RNC Mailer Appears Designed To Look Like Census Survey TPMMuckraker
RNC Mailer Appears Designed To Look Like Census Survey
Zachary Roth October 26, 2009, 11:39AM
Michele Bachmann may be raising outlandish fears about the Census -- but Michael Steele's operation seems to be more than happy to associate its political efforts with the national survey.
The Republican National Committee is sending a mailer to GOP voters that aims to gather information and raise money. Nothing wrong with that. But the mailer appears clearly designed to mislead recipients into thinking that it's an official Census Bureau survey, which people are required by law to fill out.
You can see the mailer here. It's entitled, in bold, "2009 Congressional District Census." (The words "commissioned by the Republican Party" appear just below that, in much smaller and lighter type.) Above the recipient's address, it says: "Census Document Registered To." And it even includes a "Census Tracking Code."
The survey section includes questions about recipients' political leanings ("Conservative Republican," "Moderate Republican," etc.) and where they get their news. It also asks: "How much does it concern you that the Democrats have total control of the federal government."
One recipient told a Georgia news station that many of her neighbors might be duped into thinking the mailer was from the Census Bureau.
I could see a lot of my neighbors that are older who would get something like this in the mail and fill it out ... all the information, every little section, and send in money.
The mailer tells recipients:
Strengthening our Party for the 2009-2010 elections will take a massive grassroots effort. As a key facet of our overall campaign strategy, the Republican Party is Conducting a Census of Congressional Districts all across America.
It's unclear how widely the mailer has been sent -- the RNC didn't immediately respond to our request for comment.
A spokesman for the Census Bureau told the Georgia TV station that the mailer is not technically illegal.
But if nothing else, the GOP may want to re-check its lists. It sent the mailer to a local Democratic Party chair in Georgia -- whose wife posted it on her blog.
Dylan Ratigan And Those Corporate Communists
Representative Grayson Gets It Right
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) humbles Hudson Institute dilettante over health care bankruptcies
How can we allow people to lose everything they have just because they got sick?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
I never, ever take a flu shot. When I used to, I was always very sick with the flu much worse than normal, the whole season. Here's a small portion of an article from the Atlantic that tells the truth about the flu shot scam.
Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.
Prepare to have your world rocked. What you're about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You're about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.
This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them
Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!
In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!
At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.
Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" (but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?)
No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...
Let's recap what we just learned here (because it's just mind-boggling):
There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be "unethical." Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.
The "50 percent reduction in mortality" statistic that's tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on "rubbish" studies ("cohort" studies).
Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don't work. And when vaccines aren't available or the formulation is wrong, there's no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.
Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don't need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don't need them.
The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for "evidence-based medicine," huh?)
Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.
Prepare to have your world rocked. What you're about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You're about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.
This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them
Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!
In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!
At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.
Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" (but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?)
No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...
Let's recap what we just learned here (because it's just mind-boggling):
There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be "unethical." Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.
The "50 percent reduction in mortality" statistic that's tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on "rubbish" studies ("cohort" studies).
Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don't work. And when vaccines aren't available or the formulation is wrong, there's no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.
Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don't need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don't need them.
The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for "evidence-based medicine," huh?)
Friday, October 9, 2009
Woman Who Carried Open Gun To Kid's Soccer Game Shot And Killed | Crooks and Liars
I have my own tale of misery concerning guns. When I was less than a year old, my mother and father got into an argument during a separation. He was a Marine that had served in Korea, and well able to handle a gun and had his with him that day. To make the long story short, he ended up being shot with his own gun, and I lost both my parents that day.
Woman Who Carried Open Gun To Kid's Soccer Game Shot And Killed Crooks and Liars
There are varying views on gun rights and gun control in America, and since Barack Obama was elected president, the right has been whipping up their fringe base, warning that the Democrats are coming for their guns. We've seen unprecedented displays of weapons outside Obama events in recent months and right wing violence is on the rise.
In this very ironic and tragic story, a woman from Pennsylvania who carried an open, loaded pistol to her child's soccer game was shot and killed in an apparent murder-suicide:
Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was shot to death Wednesday night with her husband in an apparent murder-suicide, police said.
Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon.
In a case that was sure to get a lot of traction from the right, Hain was in the process of suing the sheriff who revoked her gun permit after the incident -- even though her license was reinstated shortly after.
Hain then filed a lawsuit against DeLeo for $1 million in U.S. Middle District Court seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, emotional distress and lost wages.
"Just the fact that he was wrong is evidenced by the fact that my license was restored to me. ... I am a victim of Sheriff Michael DeLeo’s. I am a victim of those in society as a direct result of his actions as well. The way people look at me sometimes when I am out running errands, I feel as if I am wearing a scarlet letter, and really it’s a Glock 26." Read on...
I'm not trying to put Hain on trial here, but I disagree with her irresponsible actions in taking a loaded weapon and openly displaying it at a children's sporting event. I feel for their three children who were at home at the time of the shootings and are now faced with growing up without their parents.
Woman Who Carried Open Gun To Kid's Soccer Game Shot And Killed Crooks and Liars
There are varying views on gun rights and gun control in America, and since Barack Obama was elected president, the right has been whipping up their fringe base, warning that the Democrats are coming for their guns. We've seen unprecedented displays of weapons outside Obama events in recent months and right wing violence is on the rise.
In this very ironic and tragic story, a woman from Pennsylvania who carried an open, loaded pistol to her child's soccer game was shot and killed in an apparent murder-suicide:
Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was shot to death Wednesday night with her husband in an apparent murder-suicide, police said.
Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon.
In a case that was sure to get a lot of traction from the right, Hain was in the process of suing the sheriff who revoked her gun permit after the incident -- even though her license was reinstated shortly after.
Hain then filed a lawsuit against DeLeo for $1 million in U.S. Middle District Court seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, emotional distress and lost wages.
"Just the fact that he was wrong is evidenced by the fact that my license was restored to me. ... I am a victim of Sheriff Michael DeLeo’s. I am a victim of those in society as a direct result of his actions as well. The way people look at me sometimes when I am out running errands, I feel as if I am wearing a scarlet letter, and really it’s a Glock 26." Read on...
I'm not trying to put Hain on trial here, but I disagree with her irresponsible actions in taking a loaded weapon and openly displaying it at a children's sporting event. I feel for their three children who were at home at the time of the shootings and are now faced with growing up without their parents.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Obama's Approval Rating Jumps; But That's Not the Story the Beltway Press Wants to Tell | PEEK | AlterNet
Obama's Approval Rating Jumps; But That's Not the Story the Beltway Press Wants to Tell PEEK AlterNet
And it's a big jump, too, according to the AP:
An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.
We'll see how much media play this poll gets, and then try to compare that coverage to how we think an AP poll reporting a sharp drop for Obama would play inside the Beltway right now. (Hint: that coverage would be significant.)
And it's a big jump, too, according to the AP:
An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.
We'll see how much media play this poll gets, and then try to compare that coverage to how we think an AP poll reporting a sharp drop for Obama would play inside the Beltway right now. (Hint: that coverage would be significant.)
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Dylan Ratigan - The Cost of Corporate Communism
The Cost of Corporate Communism
Lately I have been using the phrase "Corporate Communism" on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems.
As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to innovate, improve services or reduce costs. Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War with the U.S.S.R. And yet today we find ourselves as a country in two distinctly different categories: those who are forced to compete tooth and nail each day to provide value to society in return for income for ourselves and our families and those who would instead use our lawmaking apparatus to help themselves to our tax money and/or to protect themselves from true competition.If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.We are losing the opportunity cost of all the great ideas that should be coming from the proper deployment of that 23.7 trillion in capital. Everything from innovation in medical delivery systems to accessible space travel, free energy to the driverless car; all of these things may never come to bear because those powerful individuals who have failed, been passed over by technological advancements, innovation and flat-out smarts, have commandeered our government to unfairly sustain their wealth and power. Unfortunately, they use our wealth and laws not only to benefit their outdated, failed companies, but also spend a small pittance of their ill-gotten gains lobbying and favor-trading with politicians so the government will continue to protect them from competition and their well-deserved failure.
The massive spike in unemployment, the utter destruction of retirement wealth, the collapse in the value of our homes, the worst recession since the Great Depression have all resulted directly from the abdication of proper government. Even with all that -- the only changes that have been made, have been made to prop up and hide the massive flaws on behalf of those who perpetuated them. Still utterly nothing has been done to disclose the flaws in this system, improve it or rebuild it. Only true rules-based capitalism ensures constant adaptation and implementation of the latest and best practices for a given business, as those businesses that don't adapt fail, and those who deploy the latest innovations to their customers benefit, prosper.
The concept of communism is rightly reviled in this country for the simple reason that it is blind to human nature, allowing a small group of individuals near-total control, while sticking everyone else with the same crappy systems -- and the bill. America spent countless lives and half a century fighting against this system of government. So why are we standing for it now? Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/the-cost-of-corporate-com_b_312516.html
Lately I have been using the phrase "Corporate Communism" on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems.
As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to innovate, improve services or reduce costs. Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War with the U.S.S.R. And yet today we find ourselves as a country in two distinctly different categories: those who are forced to compete tooth and nail each day to provide value to society in return for income for ourselves and our families and those who would instead use our lawmaking apparatus to help themselves to our tax money and/or to protect themselves from true competition.If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.We are losing the opportunity cost of all the great ideas that should be coming from the proper deployment of that 23.7 trillion in capital. Everything from innovation in medical delivery systems to accessible space travel, free energy to the driverless car; all of these things may never come to bear because those powerful individuals who have failed, been passed over by technological advancements, innovation and flat-out smarts, have commandeered our government to unfairly sustain their wealth and power. Unfortunately, they use our wealth and laws not only to benefit their outdated, failed companies, but also spend a small pittance of their ill-gotten gains lobbying and favor-trading with politicians so the government will continue to protect them from competition and their well-deserved failure.
The massive spike in unemployment, the utter destruction of retirement wealth, the collapse in the value of our homes, the worst recession since the Great Depression have all resulted directly from the abdication of proper government. Even with all that -- the only changes that have been made, have been made to prop up and hide the massive flaws on behalf of those who perpetuated them. Still utterly nothing has been done to disclose the flaws in this system, improve it or rebuild it. Only true rules-based capitalism ensures constant adaptation and implementation of the latest and best practices for a given business, as those businesses that don't adapt fail, and those who deploy the latest innovations to their customers benefit, prosper.
The concept of communism is rightly reviled in this country for the simple reason that it is blind to human nature, allowing a small group of individuals near-total control, while sticking everyone else with the same crappy systems -- and the bill. America spent countless lives and half a century fighting against this system of government. So why are we standing for it now? Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/the-cost-of-corporate-com_b_312516.html
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Alan Grayson goes on the set of The Situation Room and fires back on the Republicans! | Crooks and Liars
Alan Grayson goes on the set of The Situation Room and fires back on the Republicans! Crooks and Liars
How many politicians would walk onto a set of a TV show out of the blue and eviscerate the entire pundit panel? Alan Grayson strolled out onto the stage of CNN's The Situation Room and took on their crew including Blitzer, Carville, Johns and that whack job Alex Castellanos over his remarks about the non-existent GOP health care. He started by saying "they have no plan!" and by not having a plan, they are hurting Americans. Blitzer was so shocked that Grayson actually said something nobody in the media wants to talk about.
Grayson: They just want to stop everything.
Blitzer: Has any Democratic leader asked you to apologize to the republicans.
Grayson: No and you know why? Because I'm saying what everyone else has been thinking, but no one else has been saying.
Blitzer: And so you have no intention of apologizing?
Grayson: Of course not. Apologize? I'm not the one who should be apologizing, they should be apologize to America.
Grayson: You know, that's just helping the people who give republicans money...Let's concentrate on helping this country, saving lives and saving money and not the usual cliches.--Grayson: These are foot dragging, knuckle dragging neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn and I think the time is over. We had an election, that's it. Now we have to move ahead in just the way the president wants us to.
How many politicians would walk onto a set of a TV show out of the blue and eviscerate the entire pundit panel? Alan Grayson strolled out onto the stage of CNN's The Situation Room and took on their crew including Blitzer, Carville, Johns and that whack job Alex Castellanos over his remarks about the non-existent GOP health care. He started by saying "they have no plan!" and by not having a plan, they are hurting Americans. Blitzer was so shocked that Grayson actually said something nobody in the media wants to talk about.
Grayson: They just want to stop everything.
Blitzer: Has any Democratic leader asked you to apologize to the republicans.
Grayson: No and you know why? Because I'm saying what everyone else has been thinking, but no one else has been saying.
Blitzer: And so you have no intention of apologizing?
Grayson: Of course not. Apologize? I'm not the one who should be apologizing, they should be apologize to America.
Grayson: You know, that's just helping the people who give republicans money...Let's concentrate on helping this country, saving lives and saving money and not the usual cliches.--Grayson: These are foot dragging, knuckle dragging neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn and I think the time is over. We had an election, that's it. Now we have to move ahead in just the way the president wants us to.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cantor To Uninsured Woman: Get An "Option" Like Charity Or Govt Program
Message from Republicans - Spend all your money on health care bills, then sell everything you have to keep paying the bills, then find a GOVERNMENT agency to cover your health care.
They like the government option when you've lost everything and go broke.
A Scathingly Brilliant Idea on How To Get Real Healthcare Reform | Crooks and Liars
A Scathingly Brilliant Idea on How To Get Real Healthcare Reform Crooks and Liars
Why wait for swine flu? Go to your Representatives' office if you get sick or hurt in any way! Especially if it's contagious!!
I have this idea. It's pretty simple and I think it will appeal to a lot of people.
Here it is.
I want every uninsured man and woman who comes down with swine flu to go sit in the waiting rooms of their elected representatives.
That's it. Just sit there - coughing. Throwing your used Kleenex in their trash receptacles. If they want us to suffer, they should have to look at at the logical consequences of their inaction. Tell them you're going to keep coming back until they manage to pass something that's actually going to help people instead of lining the pockets of the insurance companies.
If the weather gets cold, set up a tent in the parking lot, put a sign on it that says "Waiting Room: Waiting for Affordable Health Care." Set up your lawn chairs and invite everyone who passes to sit there with you. Be sure to call your local media.
With apologies to Arlo Guthrie:
if you're in a situation like that, there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the congressman's office wherever you are ,just walk in say "Congressman, we just want affordable health care". And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's nuts and they won't pay attention. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're just odd and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in saying "We just want affordable health care" and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in, coughing their heads off and saying, "We just want affordable health care" and then walking out. And friends, they may think it's a movement.
Why wait for swine flu? Go to your Representatives' office if you get sick or hurt in any way! Especially if it's contagious!!
I have this idea. It's pretty simple and I think it will appeal to a lot of people.
Here it is.
I want every uninsured man and woman who comes down with swine flu to go sit in the waiting rooms of their elected representatives.
That's it. Just sit there - coughing. Throwing your used Kleenex in their trash receptacles. If they want us to suffer, they should have to look at at the logical consequences of their inaction. Tell them you're going to keep coming back until they manage to pass something that's actually going to help people instead of lining the pockets of the insurance companies.
If the weather gets cold, set up a tent in the parking lot, put a sign on it that says "Waiting Room: Waiting for Affordable Health Care." Set up your lawn chairs and invite everyone who passes to sit there with you. Be sure to call your local media.
With apologies to Arlo Guthrie:
if you're in a situation like that, there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the congressman's office wherever you are ,just walk in say "Congressman, we just want affordable health care". And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's nuts and they won't pay attention. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're just odd and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in saying "We just want affordable health care" and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in, coughing their heads off and saying, "We just want affordable health care" and then walking out. And friends, they may think it's a movement.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tort Reform - Are Insurance Companies The Real Elephant In The Room?
Tort reform, tort reform! That and tax credits and tax reduction seems to be the only song of the one-note wonders usually known as the Republican party. They claim there can be no real health reform without tort reform, because to them, that is what is the major driving factor of rising prices. These crows constantly caw that the reason insurance premiums and health costs are so high are those dastardly trial lawyers who file frovolous lawsuits for criminals claiming to have been hurt or made ill by doctors or drug manufacturers.
Here in Tennessee, we already have Tort Reform! Bet you didn't know that. I wouldn't have if I hadn't attended a meeting of the Sullivan County Women's Democratic Party recently where attorney Parke Morris gave an excellent presentation about who benefits and who is hurt by liability reform. In Tennessee, it's known as "Medical Liability Reform" (but a better name would be Gatekeeper Bill) and was enacted in 2008. (I'm still searching for the actual bill numbers, but I'll find them!) The legislation calls for
limiting non-economic damages to $250,000
According to The San Antonio Biz Journal , "Austin-based consumer group Texas Watch believes its new "Patient Justice" report debunks the theory that tort reform has helped improve health care. Last June, the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based private foundation, produced a state-by-state evaluation of health care in the United States. For its "Patient Justice" report, Texas Watch reviewed data from the Commonwealth Fund study and matched some of that analysis against a list of states that have enacted tort-reform legislation.
Among the findings, according to Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow: Nearly 70 percent of the states with the poorest overall health system performance in the Commonwealth study limit patient access to the courts, as do 79 percent of the states ranked with the worst access to health care.
Texas Watch says 84 percent of the states ranking poorest in quality of care, according to the Commonwealth study, also limit patient access to the courts.
"Our report demonstrates the fallacy of the contention that limiting patient access to the legal system will lead to better health care," Winslow says.
Texas Watch contends that Americans are better off in states that do not restrict the ability of injured patients to hold negligent doctors and hospitals accountable for their actions.
Says Winslow -- who notes that Texas was ranked at or near the bottom in the Commonwealth Fund study in overall health system performance and access: "It is clear that taking away the legal rights of patients does not improve health care."
I checked over at the Congressional Budget Office and found this;
"Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending. Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent to which physicians practice "defensive medicine" by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing medical injuries. However, evidence for those other effects is weak or inconclusive. "
So, if malpractice accounts for less than 2 percent of health care spending, what is the real driver behind the call for tort reform. Well, if you really listen to Republicans like Charles Krauthammer of Faux Noise, they let their guard down every now and then and tell you the real truth about it all. It's those lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democratic Party. They figure if they take out a large portion of donations to Dems, they can beat candidates because of lack of advertising and outreach.
Of course, insurance and drug companies, and their ilk don't have a problem with THEIR lawyers, and will most certainly hire a team of the most expensive lawyers they can find to keep from accepting liability for the pain and suffering they cause little ole nobody you. They just have a problem with the injured having any recourse and want it to be VERY expensive and difficult for you to file a claim against them.
Here in Tennessee, we already have Tort Reform! Bet you didn't know that. I wouldn't have if I hadn't attended a meeting of the Sullivan County Women's Democratic Party recently where attorney Parke Morris gave an excellent presentation about who benefits and who is hurt by liability reform. In Tennessee, it's known as "Medical Liability Reform" (but a better name would be Gatekeeper Bill) and was enacted in 2008. (I'm still searching for the actual bill numbers, but I'll find them!) The legislation calls for
limiting non-economic damages to $250,000
Limit contingency fees for attorneys
Restrict expert testimony to active practitioners in a specialty relevant to the lawsuit
Require the plaintiff to declare the amount of damages they are seeking
Require submission of an affidavit by two experts in the field specifying the negligence that occurred and provides damages to the defendant including legal fees if the affidavit is rejected by the court before the case gets to trial
Notably, Tort Reform has not stopped insurance premiums from rising!
I found more information at Nashville Medical News
The law contains several provisions that are victories for the Tennessee medical community. First among them is a requirement that providers be given a 60-day written notice that they may potentially have a complaint filed against them. “It’s a pre-notice, so to speak,” Zelizer said, and its purpose is to preclude plaintiff attorneys from casting a broad net and including providers who shouldn’t be parties to the claim. Tied to this provision is another – that all parties in an action are entitled to obtain complete copies of the patient’s medical records within 30 days of a written request. Providers who shouldn’t be plaintiffs could obviously be identified at this point in the process.
The linchpin of the legislation is its Certificate of Good Faith requirement. Within 90 days after the complaint, plaintiffs must consult with one or more expert witnesses and receive a written statement saying that the expert witness believes in good faith that the action has merit. The legislation doesn’t require that the certificate be turned in to the court, at least not at this point.
“Obviously, if the plaintiff’s attorney is unable to get that Certificate of Good Faith, the thought is that the action will dissolve, that it will go nowhere. … If the plaintiffs choose to proceed and ultimately the case is dismissed, and if the defense believes for some reason that the case was brought without merit, that it was frivolous, the defense does have the ability to ask the court in certain circumstances to see the Certificate of Good Faith,” Zelizer explained.
Without a certificate and with a failed case, plaintiffs may be required to assume part or all of the costs of the defense. Professional and financial sanctions against the attorney are also a possibility.
There’s also a Certificate of Good Faith requirement on the defense side, in the event that the defendant believes one or more providers aren’t named as defendants and should be. That certificate would require the opinion of an expert witness that another provider was responsible or was involved in the case.
“So there’s balance to this thing. It applies not just to the plaintiff’s attorney, but also in some scenarios, to the defense attorney,” Zelizer said.
The new law doesn’t change the definition of an expert witness — a person with a license to practice in Tennessee or in a contiguous bordering state, who practices in a profession or specialty that would make him or her expert in issues relevant in the case and who practiced during the year before the injury occurred. "
OOH, THAT ALL SOUNDS REALLY EXPENSIVE AND PROHIBITIVE, DOESN'T IT!
I also found lots of information on how it affects the injured at ePluribusMedia Comunity and at Public Citizen, using the data collected by the National Practitioner's Data Bank (where information about all medical malpractice settlements is reported by law), concluded that the "medical malpractice crisis" is, and always has been a "HOAX." http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB%20Report_Final.pdf. They say the true figures show, among other things, that:
a. the Annual Number of Malpractice Payments Is Down
b. Medical Malpractice Payments per Population Continue to Decline
c. Total Value of Malpractice Payments is Flat Since 1991
d. Judgments Are Not Irrational
e. Million-Dollar Judgments Are Less Than 1 Percent of the Total Number of Payments
f. Million-Dollar Judgments Were Less Than 3 Percent of Total Value of Payments in 2005
Let's look at Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation, 24% in 2007, according to Dallasnews.com . In 2003, tort reform was passed which capped non-economic damages to $250,000.00. In 2008, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that Texas health insurance premiums increased by 40 percent from 2001 to 2005, which was the third fastest increase in the nation. So how's that tort reform working out for the patients? Not very well! I guess if you can't go to the doctor, you can't file suit if they cut off your leg when you have a sore throat! Tort reform might have lowered doctors' liability and insurance premiums, but IT DID NOT lower the premiums for the patients.According to The San Antonio Biz Journal , "Austin-based consumer group Texas Watch believes its new "Patient Justice" report debunks the theory that tort reform has helped improve health care. Last June, the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based private foundation, produced a state-by-state evaluation of health care in the United States. For its "Patient Justice" report, Texas Watch reviewed data from the Commonwealth Fund study and matched some of that analysis against a list of states that have enacted tort-reform legislation.
Among the findings, according to Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow: Nearly 70 percent of the states with the poorest overall health system performance in the Commonwealth study limit patient access to the courts, as do 79 percent of the states ranked with the worst access to health care.
Texas Watch says 84 percent of the states ranking poorest in quality of care, according to the Commonwealth study, also limit patient access to the courts.
"Our report demonstrates the fallacy of the contention that limiting patient access to the legal system will lead to better health care," Winslow says.
Texas Watch contends that Americans are better off in states that do not restrict the ability of injured patients to hold negligent doctors and hospitals accountable for their actions.
Says Winslow -- who notes that Texas was ranked at or near the bottom in the Commonwealth Fund study in overall health system performance and access: "It is clear that taking away the legal rights of patients does not improve health care."
I checked over at the Congressional Budget Office and found this;
"Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending. Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent to which physicians practice "defensive medicine" by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing medical injuries. However, evidence for those other effects is weak or inconclusive. "
So, if malpractice accounts for less than 2 percent of health care spending, what is the real driver behind the call for tort reform. Well, if you really listen to Republicans like Charles Krauthammer of Faux Noise, they let their guard down every now and then and tell you the real truth about it all. It's those lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democratic Party. They figure if they take out a large portion of donations to Dems, they can beat candidates because of lack of advertising and outreach.
Of course, insurance and drug companies, and their ilk don't have a problem with THEIR lawyers, and will most certainly hire a team of the most expensive lawyers they can find to keep from accepting liability for the pain and suffering they cause little ole nobody you. They just have a problem with the injured having any recourse and want it to be VERY expensive and difficult for you to file a claim against them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
