Graysong, If one had stated that failure to pay the fine or tax levied for one refusing to purchase health insurance could result in incarceration (before Senate removed provision), I would have been ok with that. That would have been accurate and is similar to the consequences of failure to pay taxes. Your suggestion of make the litigation "loser pays" isn't a bad idea. Could eliminate a lot of the frivolous lawsuits and keep malpractice insurance costs down.

1whoworks: I prefer focusing on the root causes of malpractice claims which I think would have more far-reaching benefits both financially and on quality of care. The healthcare insurance industry is already exempt from anti-trust laws. Changing that would be beneficial. Regarding who will provide oversight? Anyone but the foxes in the henhouse would be ok with me.

If calling speculation a misrepresentation is the kind of lie you use in court I’m surprised ambulance chasers even hire you.

I certainly did NO SUCH THING. At 10:57 pm yesterday YOU first suggested that idea “I keep reading various comments about people being put in jail if they don't accept healthcare insurance”

In my 11:02 and 11:03 posts I quoted the irs dot gov website “Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment,” and then I quoted the Senate bill’s EXCEPTION to that policy “In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this section… such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.” And then I SPECIFICALLY ELABORATED how jail was NOT in the bill: “As it now reads, you can refuse to pay the IRS that tax and nothing will happen to you."

My personal opinion is that if the frivolous lawsuits could be significantly reduced or stopped, it would help significantly. The majority of malpractice claims are from frequent flyers-same ones over and over who drive up the costs of malpractice insurance. Dealing with them would help like taking their licenses away. Then, there is the issue of high patient volumes, staffing deficiencies, etc which increase the liklihood of cutting corners regarding standards of practice and resulting errors.

Back to tort reform: the issue with malpractice insurance costs has more to do with access issues-availability of certain services (ob) and certain surgeries and diagnostics (mostly in rural areas) than it does on the high cost of healthcare. Health insurance premiums have risen mostly as a result of medical/loss ratios and issues regarding poor investments.

I do like Fact Check! They may be left leaning, but they seem to make sense!

Yes, the entire Fact Check article I cited was interesting. They basically cited John Kerry (as well as the DNC) as being a liar yet still pointed to issues that indicate that Cheney did not have "clean" hands on the entire Haliburton subject.

It does clear Cheney of any direct influence (which is the part Kerry lied about) but obviously history can infuence behavior. And Fact Check certainly points out the significant past of the Cheney/Haliburton history.

"So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong."

According to Fact Check dot org (rebutting a John Kerry ad);

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt. The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive."