Gov't way: Reduce medical lawsuits

He does have an agenda but he talks some sense.
www.healthiertalk.com...

"Prior to October 1, 1988, if you or your child were injured by a childhood vaccine you were allowed to file a lawsuit against a vaccine manufacturer to receive compensation.

Because of such lawsuits, vaccines turned out to be a costly venture for pharmaceutical companies, who threatened to pull out of the vaccine business altogether.

This led to the creation of The National Vaccine Injury compensation Program (NVICP), the so-called “vaccine court.” This program has boosted vaccine sales growth immensely since its induction, largely because manufacturers now have zero liability for the products they produce."

Gov't way: Reduce medical lawsuits
Make it so the medicos can't be sued.

reply to post by Doctor G


The vaccine producers are being "immunized" from prosecution because they are bigger backers of our politicians than the law firms that would prosecute them. First they remove the manufacturer's liability and then the same politicians promote immunizations with the potentially hazardous vaccines/products. Your primary physician and local hospital on the other hand is left at the mercy of ambulance chasing liars. This is why your primary care MD will, if even vaguely warranted, send you for test after test driving up your insurance costs. Better you pay sky high insurance rates then your doctor getting sued out his practice. Who can blame them? Is there any wonder why there is a shortage of physicians?

Our medical care reformers have no interest in lowering the liability of physicians and hospitals while corralling the false claims that are the bread and butter of trial lawyers. Why? Why do lawyers protect lawyers? Ask the "lawyer-in-chief".

Hemisphere:
If you have the qualifications to run for the Senate in 2010 (if your state has an spot) would you consider running?
1/3 of the seats are open and a sweep could give us 1/3 or effective control. You'd then see the wholly owned dems & reps start marching in lock-step. That would wake up some people.

reply to post by Doctor G


Thank you Doctor G. That's a nice compliment and I sometimes wish I had the background to do something as honorable and needed as serving my state and country. I suspect you and all caring citizens entertain such thoughts. Is there a public servant that is not beholding to anything but the public? It would seem not. I know I'm not good at serving two masters and that seems a prerequisite for public service.

Our government like our judicial system is a tangled web I only vaguely understand. My frustration derives from that fact. Why are these public institutions so secretive and poorly understood by the general public? Why the mumbo-jumbo to the point that a lawyer is nearly always needed to sort through the gibberish?

John Conyers--No point to reading healthcare bill

From the mouths of babes. Conyers inadvertently proves my point on both our government and our judicial system (lawyers) in a few short easily understandable sentences. He obviously forgot himself. Our institutions are no longer ours and have not been for a long time.