PC Gaming News
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 138 of 138
  1. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Quoting something I wasn't referring to, sure.
    Really? "I claimed the mere fact that <I> knew the term you used demonstrated how large an issue it was" wasn't a reference to "Otherwise you wouldn't know the trade phrase "MedMal"? You made a lot of statements about knowledge being proof of prevalence then?

    1. That link seems to be broken.
    2. So does the analysis. Aside from the constant harping on free-market capitalism (that would be editorializing, not analysis) he does very little. I see only two points worthy of discussion. First, that anti-trust laws should be leveled against the health insurance industry. Second, that the insurance system imposes a disconnect from buyer and seller. However, no matter the resolution of the above two issues, neither has any bearing whatsoever on your claim that MedMal insurance (which, by the way, your link doesn't even mention) is the "rudder" of the medical industry.

    Yes, because it conclusively proved that you were in the wrong - I thought it rather interesting at the time that you would claim it as a victory. Your insistence that lawyers are an essential part of the justice system is clearly not the case as your quote proved, though the obvious norm is to tolerate them.
    See, perfect example. I quoted the text of the UCMJ detailing how the magistrates at court martial need to be lawyers, and you claim this "conclusively proved" I was wrong that the justice system requires attorneys. This is why I rarely bother to cite things for you. That's only a worthwhile activity if you're willing to read what I cite.

  2. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    You made a lot of statements about knowledge being proof of prevalence then?
    Since you decided to make this herring a critical point of the discussion, I thought it relevant to discuss prevalence.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    1. That link seems to be broken.
    Works fine for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    However, no matter the resolution of the above two issues, neither has any bearing whatsoever on your claim that MedMal insurance (which, by the way, your link doesn't even mention) is the "rudder" of the medical industry.
    This would be because this has become your characterization of my claim. My claim about the "rudder" has been regarding medical insurance in general, rather than the more specific section of MedMal, though 4-5% of medical expenditures is still not chicken feed no matter what your objections. I believe the author expresses that the reason they're all interrelated is the potential for poor quality or 'minor' malpractice has been prohibited through a combination of legislation/regulation and insurance criteria (if that's not one of the issues he highlights, then it was in a previous citation).
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    See, perfect example. I quoted the text of the UCMJ detailing how the magistrates at court martial need to be lawyers, and you claim this "conclusively proved" I was wrong that the justice system requires attorneys.
    No, it was the part you identified about needing to write a simple justification for not using attorneys. If that's not conclusive proof that you don't <need> attorneys for justice, I don't know what is.

  3. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Since you decided to make this herring a critical point of the discussion, I thought it relevant to discuss prevalence.
    Your argument was that MedMal was substantial, your proof was that the term was well known. If you now wish to concede this argument as a herring, I certainly won't stop you.

    Works fine for me.
    Works for me now too. Very odd.

    This would be because this has become your characterization of my claim. My claim about the "rudder" has been regarding medical insurance in general, rather than the more specific section of MedMal, though 4-5% of medical expenditures is still not chicken feed no matter what your objections.
    Nonsense. I came into this thread expressly to combat your claims about insurance regarding torts. I can quote the relevant passages from your text if you prefer. If you want to make broad claims about insurance in general, I have no issue with that. But it's not what we are discussing.

    No, it was the part you identified about needing to write a simple justification for not using attorneys. If that's not conclusive proof that you don't <need> attorneys for justice, I don't know what is.
    That section referred only to certain persons, not all legal officials. It also required more than a simple justification. I expect the caselaw will be even more rigorous.

  4. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    Your argument was that MedMal was substantial, your proof was that the term was well known. If you now wish to concede this argument as a herring, I certainly won't stop you.
    I already conceded that MedMal, while not insignificant as you claimed, is not a massive component of medical cost. Insurance, however, <is> the 'rudder' I claim it to be, and MedMal is a component of that.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    If you want to make broad claims about insurance in general, I have no issue with that. But it's not what we are discussing.
    I thought it was, since I already found and concurred the 4-5%. Fair enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    That section referred only to certain persons, not all legal officials. It also required more than a simple justification. I expect the caselaw will be even more rigorous.
    Your supposition is immaterial. Courts Martial can be held by a single individual, if circumstances are dire enough. It's why all your communist bff's are so outraged about Gitmo; they claim they're concerned about terrorists' rights because the filth aren't able to hire one of them as an attorney.

    However, what they're really upset about is that they don't get their snouts in the taxpayer trough; they'd be taking Gitmo cases pro bono since the terrorists aren't going to pay them anyway so only a few lawyers are actually doing the work.

  5. #135

  6. #136
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    We should post that pic in every political thread.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  7. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    I already conceded that MedMal, while not insignificant as you claimed, is not a massive component of medical cost. Insurance, however, <is> the 'rudder' I claim it to be, and MedMal is a component of that.
    If you're willing to agree that MedMal is a relatively minor cost of medical care, then I agree too. As to insurance in general, it's the issue most reported on and the issue most people see, but I don't really think insurance is the problem with medical costs. To summarize briefly, I expect the high costs are derived from the relatively low supply of doctors, the gouging of the pharmaceutical industry (in large part protected by IP law), the advance of medical care, and the aging of the population.

  8. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    To summarize briefly, I expect the high costs are derived from the relatively low supply of doctors, the gouging of the pharmaceutical industry (in large part protected by IP law), the advance of medical care, and the aging of the population.
    Yes, you stated your hand-wringing lefty propaganda previously. Of COURSE you don't want to find fault with MedMal and the insurance industry; they're stalwart allies of the fascist Left and will benefit from socialized medicine.

    1. If there's a low supply of doctors, the market will allow more - what actually exists is a dearth of GP-types and a surplus of specialists, primarily because of the unrewarding nature of GP practice. Why is it unrewarding? Oh, yeah, MedMal and huge write-offs due to Medicare and other distortions.
    2. "Big Pharma" gouging is real, but it pales in comparison with Hollywood actors, sports figures, insurance, banking, and pretty much any Leftist economic enclave. If the barriers to entry (again, caused by the insurance industry and Federal interference) were lowered, and drugs could be purchased freely, gouging wouldn't be possible.
    3. The advance of medical care makes medical care cheaper. There's no other intelligent claim possible. One only need look at LASIK to recognize how technology steadily lowers costs.
    4. An aging population definitely increases demand. That's why the "death panel" aspect of Obamacare infuriates leftists so; eliminating the old has always been part of their eugenic intentions and they hate that St00pid Sarahitler put the spotlight on that issue. They excuse the matter by pointing out that "death panels" already exist in a commercial form, but this doesn't explain why it's more legitimate to confiscate any decision-making from the proles on the minor matter of their own lives. It's clearly their intended method of trying to control the market (highlighted as the "Complete Lives" system) and places the "Die Quickly" claim Grayson threw at the GOP at the feet of the socialist Democrats.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •