For instance, in tort reform eliminating ‘frivolous’ lawsuits would be a good idea. How you do it is another question. To eliminate malpractice suits altogether would be a bad idea. Right not it is an idea without a solution.

If as Haniity has said, medical savings accounts, which I always thought were stupid, were used to offset catastrophic events how much money would one have to put in such an account to make a difference?

I’m not dissin’ these conservative talking points, just saying there is nothing wrong with these options but I just don’t know how much effect they would have and if it would be a worthwhile or noticeable improvement.

That’s the problem with reform. The country needs everyone to contribute ideas and have a mechanism for working together. If we had for instance a reasonable body for something like arbitration to resolve problems before they become a malpractice suit all could benefit, including those paying malpractice premiums. As it stands now, current mechanisms if they still exist are a joke.

You may not be able to correct a situation where a patient died and someone thinks it was a wrongful death. But when medical services have a bad outcome other than that those involved should be able to correct many of them without additional burden on the patients.

Just me ranting. But I still don’t want what the liberals are selling. I want something reasonable. Something that solves the problems without undue burden on anyone concerned. And that won’t happen with the current proposals.

Hey Maggie, thanks for stoppin’ and the heads up on the vid thing was no big deal. And you’re welcome.

I don’t know Inglis but that word “enforce” attached to the government - just like a RINO. When I hear someone say “everyone must have health care,” the way to say that is it would be wise for everyone to buy health care.

No Stanford they do not get it. Let’s start with tort reform.

BTW, thanks so much for the help with my video sound:-)