered the gold standard of analysis, and, by law are required to be as objective as conceivably possible, which means, you know, LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES of a debate. Yes, CBO sometimes revises its analysis, but it hasn't changed its analysis on the ineffectiveness of "tort reform" to decrease medical costs. The analysis I linked to IS their most updated analysis, which hasn't changed much over time.

BTW, I'm not a plaintiff's trial lawyer. I do defense work only. The way to reduce frivolous lawsuits is to sanction the lawyers who bring them (or the lawyers who assert frivolous defenses), not to punish the clients with worthy claims, many of which don't fit into cookie-cutter categories or degrees of severity. And, yes, judges do award sanctions, and appellate court do uphold those decisions. Perhaps not enough yet, but the trend is clearly toward harsher enforcement.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 20, 2010 12:12 PM

Thank you for researching the truth on tort reform Dan! You always have good, informative posts. God bless you.

Posted By: Barbara | March 20, 2010 2:43 PM

So what? I went to a lawyer's blog looking for his take on BHO and tort reform. Well, there it was as big as life: a section labeled "Barack Obama on Tort Reform." Thing was, he addressed medical malpractice along with tort reform instead, never really distinguishing the two. But again...so what? You spent a 1/3 of your comments addressing that...ignoring much of the rest.
LOL!! Good Grief! That's so...so...so typical - of lawyers.
You didn't address this: "The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
Nor, I doubt, will address this either! "Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote

Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’"
http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_Id=cbd6f99a-426d-4635-bde1-f28d1afbc057

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 10:21 PM

Of course, we all remember Dr. Howard Dean saying this about TORT REFORM:
CNSNews.com
Howard Dean: Democrats Left Tort Reform Out of Health Care Bill Because They Feared 'Taking On' Trial Lawyers
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter & Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/53126

(Oh no! I think I am having an existential crisis here! Do I believe CL or do I believe Howard Dean?...Nope! Just a little acid reflux is all.)

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 10:33 PM

Here is a guide I found to tort reform and medical malpractice issues. It looks to be comprehensive, fair and easily understandable - you know, for us mere mortals. http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 11:03 PM

Here is probably the biggest reason dems don't want tort reform: "Even as President Obama promised to address tort claims as part of his health "reform" proposals, House' Democrats' government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would maintain and expand trial lawyers' ability to bring job-killing and costly lawsuits against businesses..."
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/09/24/house-democrats-tort-reform

Posted By: Dan | March 20, 2010 11:17 PM

Dan, if you're going to post a snarky comment, it would help if it actually had something to do with the topic at hand. I read your link. Obama didn't link the two types of tort reform at all, since one doesn't have anything to do with the other, and they came up for debate years apart. You just misread/misstated the rightwing propaganda. Typical.

Just because Obama said there is a crisis in medical malpractice doesn't mean tort reform is the right answer to the crisis. Because, if that were true, it would mean that when the right wingers claim to agree (now) there's a health care crisis, it means they agree this bill is the right solution.

Even if Dr. Dean is right about the reason tort reform didn't make it into the bill, it doesn't mean tort reform would actually be effective. Obama has battled against all sorts of entrenched interests on the key points of this bill because it would do so much good. But, why would he take on another battle against the trial lawyers for something that doesn't actually work? Plus, how much more politically astute to let the Repuglicans bang their head against the wall on this issue. The more they push for something the experts say wouldn't be effective, the more stupidly obstructionist they look. (Not to mention looking like hypocrits for pushing for the federal take-over of state law all the while decrying the federal takeover of insurance.)

The Medicare doc-fix is NOT in the bill, so an article about what might happen if it WERE in is, well, just irrelevant. But, even if it were in the bill, the fact that a separate problem will cost money to fix doesn't mean we shouldn't go forward with the other fix that WILL save us money in the long-run. That's like refusing to put in a new, more efficient furnace in your house just because all the savings you accrue from the new furnace might have to be spent later on replacing your gas-guzzling car.

So the HHS actuaries can't get their analysis done in time? Since they're not the official scorekeepers (CBO is), the Repuglicans are just, well, whining. That's all that's left after their doc-fix hoax letter and the false charges they drummed up about alleged trades of votes for future appointments didn't work out so well.

Today the anti-HCR street thugs (called up for a rally by Rep. Steve King on Glenn Beck), are assaulting Members of Congress as they go into the Capitol, shouting racial epithets, anti-gay slurs against Barney Frank, spitting on another Member. Oh yes, that's the spirit.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 21, 2010 12:09 AM

Dan, nice, though out of date, article on tort reform in general, but it has NOTHING to do with whether current Republican tort reform proposals would actually work to reduce health care spending. It also says NOTHING about why medical malpractice reform should be adopted at the federal level, especially when it won't actually get us anywhere on health care costs.

"House' Democrats' government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would maintain and expand trial lawyers' ability to bring job-killing and costly lawsuits against businesses..."

-- This is NOT the bill that's being voted on now. Plus, the GOP website is hardly an unbiased report. And, if you actually read it, these things are all pro-consumer reforms to give health care consumers (that's all of us) some leverage against the medical-industrial complex. These types of provisions are among the most popular.

Seriously, this GOP propaganda actually complains that the Demoncrats' proposal would continue to allow patients to sue their insurance company for breach of contract for denial of benefits due them under their policy. How radical!

The rest of the GOP rant complains the old bill would have authorized the HHS Secretary to negotiate payments for certain things like prescription drugs and Big Phrma couldn't run to court to try to have a judge second-guess the deal. I guess the Republicans like activist judges when they favor big business!

Again, Dan, completely off-topic, since none of this is in the current bill.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 21, 2010 1:00 AM

CL: "Even if Dr. Dean is right about the reason tort reform didn't make it into the bill..."

Dr. Dean said: "And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers..."

Your honesty is refreshing as is Dr. Dean's! It is as we mere mortals have always suspected.

Again, thank you.

Posted By: Dan | March 21, 2010 9:27 AM

"The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red."
The CBO - you know, the "gold standard" - reported it. The repubs didn't make it up. And you are ignoring the import of what they are saying. If there weren't a connection, they wouldn't have made the assessment. (And in fact, they probably would have called you to ask if they could use your pithy analogy. But I guess they didn't call...huh...?) So to them there obviously is a connection. Just what we need...another "guvmunt" program. How many "guvmunt" programs have ever performed according their objectives and budget? Yeah, I can't think of any either. But I'm sure this will be different. After all, we have lawyer-politicians up there in Washington D.C. figuring it all out. And we have your assurances it will all turn out as the dems have planned. I feel so much better. (note to self: make sure to get health insurance so the feds don't fine me.)

Posted By: Anonymous | March 21, 2010 1:58 PM

Regarding the previous comment: I did that. Got in a hurry and forgot to sign my name.

Posted By: Dan | March 21, 2010 3:53 PM

"-- Everyone trashes the lawyers and the accountants until they need one..."
Sorry you're feeling so misunderstood.

Posted By: Dan | March 21, 2010 6:16 PM

Actually, I'm feeling quite victorious at the moment. About the deal to pass HCR, and about the fact that you had no response to my "pithy" analogy except snark.

I'm currently watching the so-called pro-lifers try to abort one of their own. Poor Bart Stupak, apparently no good deed goes unpunished. He's gone from pro-life hero to father of a deal that the not-tethered-to-reality pro-life extremists claim will REQUIRE the the greatest expansion of federal funding of abortion since Roe. Stupak and the nuns -- who'd a thought they be promoting such evil?

Or, could it be that the pro-life extremists are JUST LYING about the legal effects of both the Senate bill and the Obama Executive Order? Gee, ya think?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 21, 2010 7:07 PM

Ouch, are you two brothers in Christ? Where can I get some of that love?

Posted By: Sharon Bartlett | March 22, 2010 1:01 AM

As a British evangelical, I have watched with sheer incredulity and horror that so many U.S. evangelicals have lined up against the Obama healthcare reforms. Brothers and sisters, what on earth are you thinking of?

You live in the richest country in the world - you spend twice as much on healthcare as the average nation - and yet millions and millions of your poorest countrymen and women have no adequate healthcare. It's a scandal! It's a disgrace! It's a massive injustice! It's a shocking indictment of American society and it's lack of Christian values! Do you not all see this?

I applaud the Obama reforms, and I rejoice that he has made it clear federal funding cannot be used for abortions. I rejoice that through this legislation a massive injustice will be righted and that poor people can now be properly cared for.

Posted By: David Baker | March 22, 2010 7:41 AM

@CL: As regards the "out of date articles". I posted them to give some perspective.
And please blame those who wrote the articles: I just copied and pasted what they said, and I did it with very little commentary. (And I did the best I could, as I don't have a law degree.)
'Course, proglibs don't like the light of history shining on their past bad ideas. They want every day to be a new day - and every past bad idea to morph into an acceptable idea today.
And regardless whether or not I correctly got every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, I made my point which was articulated so well by your own good Dr. Howard Dean, one time Democrat Party chairman. In fact he stated it so well, I shall hereafter always refer to it as "Dean's Maxim" (I coined this term first right here in CT.)

Dean's Maxim - "...the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers..." Yep, there it is, spoken in a moment of truth by a progressive liberal. It's all about trial lawyers' pocket books. (As if we didn't know already.)

As regards my snarky comment (gosh, I didn't know lawyers were so touchy!): So which one was it that hurt your feelings? Nevermind, I humbly ask for blanket forgiveness for all offending comments.
BTW here are some definitions of *snarky - witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Any language that contains quips or comments containing sarcastic or satirical witticisms intended as blunt irony.
So thanks, CL, for the complement.

Posted By: Dan | March 22, 2010 7:47 AM

So you posted out of date articles (how is it the author's fault that you cite old articles?), off-topic articles, articles that you don't know enough about to know whether they even relate to the topic at hand, and somehow, that's a reflection on your opponents? I just love it when the right-wingers morph into victims. Poor baby.

BTW, sarcastic and cynical may appeal to your sixth graders, or, maybe that's where you got it from, but in the grown-up world, it's not much of an argument.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | March 22, 2010 11:59 AM

I don't think any reasonable person is against seeing to it that everyone has adequate health care, I think the problem comes with:
1. a bill so huge and complicated noone understands it
2. inclusion of so many things that have no business in it like college financial aid loans
3. The stubborness of the left to keep abortion coverage in it and now that a "compromise" has been reached, distrust of the compromise because they were so adament against one peoplr fear trickery
4. fear of mandated costs to small business and higher taxes for all.

Perhaps if the governemnt had passed smaller parts of it at a time, seen how each worked, and then passed more small parts, people would feel better about it.

Posted By: Elizabeth | March 22, 2010 1:27 PM

"...you don't know enough about to know whether they even relate to the topic at hand..." [Remember Dean's Maxim! And he was talking about tort reform.]
Yowser!!! Whoooeee!! Feel the love.

"I just love it when the right-wingers morph into victims."
Poor baby." At last - sympathy!

(BTW, sarcastic and cynical may appeal to your sixth graders [I thought I'd start posting under the name Christian Middle School Teacher - but that's would be too "chesty as a peacock".], or, maybe that's where you got it from, but in the grown-up world [I think you're getting the hang of it! C'mo!] it's not much of an argument.) [Oh I don't know. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.] It pains me to hear you talk that way. You got the words right, but you just don't know the tune

Posted By: Dan | March 22, 2010 2:13 PM

I want to thank Joni for the example she has been over the years. Her book was one of the first that I read after becoming a Christian.

And I also want to applaud her for trying to address this contentious topic with a tone of respect. Whether or not you agree with her statements, she at least managed to make her point without name calling or mockery or intentional distortions, which is more than 90% of the responders have been able to do.

Given that we as a nation spend way more than we should for healthcare, yet there are so many people left out, I feel that the system is clearly broken, and needs to be addressed. I pray that the new bill, as it plays out, will make things better instead of worse. I'm puzzled at why the opponents feel the need to exaggerate and mislead. If the bill is so bad, why aren't straightforward facts enough to prove the point?

Posted By: Ann | March 22, 2010 4:39 PM

Dan, I just took another gander at this at it's actually quite entertaining. You've checkmated the old "Christian Lawyer" about 10 times over but she apparently lacks the mental acumen or the humility to admit it. Reminds me of that old Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie when the knight was guarding the bridge and had both arms, then both legs, cut off and he kept yelling that he wanted to fight. That's a perfect image of the megalomaniacal "Christian Lawyer." Rather comical, really....but sad that she continues to put on this ruse that her moniker betrays....By the way, and I speak from experience, the cost of defensive medicine is much more in line with what Coburn suggests. Loony lefty greedy unethical (at the risk of being redundant) lawyers spend much of their life looking for that one case which will set them for life, then they can take half (or more) of their client's money and retire to Florida to spend their days sipping Jamaican rum and pondering the relative merits of the ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union), Che Gueverra, gitmo detainees, Hugo Chavez, etc.....

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 22, 2010 9:28 PM

Mark Twain said it best: To succeed in other trades, capacity must be shown; in the law, concealment of it will do.

Posted By: Dan | March 23, 2010 6:59 AM

"Dan, a little jealous of my law degree are you? Just because you can't tell the difference between medical malpractice reform and class action reform and you got busted just making stuff up (again)? Pobrecito. LOL!

Those who can, do ..."

Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain

Posted By: Dan | March 23, 2010 8:20 AM

"...Poor baby, sputtering because your side lost."

Very revealing, "Christian Lawyer." So, that's what it's all about for you? The country and the culture can go to Hell in a handbasket but if you think "your side" won then that's all that matters. Even if that supposed win is predicated on a lie.

If that's the state of the modern legal profession then no wonder we're in such terrible shape. And these are the people that this administration is beholden to. Sad.

Posted By: Truthmeister | March 23, 2010 8:37 AM

Before I comment, I would like to point out that most here would like to help the poor, on both sides of this debate. However, those that support government managed healthcare, including the reforms that will be signed today, have a moral problem involving the redistribution of wealth.

The evil of socialism, which this bill is a "soft" form of, is that it uses evil means, taking the property of one person (usually involuntary taxation), to try and do something good, helping one's fellow man. This is a case of the end justifying the means. The problem isn't wanting to help the poor, the problem is that the mechanism for doing so is fundamentally flawed. This is why allowing people to keep more of their money to donate to charities, churches, the Red Cross etc...is a much more moral and palatable choice. In a sense, the abortion debate, while important, is a side issue, because even if the Stupak amendment had been included, this moral problem would still exist. For those of us who are "strict" constitutionalists, mandating the purchase of a product or service seems to fly in the face of items such as the 10th amendment.

So no, those of us who oppose this legislation are not "greedy," nor do we "hate poor people." We instead want to help others by allowing individuals and churches to help who they see fit, and advocate the generation of wealth to create help, not the redistribution of wealth, which hurts everyone.

Posted By: hayesworldview | March 23, 2010 8:57 AM

We [by "we" I mean "me"] apologize for this interruption our regularly scheduled mudslinging. But this is an important announcement regarding the topic of this thread - Health Bill Concerns: the following article "20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms" is found on http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/capitalhill.htm

We now return you to your regularly scheduled mudslinging.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Posted By: Dan | March 23, 2010 5:48 PM

Gosh, Truthmeister, I had this dream last night...it was a really dark and troubling dream, too. I had just come home from teaching language arts to a bunch of 6th graders and...and I...and I walked into my living room and there was this guy in a batman suit, looking really batmanny and scary and he was really mad...at me...and he got in my face and yelled at me and ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

...and he just mocked me, and laughed. And he said over and over again, "You can't tell the difference between medical malpractice reform and class action reform!" Well, I thought I knew...I really thought I did. And so I told him, you know, what I thought, and you know, what the difference was. I guess I was wrong,'cus then he ridiculed me some more (sob) and then I got (sob) I got confused...so confused. (I gotta stop just a second and collect myself - yeah, I'll be okay, thanks.) Well, he kept going on and on and he just got madder and madder. I really didn't know what to do. And you know, after a while I couldn't even understand what he was asking. And all the while DELIBES FLOWER DUET,LAKME played in the background

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qx2lMaMsl8.

And then the dream faded, and only his words remained just echoing over and over again: "Pobrecito, you're just jealous of my bat powers, aren't you? AHaHaHaHahahahahah!" And then I woke up. Whatta ya think? Weird, huh!

Posted By: Dan | March 23, 2010 11:13 PM

"The infant who is developing inside its mother's womb, and who at just a few weeks' gestation already has more mobility than I do, is a human life and a real person, and therefore we must give our all to protect that life" I wish more people could see this, as humans we have become so selfish and judgemental in matters that are beyond our jursistiction. How dare we?

Posted By: Girl in Lace Tights | May 31, 2010 10:20 PM

Your story is an inspiration to us all. Keep up the good work.

Posted By: Bart | June 9, 2010 9:40 AM

Oh well...here we are in October of 2010 and each of Joni's concerns and more have sadly come to fruition. The taxpayer is paying for abortions, not only in the U.S., but over-seas as well.
Hospice patients are being starved/dehydrated to death which is equal to a tortuous murder as not to use insurance monies most have payed into their entire lives. Why?, cause they're just not worth it, according to the government.
I'm a Hospice RN and was dismissed from a case recently which involved the sweetest 86 year old woman whom was transported to a facility, placed in a room and left to perish without food/water, or any of her medications. I hired a lawyer to try to stop her tortuous murder, even offering to provide care free of charge. I went to the facility to comfort her and pray by her bedside as she struggled to breath from her lungs which were filling with fluid. I calmly asked the attending 'nurse' if she could at least have her lungs cleared with the suction equipment attached to the wall right above her bed. She answered sternly that any and all life sustaining measures are forbidden and that I, under no circumstances, should try to provide such....she proceeded to disconnect the suction tubing from the wall and take it with her as she hurried out of the room. There I sat, watching this Sweet Jewish woman whom had narrowly escaped the Holocaust being murdered in the United States of America! With every struggled breath she stated, "Help me, Help me." I told her I would get help and be back. After many calls and faxes, I did go back to the facility. I was stopped while exiting the elevator by that same nurse whom stated that the family, specifically the daughter, had banned me from visiting my former client; her mother. My court date to fight this injustice was set for Monday, however, she died early morning the Sunday prior.
The very strange and sad thing is that when I went home after being banned from the facility, actually, not sure how I even got home, I went to my barn where I shelter a few rescued pets, I had missed giving them their greens and fresh water earlier due to the crazy events of the day. Still upset, I sat and watch 2 guinea pigs and 2 rabbits eat organic greens and sip filtered water. At that moment it hit me...These creatures were receiving better care than a human being one town away. I contemplated the fact that if I didn't feed or give these creatures water,even if they were old and sick I would be fined along with jail time and/or community service.
So, for those of you who thought/think Joni in error...watch out, it may someday be you. Think again, get informed, not from the media...read the documents yourself, though hundreds of pages long, you can easily be directed to the exact pages via priestsforlife.org
God Bless you, Joni, for being such a blessing to so many...you remain in my prayers always.

Posted By: ChristinRN | October 18, 2010 7:35 PM

There are concerns about health care bills, but what I feel like it is good step. I am thinking of a world where all sort of medical care or treatment should get federal funding. That will help each and every person one way or other.

Posted By: daily post net | December 4, 2010 8:58 PM

This site is better than other sites. Thank you for researching the truth on tort reform Dan! You always have good, informative posts.

Posted By: blogkub.com | December 18, 2010 12:01 AM

While I think we have fundamentally different viewpoints on these topics, I do draw a lot of inspiration from your life and writings and value what you have posted here. Thank you for pushing on and working so hard!

Posted By: 10 Minute Trainer | January 7, 2011 6:58 PM

I'm puzzled at why the opponents feel the need to exaggerate and mislead. If the bill is so bad, why aren't straightforward facts enough to prove the point?Thank you for researching the truth on tort reform Dan !

Posted By: putib | January 12, 2011 11:11 PM

1. Joni Eareckson Tada! I APPRECIATE YOU THAT YOU TAKE STEP ABOUT THE MEDICAL CARE AND FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE PEOPLE.THIS ARTICLE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTING BECAUSE IT CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WOMEN.....

2.ALL THE MEDICAL BILLS AND TREATMENT SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED BECAUSE IT WILL BE PROVED A GOOD STEP FOR THE HEALTH AND TREATMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

Posted By: fire in the children | January 26, 2011 1:36 AM

Indeed... "Culture of Death" is spreading and the Governments across the globe are silent spectators. It is not a mere lip service. Hope the awareness spreads.

Posted By: Personalized Ribbon | February 7, 2011 11:08 PM