Anecdotal evidence, which some (including yourself) around these parts like to use to support their points, but widely discount when others use the same to support their points. You want to use studies when it suits your purpose - even a 13 year old study - but then discount them when they don't support your position, even though those studies are more recent than the relic you are using. There is no credible evidence that tort reform will have any significant impact on health care costs in the US. I gave you the history of where the myth began.
Willy, your words are as substantial as a campaign promise. Honestly, I think your ignorance in this issue is pretty much settled. And it's amusing that you refer to a 60 Minutes story as "anecdotal evidence".
Chart of U.S. Unemployment Note: Website terms for hotlinking this image requires a link Unemployment for September. Note that the BLS unemployment "rate" (U3) was ~9.8%, but the BLS is calculating real unemployment (U6) to be nearer 17%. The alleged economist that runs that site claims real unemployment is nearer 21%. I am not celebrating these statistics. I am bemoaning them. I want things to get better.
Let's put it in context and see how it changes Quit running around in circles for a minute and I will try to nail your other foot the floor for you
Anecdotal evidence may be true and accurate. It is the conclusion draw from it that is in doubt. Perahps we can turn this into a teachable moment: The studies referred to provide the statistical evidence referred to in the above paragraph. What is interesting is that you want ot hold onto a belief rooted in one of those studies, but refuted by every other look at the evidence. If the results can not be replicated, then the hypothesis begins looking pretty suspect - at least for those capable of clear thinking.
Mia, no matter how you cut it, you are on record as saying that [Govt] regulation of the insurance industry is needed in order to control health care costs. Don't back up too fast or you might trip and fall... Tort reform should be off the table now, since there is no evidence that it will result in anything more than a 1/2 of 1% reduction in health care costs. So, if we take your 3 points, fraud and tort reform only account for 3.5%. Unfortunately, this forces me to agree with you on this point. Containing health care costs will require "regulation of the insurance industry."
Wow again... Context, Read, DUH... Try looking at the whole picture here rather than condensing my thoughts into something other than what they are. Maybe the air's a little thinner where you are, who knows. You lefters have a tendency to pick and choose what you want to hear and what you like to see. Creative, yes. Genuine, no.
I admit that I too was more than a little dismayed to find that we agreed on something as fundamental as the need to regulate the insurance industry. Maybe it does get cold in hell?
Again, you're missing the point. You really need to look at the whole picture. As I've indicated several times, there are a number of pieces to this health care puzzle that have to be solved in order to accomplish and overhaul. All of it centers around two things. Fraud and Cost. The fraud and costs are both out of control and occur both in the medical industry and medial giants, as well as the insurance industry. No one is exempt, from consumer to actuary. The reason I find an exception to the rule with regard to regulation in this case? Because insurance companies as well as the medical industry are currently oligopolies. They, not unlike the power company, cable company, gas company, and other utilities hold what for all intense purposes can be considered sole possession over any competition. You have to move to get a different power company, gas company, etc.. Not practical. That said, they operate much like monopolies. Even in our market based free capitalistic economy where competition is the driving force, a lack there of needs at times to be regulated as such. Now, if for instance you could buy insurance and health care across state lines, which is neither allowed nor practical, then there'd be no need for regulation. While I am dead set against regulation in most cases, where there is an oligopoly, I have to say this is the exception to the rule. It's very hard for a consumer to have choice in a market that is not driven by market forces, e.g. competition. In this case, someone must step in and artificially impose those market forces which drive costs down.
The economy lost another 480,000 jobs last month (November). The "unemployment rate" published next month is probably going to be at least 11%, with "real unemployment " approaching 22%. If you ignore the government's attempt to artificially inflate the numbers, there's a very good chance that we are actually in the middle of a depression. And, this is really strange - when using Google (who's CEO is a big Obama supporter) to find information about the economy, all that came back is old data, or websites that didn't directly answer my questions. I had to use Bing to find solid information about the economy. And I still don't know what the exact GDP is, because suddenly GDP is now "seasonally adjusted"???
Its not the first time such charges have been filed against Google. I personally doubt a company that large would take the time to do something so subtly unscrupulous, but you never know. Their new web platform will allow you to house your entire life (business & personal information) online with them. No thanks. The FTC must be a bunch of old fogies who have no clue what the internet is about, or they would already be breaking Google into smaller chunks. They took forever with Microsoft as well, and were, in my opinion, largely ineffectual.