A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Highly debatable.

He never inhaled.

[Replaced_Texan]

Unintended Consequences of Medical Malpractice Damages Caps, by CATHERINE M. SHARKEY NYU Law Review, Vol. 80, May 2005 Abstract:

Previous empirical studies have examined various aspects of medical malpractice damages caps, focusing primarily upon their overall effect in reducing insurance premium rates and plaintiffs' recoveries, and other effects such as physicians' geographic choice of where to practice. Experimental studies have focused attention upon the possible "anchoring" effect of caps, which might inadvertently increase award amounts. This Article is the first to explore an unintended crossover effect that may be dampening the intended effects of caps.

This Article posits that, where noneconomic damages are limited by caps, plaintiffs' attorneys will more vigorously pursue, and juries will award, larger economic damages, which are often unbounded. Implicit in such a crossover effect is the malleability of various components of medical malpractice damages, which often are considered categorically distinct, particularly in the tort reform context. This Article challenges this conventional wisdom.

My original empirical analysis, using a comprehensive data set of jury verdicts from 1992, 1996, and 2001, in counties located in 22 states, collected by the National Center for State Courts, concludes that the imposition of caps on noneconomic damages has no statistically significant effect on overall compensatory damages in medical malpractice jury trial verdicts or final judgments. This result is consistent with the crossover theory. Given the promulgation of noneconomic damages caps, the crossover effect may also partially explain the recently documented trend of rising economic (as opposed to noneconomic) damages in medical malpractice cases.

Via Health Law Prof Blog

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Unintended Consequences of Medical Malpractice Damages Caps, by CATHERINE M. SHARKEY NYU Law Review, Vol. 80, May 2005 Abstract:



Via Health Law Prof Blog

There's a strong argument that jurors decide on an overall number, and then decide where to shoehorn it in amongst the allowable catagories.

[Gattigap]

Sen. Santorum has been batting 1.000 with his efforts to destroy SocSec.

First was the notable example of Santorum supporters outside a rally chanting "hey, hey, ho, ho, Soc Sec has got to go." [Link to video via competing candidate's blog].

More recently, it appears that Santorum ran a poll on his website asking who was in favor of President Bush's idea of personal accounts.

Sadly, Santorum removed the results from his site once they realized how opinions were running. But a competing candidate was quick enough to save the screenshot:



Courtesy of the All Spin Zone.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sadly, Santorum removed the results . . .

He got DU'ed. It was funny.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
He got DU'ed. It was funny.

I've never understood why anyone does on-line polling. It makes no sense unless you've rigged the results already.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I've never understood why anyone does on-line polling. It makes no sense unless you've rigged the results already.

That is confusing. It's hard to figure why Santorum didn't try to get an accurate measure of public opinion about Social Security reform through a more rigorously, analytical sound measure.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That is confusing. It's hard to figure why Santorum didn't try to get an accurate measure of public opinion about Social Security reform through a more rigorously, analytical sound measure.

I think it was because he was divorced from reality.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who failed to see what in the 80's? And does your brain hurt when you say something that stupid?

Just a few - liberals failed to see:

1) That the Contras would force free elections in El Salvador and lead to a liberal free enterprize democracy.

2) Continued aid to the "Far Right Dictatorship" in El Salvador would lead to a democracy

3) An escalated Arms race against the Soviet Union would undermine the Soviet regime by bankrupting it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Just a few - liberals failed to see:

1) That the Contras would force free elections in El Salvador and lead to a liberal free enterprize democracy.

2) Continued aid to the "Far Right Dictatorship" in El Salvador would lead to a democracy

3) An escalated Arms race against the Soviet Union would undermine the Soviet regime by bankrupting it.

(1) Liberals were the ones in favor of free elections in El Salvador.

(2) Unclear that the aid to the right wing in El Salvador was a positive factor in that country's development. It did help to get people like Archbishop Romero assasinated, though.

(3) Conservatives failed to see that as well at the time. (And I don't particularly buy that the arms race is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I understand that it's tough to shake the mental grip of the Reagan hagiography on that one.)

On (1) and (2), assuming you were referring to Nicaragua in (1), it's interesting to me that someone from the party of freedom and democracy would still be wanting to support U.S. aid for a repressive regime in El Salvador and for terrorists (more or less) in Nicaragua.

[Spanky]

David Stockman, who is a big hero of mine, left the Reagan administration in 1985 because he did not think the administration was serious about cutting spending. One thing Stockman did admit in his book "The Triumph of Politics" ( a great read by the way) was that he and Weinberger had a falling out in the first few years of the administration. The initial calculations that Stockman made for the increase in Defense spending took into account double digit inflation. If you remember, early in the Reagan presidency, inflation was reduced dramatically,. Stockman, tried to reduce the increases in Defense spending to account for the diminished inflation. Weinberger said they would stick to the original numbers even though inflation had been reduced. Stockman went to Reagan to complain but Reagan told Stockman to work it out with Weinberger and Schultz. Weinberger and Schultz at that point told Stockman that they had consulted with the CIA and were convinced the Soviets could not handle an arms race. If we dramatically increased our defence spending, the soviets would be forced to follow suit and the system would collapse. If the system did not collapse the people would revolt because all the resources would go to defense and not consumer goods. They both felt that big deficits were a small price to pay for a collapsing Soviet Union. Stockman thought Weinberger and Schultz were crazy and that the plan would never work. He finally left the Administration because he was sick of fighting the increases in Defense spending (and the lack of cuts in other areas) When I read Stockmans book in 1987 he convinced me Schultz and Weinberger were seriously miscaculating. However, they were proved right in the early nineties. There was a great PBS/Frontline series called "Commanding Heights". If you have not seen it you should order it. In this series both Schultz, Weinberger and Stockman are all interviewed and confirm these facts. They also interview Gorbachav, and Gorbachav admits that he instituted Prestroika and Glasnost because of the pressure the US buildup and arms race was putting on the Soviet System. In other words he admits that Schultz and Weinberger were right.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
David Stockman, who is a big hero of mine, left the Reagan administration in 1985 because he did not think the administration was serious about cutting spending. One thing Stockman did admit in his book "The Triumph of Politics" ( a great read by the way) was that he and Weinberger had a falling out in the first few years of the administration. The initial calculations that Stockman made for the increase in Defense spending took into account double digit inflation. If you remember, early in the Reagan presidency, inflation was reduced dramatically,. Stockman, tried to reduce the increases in Defense spending to account for the diminished inflation. Weinberger said they would stick to the original numbers even though inflation had been reduced. Stockman went to Reagan to complain but Reagan told Stockman to work it out with Weinberger and Schultz. Weinberger and Schultz at that point told Stockman that they had consulted with the CIA and were convinced the Soviets could not handle an arms race. If we dramatically increased our defence spending, the soviets would be forced to follow suit and the system would collapse. If the system did not collapse the people would revolt because all the resources would go to defense and not consumer goods. They both felt that big deficits were a small price to pay for a collapsing Soviet Union. Stockman thought Weinberger and Schultz were crazy and that the plan would never work. He finally left the Administration because he was sick of fighting the increases in Defense spending (and the lack of cuts in other areas) When I read Stockmans book in 1987 he convinced me Schultz and Weinberger were seriously miscaculating. However, they were proved right in the early nineties. There was a great PBS/Frontline series called "Commanding Heights". If you have not seen it you should order it. In this series both Schultz, Weinberger and Stockman are all interviewed and confirm these facts. They also interview Gorbachav, and Gorbachav admits that he instituted Prestroika and Glasnost because of the pressure the US buildup and arms race was putting on the Soviet System. In other words he admits that Schultz and Weinberger were right.

You need some white space in this (or pale blue, or whatever color). No one is going to read it this way.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You need some white space in this (or pale blue, or whatever color). No one is going to read it this way.

I did and he's right. Dunderheaded denial drones like Ty and you and the rest of leftwing riff raff wouldn't understand it anyway, because its chock filled with facts and sensible right minded conclusions that cast a damning light on your subversive ideology.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by megaloman
I did and he's right. Dunderheaded denial drones like Ty and you and the rest of leftwing riff raff wouldn't understand it anyway, because its chock filled with facts and sensible right minded conclusions that cast a damning light on your subversive ideology.

Cute avatar.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Liberals were the ones in favor of free elections in El Salvador.

They were for cutting military aid and letting the FLMN take over. If the communists had taken over there never would have been an election. Liberals may have wanted free elections but the policies they were promoting were going to insure a communist dicatorship

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (2) Unclear that the aid to the right wing in El Salvador was a positive factor in that country's development. It did help to get people like Archbishop Romero assasinated, though..

Unclear?!?! Without the aid the regime would have fallen. In 1980 the regime almost fell to the communists until Carter relented and opened up aid. Reagan supported the regime steadfastly through his presidency. And much to the shock of the liberals, this regime won when there were free elections.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop On (1) and (2), assuming you were referring to Nicaragua in (1), it's interesting to me that someone from the party of freedom and democracy would still be wanting to support U.S. aid for a repressive regime in El Salvador and for terrorists (more or less) in Nicaragua.

The repressive regime in El Salvador was better than communists. If forced to choose an authoritarian regime is always better than a communist dictatorship. The liberals never understood this. The authoritarian route worked in South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, El Salvador etc. The communist route was implemented in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam. Which people do you think are better off? I won't get into why the terrorists label for the contras is B.S., but even if they were, they forced free elections in Nicarague. Ortega never planned on holding free election and it would be another Cuba if it were not for the contras. Do you think there would have ever been free election in Nicarague if not for the contras. The liberals never saw that right wing authoritarian regimes usually promoted economic growth which eventually led a strong middle class which lead to democracy. In communist systems, which liberals thought were roughly the same as authoritarian regimes, the people stayed poor and you never got democracy.