Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘TORT’ Category

Democrats: The Party Of “NO!” (Updated X3)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/10/31

H/T Gold-Plated Witch On Wheels

Everyone’s heard of HB 3400, right? No? That’s the Republican Health Care bill. But HB 3200 weighed in at 1502 pages. And everyone knows about that one. At least everyone in the blogosphere does.

Just recently, the new Health Care bill was trotted out hauled out on a CSX freight train. At 1990 pages, it is one heavy bill.

Remember this?

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison

If you’re not interested in the opinion of the Father of the Constitution, perhaps you’re interested in other numbers. Like the number of pages of other, more important documents.

In case you have been under a rock or you have not heard the news the MSM has not provided, the Republicans have offered a health care reform plan that hits TORT reform, and hits it relatively hard. And the 1990-page Pelosi plan discusses TORT reform. The Pelosi plan says “NO!”

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

(emphasis Sharon)

Under the Democrat/Pelosi plan, any state that does any sort of meaningful TORT reform will be punished, and severely. And those on the left say Republicans are the ones who refuse to negotiate? Republicans are the ones who don’t want any meaningful cost-saving reforms? The Democrat/Pelosi plan is nothing but a Government power-grab and hand-outs to the power brokers already in the Democrat camp. There is nothing there for the average Joe. As the song says, it’s all taking and no giving with the Democrats.

Tell me again, liberals. When someone says “First we’re going to kill you and your immediate family. Next, we’re going to poison your extended family. And third, we’re going to make destitute all your and their friends.” Why should I negotiate with that? I mean, seriously, are you all in First Grade, where you think you can make up all the rules and complain when others “don’t wanna play”?

As for the “Party of NO” is concerned, which party changes locks so the other party can’t do things? Which party refuses to allow full and open debate of the other party’s bills? Which party refuses to allow the other party’s bills on the floor? Which party turned off the lights and the mics when the other party was still around to speak? Which party ran off when the other party was set to discuss real issues of alleged criminal activity in an oversight committee?

Which party is the “Party of NO”?

UPDATE: From Caffeinated Thoughts comes this little piece of information:

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) which explicitly authorizes the “public health insurance option” to pay for all elective abortions.

The article starts out with BHO promising such isn’t the case. Hrmmmm….

UPDATE 2:

More information on the “NO!” business of the power brokers. No amendments to the 1990-page bill in the House.

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But Speaker Pelosi intends to try to force the House to pass the 1990-page bill under a “closed rule” (a procedure that allows no amendments to be considered), reportedly because she fears that the House would adopt the Stupak Amendment if a vote were allowed.

(emphasis mine)

Pelosi won’t even let less liberal Democrats amend her monstrosity. Go figure.

UPDATE 3:
(H/T daleyrocks)

[T]he House bill prohibits insurance companies from charging premiums on any rational basis. Section 213, titled “Insurance Rating Rules,” provides:

The premium rate charged for a qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance coverage may not vary except as follows:

(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED.–By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.

So young people–who, remember, will now be forced to buy health insurance–will subsidize older people.

(2) BY AREA.–By premium rating area (as permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans, as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with such regulators).

(3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.–By family enrollment (such as variations within categories and compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner.

That’s it. A lower premium for non-smokers or the non-obese? Forget about it. It’s illegal.

Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business.

So, under the Pelosi/Democrat plan, insurance companies will have to ask permission from some bureaucrat, called “the Commissioner (Der Kommissar)” to set rates or to make new insurance plans. And “the Commissioner” will decide what parameters for everything the insurance companies can use.

That is one great big, fat “NO!” to free-market and to rational thinking.

Advertisements

Posted in Constitution, crime, economics, Health Care, history, media, Obama, politically correct, politics, society, stereotype, TORT, truth | 1 Comment »

Deserve Or Earn?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/04/12

Different age groups have different views on what is deserved compared to what must be earned. In my experience, the older a person is, the more likely that person will believe everything must be earned. Put another way, the younger a person is, the more likely that person will believe everything is deserved and doesn’t require any first-person work. And the age of personal accountability appears to have been moving constantly higher over the past few decades. This troubling trend can be seen throughout our society.

A woman buys a cup of coffee from McDonalds, places it between her legs, and drives off. Upon leaving the parking lot and entering the street, the car goes over a bump, spilling the hot coffee on her legs. The woman sues McDonalds because McDonalds didn’t adequately warn her that the hot coffee was indeed hot. And a jury of twelve decided the woman deserved $2,000,000.00 from McDonalds because, after all, the woman was not responsible for her own actions. Egg farms have boxes to pack 30 dozen eggs. Those boxes (some of them anyway) now have warnings on them. The boxes are for eggs only. Do not overload them. Someone filled the big box with other things, picked it up by the hand-holes, had everything fall out the bottom and injure the person’s foot. The egg farm lost the lawsuit because the egg farm did not adequately warn people not to overload the boxes.

A job I used to have was in sheet-metal manufacturing. We made ductwork for HVAC use. I put 25 671-4x10x6’s in a single box. These boxes would then be shipped to distributors who would resell them to building contractors, not the general public. Some intelligent contractor decided it was a good idea to punch the boxes open, knowing full well that sheet metal with sharp edges was inside the boxes. Upon gashing his fist open, he sued the distributor because, after all, the distributor was at fault for his injuries. What?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in economics, education, media, politically correct, politics, society, sports, TORT, truth | 2 Comments »

From GTMO To Your Neighborhood?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/04/10

Barack Obama has issued orders to close GTMO and is trying to work out a way to move all the terrorists detained at GTMO to other places. And we have news that we will likely have to release some of them on our city streets because their home countries don’t want them. And we cannot necessarily find some of them guilty of crimes, whatever that means.

These people are terrorists, not criminals, and they are at war with us, regardless of whether we choose to accept that fact or not. At no time in our history, until now, have we ever conferred criminal court rights on prisoners of war. In World War II, we had prison camps in the southern states, holding thousands of German and Italian prisoners of war. We held them for a time after the war was over.

The left, who refuse to acknowledge there are Islamic terrorists who are intent on killing as many Americans as possible, are overjoyed at Obama’s decision to close GTMO. The left, who are BANANAs about nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar farms, power lines, prisons, housing developments, are just as adamant about closing GTMO. So, where do they want these terrorists? Are they willing to share their homes with the terrorists? Or are they going to be BANANAs concerning the terrorists? I, for one, am absolutely NIMBY.

Those of you who fret over “all that torture our military did” or “they’re really nice guys” or “innocent until proven guilty” (these are terrorists, not criminals) need to do a bit of homework. I strongly suggest you read a series of interviews with a psyche nurse who spent lots of time with these terrorists at GTMO. Read the interviews and the comment sections. Then rethink your position.

Posted in Constitution, crime, education, Islam, media, military, politically correct, politics, society, terrorists, TORT, war | 2 Comments »

And Here We Have It

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/29

H/T Patterico

I wrote earlier someone in the media was wondering out loud whether someone would sue over the Hudson Plane event. Well it seems there actually is some jerk considering doing just that. If the airline doesn’t give him the money he’s looking for, he just may sue. Disgusting.

Posted in politically correct, society, TORT | Comments Off on And Here We Have It

What Has This Nation Come To?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/17

After a miraculous event where everything fell into place, from a skilled pilot doing all the right things to comparatively favorable weather to the proper time of the incident to the “stopping” site of a jetliner in the Hudson to the quick reaction of those on the ground and in the water, a question arises.

Can the Passengers of Flight 1549 Sue for Emotional Distress?

The fact this question can even be asked is an indictment on American society. We have become a society of “sue first, be considerate later.” And I, for one, am ashamed to have to admit I live in such a society.

Posted in politically correct, TORT | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: