Category Archives: Tort Reform

The POTUS Is Restless

Which explains a lot and why he cannot seem to focus.

(Found this in a comment in a post on Don Surbers blog. Unfortunately, can’t determine the original commenter for proper attribution.)

$1.1T Spending Bill Oinking Its Way to the Floor

Tomorrow. Wednesday. The Ides of December.

This is the funding for the monstrosity known as Obamacare. It is ladeen with Pork, aka earmarks (as I heard on the Sean Hannity raadio show this day around 4 to 5pm). I agree with Don Surber’s post about Boehner’s call to the POTUS to veto it.

Crank up the phone lines, folks, this is the flip the Congress is giving us for Christmas because of our rising interest and activism in our Republic Government.

It is no coincidence that this is coming on the heels of Federal Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling about individuals having to purchase insurance (when the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution does not, and never did, claim regulating commerce extends beyond the state level).

Congress wants to send us a message? Well, pick up the phone and send them one also.

Other sites on this issue:
Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit

Hot Air shows an update that indicates the earmark count is now near 6,500 earmarks in all totaling $8.3 billion in all, at least.
When the POTUS first bragged about Congress passing the Healthcare (Obamacare) bill, he expressed happiness that they “included no earmarks.” Okay, POTUS, now is the time to express your dissatisfaction by breaking out the veto pen from its mothball status.

From Michelle Malkin’s article:
One commenter, who picked a page at random (877), found that the bill has designated $350 million to create a new “San Francisco Bay Restoration Program.” Others have noted that $413,000 have been appropriated for peanut research in the deep South and nearly $250,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington State…

Remember this?

UPDATEx2: Takes Time to Get There

But now that Federal Judge Hudson has ruled parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, it will have to be heard through an appellate court before, and if, getting on the SCOTUS docket.

In the meantime, here’s a healthy read from Hot Air on the subject, replete with updates (up to five about now).

UPDATE: Apparently, the White House Blog is now trying to equate healthcare insurance with auto insurance. Okay, who’s going to be the first to tell them that the auto insurance requirement is a state responsibility and not the feds?

Heh. How Appealing. Indeed.

And, The Heritage Foundation weighs in. I like it.

UPDATEx2: And maybe the thought of 74% of doctors leaving their practice should pick up the pace of SCOTUS looking at this issue much, much sooner. Ya think?

Wait Time If You Are Lucky

Doctors say Medicare cuts force painful decision about elderly patients
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 26, 2010; 12:02 AM

Ask yourself this: how old will I want to get before I leave this mortal coil?
And will I be healthy enough?

Do I have a Right to Life?

Smokin Joe

No, not the boxer.

The nimrod from Delaware. (That’s a figure of speech, there, Veep.)

Gonna strangle who are you?

Not only should the budget be balanced, you should be making it SMALLER!!!!!!!

Not the Change In Govt We Voted For

Thuggery. Not the term I would use. How about – lies, criminal, falsehoods, threats?

And trampling on First Amendment rights. To say the very, very least.

All about Obamacare, er, Healthscare. I mean, healthcare.

Gangsters? Chicago comes to mind. I wonder why. (not)

UPDATE: Overkill

An out of control tort system leads to the possibility of a jury award that would “wipe the company off the face of the earth.”

Not exactly what I would call an equitable situation. Particularly since “… there was never any claim from any patient that there’d (sic) been harmed or put in danger.”

And also there is this – “… some 32,000 people — patients/residents and healthcare workers alike — would lose their heatlhcare (sic) facilities and jobs.”

This isn’t justice people.


UPDATE (in response to a commenter’s question, a Google search provides the answers)

Frivolous Lawsuits:

1
2
3
4
5

Thanks for asking.

P.S. Nowhere in my post above do I state that was a frivolous lawsuit, in fact, nowhere in the referred article post uses that term either.

P.P.S. To further eliminate any confusion, my focus is not on the suit so much as the possibility of such an enormous award that will no doubt destroy a business – and is that a singularly good reason in every case? Is this a mistake that can be remedied? If so, how does erasing a business solve the problem? And how on earth does awarding such amounts serve anyone? The victims are going to get all of it? Doubtful. Even if that were possible, taxes would hit very hard. And then there’s the infighting among the recipients. No further good comes from this.