This weekend is the annual Hempfest protestival. It’s an event that has something for everyone (well, except for the uptight tools in the comment threads who think they’re cool when they call me a stoner). I generally hang around the Hemposium tent, where political discussion is the order of the day. Here are some panels I’m looking forward to:
Saturday 2:20PM – Suits in Babylon
State Representative Roger Goodman, the Marijuana Policy Project’s Rob Kampia and others give an update from the front lines of getting government to deal with reality on our marijuana laws.
Sunday 11:00AM – Cannabis Coverage: Reefer sanity for the 21st Century
Phil Smith from the Drug War Chronicle, Mason Tvert from SAFER, Fred Gardner from CounterPunch, and David Nott from Reason discuss media coverage of marijuana.
Sunday 2:20PM – Yes We Cannabis: The hope of the DARE generation
Ian Barry, the Peninsula High School student arrested after smoking a joint as part of a school presentation, will be on this panel with Kampia and Tvert.
And if passing a bowl around and listening to some music is more your style, they’ve got that too.
You go to Hempfest for the policy discussions? Wow! You know how to party!!!
@1 You don’t need pot. You’re already stoned on wingnut propaganda.
@1
Hey, I’m old now. :)
Here’s an example of why we need health care reform:
“When [a] sharp abdominal pain hit me earlier this summer, I thought it might be appendicitis. By the time I arrived at the emergency room of a nearby private hospital here in Miami, the pain was excruciating. … It turns out I didn’t have appendicitis. I had a … kidney stone. … The total bill came to exactly $11,960. That’s for less than four hours in an E.R. bed, intravenous painkillers, CAT scans, a doctor prodding my belly for a minute or so and … the catheter for an emergency urine analysis. The stone passed naturally that same night.
“How that added up to $12,000 is an object lesson in how health care expenditures have run amok in this country, and how critical it is that whatever reform bill comes out of Washington this year tackles this economy-wrecking mess.”
— Tim Padgett in Time magazine; quoted under fair use. For complete article, see http://www.time.com/time/polit.....93,00.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Don’t kid yourself that you don’t have to worry about the bill because you have insurance. With the financial stakes this high, your insurance company has plenty of incentive to manufacture an excuse to deny your claim.
Republicans haven’t offered an alternative to the Democrats’ health care reform proposals. They don’t have one. They want things to stay just the way they are. Remember that next time you vote.
Lee–
You get soooooo excited when discussing potsmoking.
Obviously something you have vast experience and passion for.
You are so knowledgeable about this Lee…and so empty-headed about everything else.
Kind of make you wonder if there is any truth to the “myths” that pot-smoking is a one-track existence.
Rog spews–
Yes they do…and it uses the PWC Study from 2008 as the guide starting with Tort Reform.
You don’t like it Mr. Lawyer??
@5
I find it somewhat ironic to have someone who is obsessed with making Democrats look bad criticize me for having a one track mind.
LOL! Moron.
The Time article also mentions “tort reform.”
First, a little background. Malpractice lawsuits, per se, account for only about 1.5% of U.S. health care costs — compared to 25% going to insurance companies. And unlike the money that pays for insurance bureaucracies (and fat executive salaries), none of which buys an actual health care, the money paid out in legal settlement money often goes in part to pay for future medical care. However, doctors and others who support “tort reform” argue that “defensive medicine” — ordering extra tests as protection against lawsuits — drives up health care costs, and there probably is some truth to this.
But when Republicans talk about “tort reform,” they usually mean taking away the patient’s right to sue negligent doctors and hospitals without any compensating benefit. (And, given the rigorous screening of potential cases by malpractice lawyers and the potentially huge liability of Rule 11 sanctions, very few if any “frivolous” malpractice claims get filed; there has to be an actual injury and evidence of negligence before a malpractice lawyer will file a claim.) This is no solution at all; in fact, it’ll make the existing situation worse, because immunizing medical practitioners from legal claims will encourage carelessness and result in a rise in deaths and injuries resulting from negligence.
I’m not opposed to tort reform that works, and fortunately there’s a better solution that offers something for both practitioners and patients. And that’s a system modeled on our worker’s compensation laws, which a century ago represented a historic compromise between employers and workers that protected the interests of both. There’s no reason why this model won’t work in the health care field, too. Very simply, under health care injury compensation legislation, patients would give up their right to sue in exchange for a guarantee of treatment for their medical injuries, time-loss compensation, and compensation for permanent disabilities. These benefits could be funded by a tax on medical services and medical insurance policies, similar to the L & I taxes paid by employers and workers.
The litmus test of any financial reform should be whether it saves more money than it costs. I believe a medical injury compensation system as outlined above would cost less than the current system of litigation costs, settlement costs, and defensive medicine costs; and therefore would result in net cost savings for our health care delivery system.
I would support such a reform if it saves money because it provides certainty for both medical providers and patients, and creates a reliable safety net for patients who suffer avoidable injuries or complications arising from medical treatment through no fault of their own. Such an approach is infinitely preferable to the Republican scheme of simply hanging injured patients out to dry.
@6 See #8. What do you have to say about my proposal @8, Cynical?
Thank you, rr, for taking apart that old R straw man about tort reform. That’s one more piece of republican bull I’ve really heard too much of already!
It should be pointed out, of course, that any reform addressing the litigation and settlement costs of medical negligence will produce only incremental savings, and you can’t realize major cost savings in our health care system without dealing with the 900-lb. financial gorilla, which of course is the 25% of our health care dollars going to insurance companies that buys no health care and pays for nothing but paper shuffling.
Medical Marijuana Map of the United States.
http://www.ornorml.org/images/.....s-2008.jpg
Rumor has it he’s put the pipe down for a while now there’s a baby in the house.
Writing about it might be the closest he gets to it these days.
No doubt some trial lawyers, at least, would oppose any type of tort reform. However, even though I’m a lawyer, I’d be willing to cut lawyers completely out of the picture IF the reform reduced the costs of delivering health care and guaranteed that patients injured by medical negligence would be taken care of.
Well, Cynical, how about it? What’s your answer? Is this a common ground that liberals (me) and conservatives (you) can get together on?
Skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums are NOT a result of surging litigation costs. When doctors’ insurance rates go up, it’s for the same reason that your auto and homeowner’s rates go up. And they always come back down — but you don’t hear about that from the doctors.
Here’s why insurance rates surge and then fall back again. Insurance companies have only two sources of income, premium payments and investment returns on the money they get from purchasers of insurance policies. Investment returns fluctuate with interest rates and financial markets. When they’re high, insurance companies don’t need to make as much from collecting premiums, and competition drives premiums down. When investment returns are weak, insurance companies have to (and do) charge policyholders more.
It’s that simple. And it has nothing to do with lawyers or legal settlements. To read about this, and other medical malpractice myths, see http://tinyurl.com/pnxtptor buy the entire book http://tinyurl.com/msvtmv
@13
Rumor confirmed.
@16 I’m reposting the last paragraph to correct an error in one of the links:
It’s that simple. And it has nothing to do with lawyers or legal settlements. To read about this, and other medical malpractice myths, see http://tinyurl.com/pnxtpt or buy the entire book http://tinyurl.com/msvtmv
One of things that I am most proud of is that I have never tried pot once in my life. I have never tried any illegal drug. I was perscribed Tylex once. I did not know it had codine. Once I found out I flushed it and took tylenol and asprin. It was for the pain after having a wisdom tooth pulled.
@6
Tort reform?
What is this, 1995?
LOL!
Are you even trying to be taken seriously?
Hey Lee, here’s the latest HorsesASS
@21 He’s SENATOR Horsesass to you, loser.
Roger ..
I liked your post though it nhas nuthin to do with the posted topic .
Actually I do not understand why the Dems do nto do tjhis anyway. Primum non nocere!
March of the spindancingbrownriceseatinstinkinzombies
@5 Speaking of studies, Cynical, here’s one that should interest you:
“What the medical societies did not tell … anyone … was that their own research showed that the real problem was too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation.
“In the mid-1970s the California Hospital and Medical Associations sponsored a study on medical malpractice that they expected would support their tort reform efforts. But, to their surprise and dismay, the study showed that medical malpractice injured tens of thousands of people every year — more than automobile and workplace accidents. The study also showed that, despite the rhetoric, most of the victims did not sue.
“But almost nobody heard about the study because the associations decided that these facts conflicted with their tort reform message.”
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/.....36480.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Smells a bit like the tobacco companies’ practice of burying evidence that smoking harms people’s health, doesn’t it?
How about that — the doctors’ own research showed the reason for too many malpractice suits was too much malpractice.
Whoda thunk….
Roger
So tell me fluffy one, what happens when a lawyer abuses her or his position?
I have not read the study you cited, buyt most such studies are not so mauch about “malpracticde” as they are about some sort of measure of errors made. Given the huge size of the population treated by docs and the verfy selct population able to employ lawyers I suspect that a similar study would show much the same thing … except getting redress from at attorney is nearly impossible.
Moreover, there is, AFIK, NO evidence that the tort process improves medical care. Part of the problme is the effin insurance system. If a doc has no direct cost of a mistake, the effect on his practice will not be direct.
I would like to see adjudication panels for both professions and those panels results ought to be public, very public.
Hey Rog–
In Medical Malpractice case, how about Loser pays all legal fees?
I resemble that remark, Lee. Still think it was a good career move for you to push through doper dealer amnesty. Salud.
(How’s the Hempfest warmup at Goldy’s place? Any of you tweakers get motivated to clean up the condoms in his yard?)
When we made booze illegal, we got the Mafia. Now the War on Drugs has given us drug terrorists operating from within and outside our borders.
Marijuana should never have been made illegal in the first place. This is a substance that adults who choose to do should have the right to enjoy. Legalize marijuana now!
It is strange that something you insist is harmless you decided to put down with a kid in the house.
8 – Sounds very reasonable.
What about it Mr. Klynical?
This proposal by the way even cuts the trial lawyers out of the picture.
@32
It’s not about harmfulness, it’s about time. I also haven’t hopped a plane for Vegas for a weekend or worked a lot of overtime at the office (and I write almost all of my posts on the bus these days). Being a dad to an infant is a 24-7 thing. I’d think even you could understand that.
Excellent example of why we need tort reform.
If there wasn’t fear of a lawsuit, the doctor would have said you have kidney stones, go home and suffer until it passes.
Instead, CAT scans and all the rest had to be performed to “cover all the bases,” just to make sure they couldn’t be held liable.
@28 “So tell me fluffy one, what happens when a lawyer abuses her or his position?”
(A) They may be investigated by the Bar Association and admonished, censured, suspended, or disbarred;
(B) Under Civil Rule 11, the judge can impose sanctions that include making the lawyer and/or his client pay the defendant’s attorney fees and other legal costs, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars.
(C) Depending on the nature of the abuse, e.g., suborning or committing perjury, criminal penalties may apply as well.
@28 Well SJ, since you asked, first of all I think the regulation of doctors by the state is a joke in Washington. About the only time the Medical Quality Assurance Commission ever pulls an M.D.’s license is if he gets in the newspapers for fondling little girls, and even then getting them to do it is like trying to pull hen’s teeth. As for setting up panels of doctors to adjudicate malpractice claims, why should we expect that to work any better than setting up a panel of doctors to regulate discipline of doctors?
Askin’ and gettin’ are two different things, SJ. Remember, it’s the jury, not the lawyer, who decides whether the doctor was negligent and if so how much (if anything) the patient should be compensated. And don’t forget there’s such a thing as summary judgment, i.e., judges have the authority to throw out claims if there’s no evidence in front of the court that would support a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Lawyers can’t just file claims based on baseless complaints by patients seeking a pot of gold. Right now, the tort system is the ONLY thing that stands between patients and malpractice running amok. Don’t like that system? Come up with a better one. But telling patients injured by doctors’ mistakes to eat shit is NOT better.
Vilify the tort system all you want, it’s based on a simple principle that nearly all Americans would say they believe in, if you asked them: He who causes the harm pays for the damage. If a kid throws a rock through your window, the kid’s parent pays for the window. Exactly what do you find so egregiously wrong with that?
But Rog, our Tort System allows waaaaaaaay more abuse and ambulance chasing than Japan and the Yerapeein’ Countries you KLOWNS keep holding up as examples of great Health Care systems.
Checkmate.
Time?
How long does it take to load up a pipe and flick the bic?
@37 Roger Rabbit
Seems to me that you are responding more like a tort troll than rational rabbit.
Does anyone believe that this system is NOT prejudiced in favcor of the profession? How does it deal with “minor” offences such as the common practice of attorneys writing intimidating letters or imposing costs on individuals by forcing them to seek their own attorneys?
The legal disparity in our system is way out of hand. I have sat in sessions with corporate types and listened to the lawyers exploain how dissent can be blocked by invoking the fear of legal costs. I have listened to attorneys avoid their own code by claiming that they werfe NOT acting as attorneys while making very sure the targets of their authority knew damn well who had tghe “law” on their side.
Roger, look at what you have just written. First you use the word defendant. BUT, criminal law is ..as bad as it is .. better than civil law. In a criminal case the State forces someone ot represent even the poorest “defendant.” Click here if you think OJ got the same sort of defense as some illegal famrworker charged with rape.
Civil law is FAR worse. The playing field in those courts is loaded on the side of those with the money to buy attorneys. The only exception to thisis the small claims court. I think we should greatkly exand the role of small claims clourse ..btw that would also address some of your comments about medical malpractice.
Q37 ctd .. Roger Rabbit
37. Roger Rabbit spews:
Hay Tort Troll, READ what I wrote. I never said the adjudication panel should consist onloy of doctors. We currently uise a sustem called the IRB (Insitutional Review Board) to regulate medical practice in the research setting. Those boarss, by law, include a range of folks including “civilians.”
I think a similar panel could be used to decrease the nuclear bomb effects that happen when medical mistakes are escalated into nthe courtroom AND the blame absolution that occurs when insurance compnaies pick up the tab as well.
BTW, why not have something like this for lawyers?
If you believe that I think you qualify for the tooth fairfy award. Here is a simpkle question .. is there a correlation between how much an attorney charges and how effective he is?
First this is utter BS. By lzaw, every accredited hospital has several levels of review. Physicians practices, esp when any sort of error is found, are reviewed and .. unlike attorneys, physician reviews aree by panels that go outside of the profession.
And you do not think that who pays for the effin window depends on the parent’s money?
@39
It takes no time at all, but what’s the point if you follow that up with three hours of changing diapers, feeding formula, and rocking him? Why be stoned for that? It makes no sense. I like stimulating my mind – watching an interesting documentary or listening to music while doing a NYT crossword – when I’m high. As long as Zach needs my full attention, I can forgo that. It’s totally worth it. I’m really enjoying being a dad.
You mean, instead of Democrat Death Panels we have Democrat Lawyer Death Panels? That’s reform that every real American can get behind. Thanks, SJSP.
@38 Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.
@38 “Checkmate.”
In your dreams.
@40 “Does anyone believe that this system is NOT prejudiced in favcor of the profession?”
Yes, I believe it’s not prejudiced in favor of the profession, because I get the WSBA’s Bar News every month and read the published disciplinary notices. Believe what you want, but the Bar and Supreme Court aren’t letting lawyers getting away with anything.
Seattle’s annual gathering of utter fuckups…wonderful.
Lee, wait till those uptight tools, that call you a stoner (or a Hippie, get their wish when Obama is assasinated. They will then get their due, the country will not be the same, I hope the know this….they are playing with fire and will be burned, and ruin this country for all with thier Neo Nazism.
Heterosexuals are murderers, rapists and thieves.
good for you. Better for zach.
@40 “First you use the word defendant.”
Why wouldn’t I refer to the party who goes sued as “the defendant”? That’s, um, the standard terminology.
@41 Great! I’m glad medical researchers are doing a better job of regulating themselves than the practicing doctors are. Good on you guys. We lawyers try to set a good example for the other professions — if a lawyer screws his clients or engages in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, we kick his ass out of our profession.
4:20
Will the HA libtardos boycott Whole Foods? Will they goosestep to their whack-job kook-aid friend sites?
“It seems everyone from Daily Kos to Facebook has their own “Boycott Whole Foods” petition going.“
46., 51, 51 Roger Rabbit spews:
Why am I NOT convinced by this? What makes YOU think that hospital disciplinary boards, with non MDs on them, are LESS unbiased toward docs than the all-attorney Bar is toward lawyers?
I challenge you to take a poll of how many folks making under 75,000/year feel they have equal access to the courts with those making, say $250,000.
I also challenge you to ask anyone who works for a large corporation whether they trust their company’s attorneys.
Because in the real world, life is more complex. Both sides may be sued. Moreover, lawyers function in adversarial ways that are not limited to courtrooms.
I did not say that medical researchers regulate themselves. The IRBs are mandated by law. That law requires a mix of participants, including scientists, non scientists, Attorneys, admins, etc. Why shouldn’t a similar law ought to apply to attorneys.
Here is true story:
An individual I know, a corporate type, often brags of how he uses “the law” as a management tool in what he calls “psychological warfare.” His wife is a corporate attorney and he is the executor of an estate.
This individual has employed a colleague from his wife’s firm as the estate attorney with the stated intent of using this attorney to intimidate the surviving spouse and the other heirs. In part he says he will do (and is doing this) by forcing the spouse to employ an attorney when she wishes to communcate with the estate.
I am told by a very good attorney that this is considered normal practice in the estate business. The only responses involve expensive use of attorneys likely to deplete the estate.
In contrast, a patient concerned that a physician is mistreating her, even financially, has several levels of appeal and those appeals, long before lawyers are involved, involve the same sorts of folks who serve on IRBs.
Which system makes more sense?