Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 03, 2008, 04:58:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_po/caucus_rdp
Post by: Manedwolf on January 03, 2008, 05:02:42 PM
Post by: Tuco on January 03, 2008, 05:24:37 PM
Hooray!
Post by: RoadKingLarry on January 03, 2008, 05:32:19 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 03, 2008, 05:37:35 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on January 03, 2008, 05:39:01 PM
IMO, between the anti-war hard left who hates her, and the pragmatic moderate left who is terrified she'd deep-six the Democrats in '08 because of her cold unlikeability and abysmal demographics amongst men, married women, etc..., she always had an uphill primary climb ahead of her, despite the MSM's attempts to portray Hillary's "inevitability".
However, I would not read too much into Iowa. The Iowa caucuses is more like a game of paintball where "amoeba", or "zombie infection" rules are in play, (losers join the winners teams, which grow ever larger...) rather than a straight-up democratic vote popularity contest. Personal interactions, and individuals ability to convince others in cloistered situations weighs heavily there.
The overall dynamic is more like a split jury room, than an election.
Post by: Nitrogen on January 03, 2008, 05:44:46 PM
And Obama won.
He's worse.
Post by: Standing Wolf on January 03, 2008, 05:56:56 PM
Any defeat for a Clinton is a victory for America.
Well done, Iowans!
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 06:04:52 PM
Post by: Tuco on January 03, 2008, 06:08:00 PM
This is nowhere near over. It's just beginning, and it's anybody's win.
It still makes me happy.
see?
Post by: charby on January 03, 2008, 06:10:06 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 06:16:03 PM
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 03, 2008, 06:29:51 PM
Totally meaningless. The Iowa caucases are the least important political event in US history.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Public opinion here? Ask someone what they think of Hillary, and step aside, because they're going to spit.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 03, 2008, 06:30:18 PM
Totally meaningless. The Iowa caucases are the least important political event in US history.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Spot on. It seems to me that people might not support Obama as much as they really, really don't like Clinton.
Post by: longeyes on January 03, 2008, 06:32:36 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 03, 2008, 06:35:44 PM
Yeah.
And Obama won.
He's worse.
And Obama won.
He's worse.
Anybody but
;P
Post by: charby on January 03, 2008, 06:36:09 PM
Totally meaningless. The Iowa caucases are the least important political event in US history.
Let's see what NH brings.
Let's see what NH brings.
Why is that?
Post by: Scout26 on January 03, 2008, 06:38:07 PM
I bet she's throwing more then just the china......
I can picture Hillary holding a sheet a paper....
"Look Satan, we had a *$@&^%$& deal."
Post by: Finch on January 03, 2008, 07:04:54 PM
Post by: GigaBuist on January 03, 2008, 07:10:39 PM
Totally meaningless. The Iowa caucases are the least important political event in US history.
Let's see what NH brings.
Let's see what NH brings.
Why is that?
Iowa doesn't reliably predict winners. If you're in the top 3 you have a shot at winning the national election. Iowa means somethin, but not a whole lot.
Post by: Bigjake on January 03, 2008, 07:10:57 PM
I don't care if Iowa really is irrelevant, this just made my week! Also, there is no way Obama could be worse, he doesn't have a fraction of the power structure/ political machine SHE does.
Post by: Scout26 on January 03, 2008, 07:15:51 PM
Quote
Also, there is no way Obama could be worse,
Never under estimate the power of human stupidity......
Three words: Chicago Liberal Democrat
Two Words: Mayor Daley
One word: Corruption
Another Word: Incompotent
Final Word(s): M.T. Suet
Post by: Bigjake on January 03, 2008, 07:20:21 PM
Post by: camacho on January 03, 2008, 08:03:29 PM
Quote
Good news in that our country tumbles just a little slower into socialism...
I would not be so optimistic if Obama is the nominee and ends up in the White House. Read his platform. For instance on gun control he "supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel." I would call that socialism!
Some folks get on the Hillary bashing (well deserved indeed) and forget that some candidates can be even more dangerous. I personally believe that on the political spectrum Obama is way left of Hillary, which makes him extreme left, and possibly worse.
Post by: wooderson on January 03, 2008, 08:09:22 PM
Thread summaries sure are easy sometimes...
Post by: Tecumseh on January 03, 2008, 08:59:52 PM
Good news in that our country tumbles just a little slower into socialism...
Agree. I do prefer socialists to fascists like some of the GOP.
Post by: Bogie on January 03, 2008, 10:23:00 PM
Obama just doesn't get the angst going in folks, and I'm figuring on flogging a whole buncha Hillary stuff at Knob Creek...
Frankly, I don't think that Obama can retain the support of the majority of the democrats - there's a lot of 'em who are NOT moonbats. The folks who are union, etc., etc... And a whole bunch of those folks, if given the choice between Obama and someone like Huckabee, are gonna go Huckabee.
If either Hillary or Edwards drops, I'm guessing that the balance of power would be something like Obama 40%, Other Guy 55%.
Post by: 209 on January 03, 2008, 10:39:20 PM
Back on subject- I would think that Hillary has a whole lot of dirt (either spun to be dirt or actual dirt) on every other candiate. She isn't one for losing and will probably go down in history as one of the dirtiest politicians we have ever had. A small win for an opponent doesn't mean she lost the war! She's one of the more vindictive people around.
But, I loved reading the headline!
Post by: wooderson on January 03, 2008, 10:50:52 PM
Obama is, essentially, the same politician as Edwards and Hillary. The Democratic divide this time is entirely about personality/style and who individuals think is a more appealing and electable candidate. Given the constraints of an opposition Congress (or a weak friendly), there would be no difference in the governing style of any of their administrations.
Post by: wooderson on January 03, 2008, 10:53:19 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 03, 2008, 11:08:20 PM
If you're willing to sacrifice a little liberty for security - Giuliani's your boy.
If you're scared about your job and your ability to provide for your family (and maybe the gays and the evolutionists) - stick with Huck.
If you're scared about the black helicopters - no better man than Ron Paul.
If you want the status quo with maybe a little more backbone ethically - John McCain (he's ancient, but hopefully America won't notice)
If you want that guy with the awesome Law and Order lines who vaguely recalls Ronnie if you squint a lot - Fred Thompson (lol)
Mitt Romney - okay, honestly, I don't get the appeal at all. As slimey as John Edwards, more of a flip-flopper than John Kerry. Just don't get it.
And it's strange that the #1 issue for Iowa Republicans was illegal immigration but there's no remaining candidate with that as his calling card.
I could get into a Democratic race with that much variety (okay, Kucinich and Gravel... but we're talking legit candidates) even if none of them really spoke to me on a deeper level. At least the race would be fun.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2008, 02:50:04 AM
Totally meaningless. The Iowa caucases are the least important political event in US history.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Let's see what NH brings.
And yes, Pres Obama does not warm the cockles of my heart.
Public opinion here? Ask someone what they think of Hillary, and step aside, because they're going to spit.
But Obama is about to feel the wrath of the Hillary machine. Watch for anonymous tips to reporters about dirt on the guy, some brewing scandal somewhere, something. This woman is not about to let some lightweight stand between her and her rightful position.
I still do not know what the appeal of Obama is. I could understand why someone would want Hillary (return to the good ole days, seems more responsible than Edwards), or Edwards (evil corporations) but Obama? He doesnt represent anything. His rhetoric is just that. He is far to the left of Hillary.
If he gets elected (and he wont) and we have a strong GOP congress, then nothing will happen. And that could be a good thing.
Post by: HankB on January 04, 2008, 03:35:39 AM
On the other hand, B. Hussein Obama admits to smoking pot and snorting coke . . . and HE wants to be President.
Think about it . . . widespread and persistent outrage over baseball players using performance drugs in the past, and NO interest about past pot and coke use by a guy who wants a job where he carries nuclear launch codes in his pocket.
What's wrong with this picture?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 04, 2008, 03:57:49 AM
We've all seen the recent outrage from every quarter about baseball players who used steroids, HGH, and who-knows-what in the past to enhance their athletic ability . . . heck, even Congress and the Federal Government are involved . . . all over grown men who play a kid's game for pay.
On the other hand, B. Hussein Obama admits to smoking pot and snorting coke . . . and HE wants to be President.
Think about it . . . widespread and persistent outrage over baseball players using performance drugs in the past, and NO interest about past pot and coke use by a guy who wants a job where he carries nuclear launch codes in his pocket.
What's wrong with this picture?
On the other hand, B. Hussein Obama admits to smoking pot and snorting coke . . . and HE wants to be President.
Think about it . . . widespread and persistent outrage over baseball players using performance drugs in the past, and NO interest about past pot and coke use by a guy who wants a job where he carries nuclear launch codes in his pocket.
What's wrong with this picture?
Shhh. Keep that down for now. That's a good thing. Because if he gets the nomination, all the opponent has to do is just point that out. Really simply. "People...the guy used COCAINE." ...political destruction.
Post by: LAK on January 04, 2008, 04:02:23 AM
Quote
Did her eyes start glowing in rage, with darkening clouds gathering outside her office?
If you watch the eyes of a shark - they don't do anything. They have this dull, dead look about them. Oh, they do shut their eyes when biting into their food or attacking. Hillary has the eyes of a shark if you look at them closely - no spark at all.-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Waitone on January 04, 2008, 04:14:59 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 04, 2008, 06:05:23 AM
Manedwolf
Quote
Did her eyes start glowing in rage, with darkening clouds gathering outside her office?
If you watch the eyes of a shark - they don't do anything. They have this dull, dead look about them. Oh, they do shut their eyes when biting into their food or attacking. Hillary has the eyes of a shark if you look at them closely - no spark at all.You know the thing about a shark, he's got...lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 06:40:58 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 04, 2008, 06:48:35 AM
I can't believe so many of you still buy into the hysterical Clinton phobia force fed to you every day. Do yourselves a favor and shut off Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/Newsmax, etc. Instead do some independent and open minded research. Maybe you'll discover there's other, very real, evil afoot.
People who want to disarm us and people who want to kill us when disarmed are high on my list. After that is people who want to destroy all incentive to work by taking from those who want to work hard and giving to those who do not.
So that'd be democrats, terrorists, and democrats respectively.
Post by: pistolchamp on January 04, 2008, 07:05:32 AM
If a radical, muslim liberal black can beat her, so can we. Obambam got a win by being "likeable"... cool, that rules out the hildebeast forever as even most damocraps don't like her.
I would rather have had Edwards in Obambam's position this morning as it would have been an even harder slap in her face, but, I'll take this one and enjoy my whole day.
Sitting between a group of lawyers at breakfast, one said "Edwards is so shallow, he's not even a damp spot on the road".... doncha just love it.
Post by: doc2rn on January 04, 2008, 07:11:38 AM
Quote
She isn't one for losing and will probably go down in history as one of the dirtiest politicians we have ever had. A small win for an opponent doesn't mean she lost the war! She's one of the more vindictive people around.
The problem is she got off on a DWI charge that she does not want dragged out into the open. That is why she squashed her guy that leaked Obama's past usage of a controlled substance. She does not want to be seen as an alchy bum. That and it was all the dirt she had on him lost prematurely. We will see after NH but it looks like Huckabee vs. Obama for the '08 race. Change is good. Republicans have helped the rich, offerred a handout to the poor, and killed the middle class. I dont see them getting back in office anytime soon. Bush killed the GOP.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 07:19:07 AM
Quote
Obama is, essentially, the same politician as Edwards and Hillary.
Take a closer look. Clinton and Obama are both corporate puppets much like Bush. They'll both take us in the same direction. Edwards is completely anti corp and pro middle class. Big, big difference
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 07:21:05 AM
Quote
The problem is she got off on a DWI charge that she does not want dragged out into the open.
Which differs from Bush and Cheney.........how? They've both been popped for DWI, and Bush has a long history of alcoholism and cocaine use.
Post by: charby on January 04, 2008, 08:03:14 AM
http://sitelife.desmoinesregister.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/15/7cc6ad73-50ba-49ac-bf24-72221da653e0.Large.jpg
Post by: wooderson on January 04, 2008, 08:06:44 AM
Quote
NO interest about past pot and coke use by a guy who wants a job where he carries nuclear launch codes in his pocket.
Man, the irony alarm just won't stop ringing today...
Post by: Bogie on January 04, 2008, 08:06:56 AM
Quote
Bogie, what does "someone like Obama" mean? What about him drives off "union guys," who would otherwise vote for Hillary?
Well, to be purely blunt about it, I think that a lot of the "good ol' boy" folks won't vote for someone whose name doesn't sound right to 'em. Plus this feller looks like he's got a bit of a tan - what's with that? Oh, and they ain't gonna be too thrilled about voting for a woman either. Same thing may hold with the older portion of the party too. Remember, - it's all about perception.
Remember - not -every- democrat is liberally enlightened...
Right now, of the three horses, I'd bet on Edwards... But he's boring...
Post by: wooderson on January 04, 2008, 08:10:59 AM
I mean, even here we see...
Quote
If a radical, muslim liberal black
Post by: HankB on January 04, 2008, 08:21:48 AM
. . . Do yourselves a favor and shut off Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/Newsmax, etc.
You forgot Drudge and World Net Daily. Seriously, one should no more accept everything these people say at face value than accept everything heard on ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, which have PLENTY of examples of bias, slant, and outright lies. . . . Maybe you'll discover there's other, very real, evil afoot.
Both sides of the aisle are just FULL of evil - it's not about voting FOR someone, it's voting AGAINST someone. 
We need "None Of The Above" as an explicit choice on every ballot . . .
Post by: Bogie on January 04, 2008, 09:38:04 AM
The dems are primarily hoping that we vote against republicans. They can win if that happens. And it's relatively easy to do, since there is a constant feed of "news" telling us that republicans are eeeevil...
I mean, I purely LOVE how it's working, at least from a media manipulation viewpoint - folks are SO eager...
Typical gun person:
"I don't trust that mainstream media. They're a buncha elitist corporate folks."
"I don't like those Republicans either - they're crooks and war happy."
"I know that's true, because I saw it on the news."
Post by: El Tejon on January 04, 2008, 11:09:50 AM
She throws a gutter ball in Iowa and then claims to be the "Comeback Kid II" in New Hampshire. The Clintons, like terrorists, always repeat successful plays.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 04, 2008, 11:23:53 AM
Geez, anyone remember the "Comeback Kid"?
She throws a gutter ball in Iowa and then claims to be the "Comeback Kid II" in New Hampshire. The Clintons, like terrorists, always repeat successful plays.
She throws a gutter ball in Iowa and then claims to be the "Comeback Kid II" in New Hampshire. The Clintons, like terrorists, always repeat successful plays.
Socialism doesn't play too well in the Live Free or Die state, here. Except among the Massholes that are invading the lower portion as a bedroom community. They vote the same way that ruined the state they fled from.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 04, 2008, 11:54:12 AM
With Biden and Dodd out of the race, the Dem average has moved further left. That is a good thing for conservatives - it will be easier to convince people to go vote against whichever commie the Dems nominate.
While there will be no principal difference in terms of ideological underpinnings in a Dem administration, the details and conduct will be very different. Hillary is iron statism, while Edwards and Obama will come up will all sorts of silly ideas, call them "change", and get promptly gridlocked by a Rep congress.
On the Repub side, there is a significant weakness in that there is no unifying leader. They are all flawed in different ways, so no matter who wins the nomination, he will not be supported strongly for who he is. Running a campaign based on "I am not Hillary" will be an uphill battle with the critical independent vote. Romney may have been a winning figure but the Mormon stuff is killing him within important voter circles, as Iowa demonstrated.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 11:58:52 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 04, 2008, 12:00:57 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 04, 2008, 12:07:39 PM
It'd be even more amusing if they had an event in the Radisson where it's at, and the dems had to react to happy, ordinary-looking people and families going past with newly purchased EBRs and luggage carts of ammo boxes.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 12:13:32 PM
.......and we're just supposed to sit still a take whatever the two parties serve up? Who the hell runs this country anyway? Us, or the political parties and their apparatchiks?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 02:45:53 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2008, 02:52:29 PM
how does anyone see edwards as pro middle class?
By being gullible?
Post by: De Selby on January 04, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
The more time Hillary gets in front of a camera, the more she loses.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2008, 03:12:57 PM
Post by: De Selby on January 04, 2008, 03:31:22 PM
It is-she must feel like a flunkie compared to slick willie.
I love that "kentucky fried Hillary" video series
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 03:38:41 PM
how does anyone see edwards as pro middle class? like the "king " in king rat was pro rat
Uh, he was born into poverty, put himself through college and law school, then represented MIDDLE CLASS WORKING AMERICANS in successful lawsuits against abusive and negligent corporations.
That makes him PRO middle class.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2008, 03:43:06 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 03:51:36 PM
Mission Accomplished. Stay the course. and stuff.
Post by: wooderson on January 04, 2008, 04:14:08 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2008, 05:16:29 PM
(I'm bloodthirsty, you know.
)
Post by: Tuco on January 04, 2008, 05:48:43 PM
I know there are worse democrats than Hillary,
I know it's early in the race, but it still tickles me that she lost.
Call me petty, vindictive, etcetera, I can handle it.
It's refreshing to see the arrogant stumble, as it renews faith in man.
It's pure joy to see the arrogant fall.
Steve
Post by: Scout26 on January 04, 2008, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: the rabbi
I still do not know what the appeal of Obama is. I could understand why someone would want Hillary (return to the good ole days, seems more responsible than Edwards), or Edwards (evil corporations) but Obama? He doesnt represent anything.
Few years ago the most popular show on TV was a show about.......nothing (Seinfeld).
Hence the appeal of Obama. He speaks in platitudes (Change, Make things better, Get us back on the right course). All fluff, no substance.
Post by: Scout26 on January 04, 2008, 06:43:12 PM
Quote from: RileyMC
Uh, he was born into poverty, put himself through college and law school, then represented MIDDLE CLASS WORKING AMERICANS in successful lawsuits against abusive and negligent corporations.
Ummmm, no. He actually he made his money suing OB-Gyn doctors by "linking" cerbal palsy with OB-Gyns not performing "timely" C-sections.
Unfortunately the science doesn't hold up under scrunity, and now there are 4 times as many C-sections performed as before, but the rate of cerebal palsy hasn't changed. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome. Then there's the problem of the number of OB-Gyn's who left practice because of the skyrocketing malpractice premiums.
Oh, and to show that Edwards is for the "little guy (and gal)": When North Carolina wanted to setup a fund to help infants/kids with cerebal palsy, Edwards was one of the leading opponents. Why, you ask ?? Because then his source of income would have dried up. See cases in which the baby dies during birth only averages about a half a million dollars, meanwhile Edwards could tug on the heartstrings of juries by parading the disabled in front of them to get his 1/3 cut of multi-million dollar settlements/awards.
Mrs Scout is a NICU nurse. The mention of John Edwards gets her pretty fired up.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 06:49:03 PM
how does anyone see edwards as pro middle class? like the "king " in king rat was pro rat
Uh, he was born into poverty, put himself through college and law school, then represented MIDDLE CLASS WORKING AMERICANS in successful lawsuits against abusive and negligent corporations.
That makes him PRO middle class.
Post by: roo_ster on January 04, 2008, 06:52:29 PM
I can't believe so many of you still buy into the hysterical Clinton phobia force fed to you every day. Do yourselves a favor and shut off Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/Newsmax, etc. Instead do some independent and open minded research. Maybe you'll discover there's other, very real, evil afoot.
RileyMc:I learned to loathe the Clintons WAY back, when he was Governor of Arkansas and I was in junior high school, due yet another transfer my father got from his employer.
Damn near all the dirt that later came out on the Clintons was common knowledge in Little Rock...so common even a FNG in JHS knew the dirt.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 07:03:11 PM
90,000+ people per year are killed by medical malpractice. It's time the medical community is held responsible for their negligence.
jfruser:
Yeah, so let's keep beating on the Clintons while the Republicans sell us down the river. Smart.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 07:05:49 PM
scout:
{{shrug}} 90,000+ people per year are killed by medical malpractice. It's time the medical community is held responsible for their negligence.
{{shrug}} 90,000+ people per year are killed by medical malpractice. It's time the medical community is held responsible for their negligence.
when in fact its malpractice yes. but when its about ambulance chasing with the insurance company anti chasers opting to settle outa expediency its all the rest of us that pay.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 07:08:05 PM
Quote
when in fact its malpractice yes. but when its about ambulance chasing with the insurance company anti chasers opting to settle outa expediency its all the rest of us that pay.
Uh, YOU don't pay unless YOUR'E at fault. As far as 'ambulance chasing', he apparently convinced more than one jury of the facts. The juries found in his favor, so take it up with them.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 07:20:15 PM
and when the insurance companies settle no jury decides
this the boy you're shilling for?
"In his time in the Senate, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills.[15] Among them was Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution (S.J.Res.46) which he co-sponsored along with 15 other senators, but which did not go to a vote;[16] he voted for replacement resolution (H.J Res. 114) in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, which passed by a vote of 77 to 23,[17] saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."[18] He defended his vote on an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, saying "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution".[19] However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also voted in favor of the Patriot Act.
for the war? for the patriot act?
your pretty fexible
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 07:29:12 PM
Quote
However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote.
Because he trusted the President to use the authorization only as a last resort. He was man enough to admit a mistake after he discovered he'd been lied to. Unlike George 'Mission Accomplished' Bush.
Insurance companies are in the business of accepting risk in exchange for premium dollars. They didn't 'lose' anything, so there was nothing to 'pass along'. Business 101. Probably available at your local Community College.
Post by: Antibubba on January 04, 2008, 07:47:13 PM
Quote
And Obama won.
He's worse.
He's worse.
Only because he seems to believe the platitudes he pitches. Nothing is more dangerous than a visionary.
Still, I'd rather take my chances on that than on Hellary. A President that strays too far from the middle will find himself blocked by Congress. For gosh sakes, she's trying to convince people she used to be a duck hunter!
Post by: De Selby on January 04, 2008, 07:48:38 PM
See cases in which the baby dies during birth only averages about a half a million dollars, meanwhile Edwards could tug on the heartstrings of juries by parading the disabled in front of them to get his 1/3 cut of multi-million dollar settlements/awards.
Mrs Scout is a NICU nurse. The mention of John Edwards gets her pretty fired up.
Mrs Scout is a NICU nurse. The mention of John Edwards gets her pretty fired up.
What you just described is a function of the law. Because there was no such thing as a wrongful death lawsuit at common law, the action is entirely statutory or a patchwork creation, and so if a plaintiff dies, that generally (for all types of cases) means less money than a severe injury. That's just the way the legal tree shook out on the question of death. There was personal injury at common law, so there's a long and deep body of law to rely on in suing people for it. There was no wrongful death, so you get whatever courts or legislatures have made for you. And it isn't very good, for the most part.
Before we get into calling Edwards a heart-string tugger, it'd be good to note that Medical Malpractice is by FAR the most difficult personal injury case to win, and has by far the most prohibitive standards of proof and generally the most restrictive limits on recovery.
Doctors and hospitals have better legal protection from lawsuits than any other industry-including the government, for the most part.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 08:19:12 PM
how so?
Post by: De Selby on January 04, 2008, 11:41:21 PM
"Doctors and hospitals have better legal protection from lawsuits than any other industry-including the government, for the most part."
how so?
how so?
The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up. You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case.
Many states have pre-trial mechanisms that require extensive work and documentation to go forward with a suit; not so for other kinds, but for malpractice....yep. So your case can get tossed before you've even gotten near a jury.
Also, many states require that you post a bond to be paid just in case you don't make it to trial in one of the above conferences.
And then there's the fact that certain damages are capped only for medical malpractice in many places, like California, where non-economic damages are capped for medical malpractice cases.
Lots of special rules designed solely to protect against malpractice cases out there, which explains why the failure rate for that kind of lawsuit is about 85 percent.
Post by: LAK on January 05, 2008, 03:29:21 AM
RE: shark eyes
And Hillary could still bite even after this
Post by: Manedwolf on January 05, 2008, 05:56:53 AM
Quote
when in fact its malpractice yes. but when its about ambulance chasing with the insurance company anti chasers opting to settle outa expediency its all the rest of us that pay.
Uh, YOU don't pay unless YOUR'E at fault. As far as 'ambulance chasing', he apparently convinced more than one jury of the facts. The juries found in his favor, so take it up with them.
You don't know much about the medical industry, do you? Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life? That a doctor can't work for a hospital unless they have that insurance? That they'd lose their private practice, if they had one, if they didn't have that insurance? We're talking up to hundreds of thousands a year they have to PAY for the insurance if they're a leading surgeon.
Oh, but doctors are supposed to be miracle workers and restore someone who didn't take care of themselves to full capacity after their body finally breaks down. Otherwise they can be sued for millions. That's the idea of people like Edwards, who are quick to stick their greasy hands in the winnings and take their cut.
A surgeon can spend eight straight hours on their feet trying to put someone's organs back in and limbs back on after a traumatic accident, blood everywhere, literally trying to push their brains back into their skull and seal it up...and that person, if they're an ingrate, can sue the surgeon if their fingers don't bend quite right or they have "pains" later. And win.
Tell me how that's "right".
Also:
Quote
The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up. You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case.
That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.
Post by: 280plus on January 05, 2008, 06:44:25 AM
Can't wait to see how the rest of the race unfolds, it oughta be good.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 05, 2008, 07:06:38 AM
to paraphrase clintons lawyer no telling what you'll find when you troll a big settlement opportunity through the lawyers lounge
Post by: Werewolf on January 05, 2008, 07:30:39 AM
how does anyone see edwards as pro middle class? like the "king " in king rat was pro rat
Uh, he was born into poverty, put himself through college and law school, then represented MIDDLE CLASS WORKING AMERICANS in successful lawsuits against abusive and negligent corporations.
That makes him PRO middle class.
It makes him Pro money AND smart.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 07:43:52 AM
He's been playing the same game his whole life. He comes up with new moves from time to time, but it still the same old game. He looks for easy ways to take advantage of others, and never bothers to produce anything useful or contribute anything of value.
Post by: wooderson on January 05, 2008, 09:02:00 AM
Quote
Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?
You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 05, 2008, 09:37:02 AM
Quote
Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?
You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?
If you dislike insurance companies so much, I'm sure you have no health insurance of your own to cover the costs of modern medical treatment.
Right?
They're a business. They're trying to make a profit, which is getting harder and harder to do with people demanding that Big Government step in and force them to cover everything from stomach stapling to transgender surgery.
Maybe if you push them hard enough, they just might close. Then you'd be happy, right?
Post by: wooderson on January 05, 2008, 10:47:13 AM
Quote
If you dislike insurance companies so much, I'm sure you have no health insurance of your own to cover the costs of modern medical treatment.
Um, no, I don't.But you didn't really to respond to me, so I don't know what your point was.
You tried to blame malpractice suits for the cost of insurance - while conveniently ignoring, as I said, the role of insurers themselves. It's very convenient.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 11:50:30 AM
Post by: SteveS on January 05, 2008, 11:54:42 AM
Also:
That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.
Quote
The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up. You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case.
That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.
It isn't BS, it is how med-mal cases generally work. Having a 'hired gun' isn't going to win a case if the defendent followed the standard of care.
Quote
You don't know much about the medical industry, do you? Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?
From a 2006 study:
Quote
Despite claims by some doctors that rising malpractice premiums are driving physicians out of business, new data confirms that for many years, insurance premiums have made up only a small percentage of total expenses for doctors, including “high-risk” specialists.
In the first known study to compare doctors’ premiums to their total expenses and incomes, researchers analyzed the American Medical Association’s own physician surveys. The study is published in the May/June 2006 edition of Health Affairs magazine.1 According to the study:
From 1970-2, premiums increased only slightly. In 2, premiums were lower than in 1986. From 1986-2, there was a sizable decline in premiums while other expenses surged.
The decrease in premiums as a percentage of total expenses between 1986 and 2000 was attributable to a decline in premiums combined with increased spending for other practice expenses.
“For the specialties, premiums also decreased as a percentage of total expenses from 1986 to 2000—most notably for OB/GYN, for which premiums declined from 20 percent to 13 percent. OB/GYN premiums decreased $487 per year, while total practice expenses increased $5,305 per year.”
“National trends were reflected in the nine regions with slight variations… In no region were premiums as a percentage of total expenses more than three percentage points higher than the national mean during any year.”
“Although premiums rose from 1996 to 2, practice revenue declined nationally and for specialties (except for OB/GYN). It was revenue decline and increases in nonpremium expenses, not premium increases, that account for the overwhelming share of falling income. For OB/ GYN, revenue increased slightly, but income declined because of large increases in practice expenses. However, increases in premiums were less than one-twentieth the size of increases.”
The average physician income in 2003 was still between the ninety-fifth and ninety-ninth percentiles for all Americans.
_____________________________
1 Marc A. Rodwin, Hak J. Chang, and Jeffrey Clausen, “Malpractice Premiums And Physicians’ Income: Perceptions Of A Crisis Conflict With Empirical Evidence,” Health Affairs – Vol. 25 , Number 3, p. 750 (May/June 2006).
In the first known study to compare doctors’ premiums to their total expenses and incomes, researchers analyzed the American Medical Association’s own physician surveys. The study is published in the May/June 2006 edition of Health Affairs magazine.1 According to the study:
From 1970-2, premiums increased only slightly. In 2, premiums were lower than in 1986. From 1986-2, there was a sizable decline in premiums while other expenses surged.
The decrease in premiums as a percentage of total expenses between 1986 and 2000 was attributable to a decline in premiums combined with increased spending for other practice expenses.
“For the specialties, premiums also decreased as a percentage of total expenses from 1986 to 2000—most notably for OB/GYN, for which premiums declined from 20 percent to 13 percent. OB/GYN premiums decreased $487 per year, while total practice expenses increased $5,305 per year.”
“National trends were reflected in the nine regions with slight variations… In no region were premiums as a percentage of total expenses more than three percentage points higher than the national mean during any year.”
“Although premiums rose from 1996 to 2, practice revenue declined nationally and for specialties (except for OB/GYN). It was revenue decline and increases in nonpremium expenses, not premium increases, that account for the overwhelming share of falling income. For OB/ GYN, revenue increased slightly, but income declined because of large increases in practice expenses. However, increases in premiums were less than one-twentieth the size of increases.”
The average physician income in 2003 was still between the ninety-fifth and ninety-ninth percentiles for all Americans.
_____________________________
1 Marc A. Rodwin, Hak J. Chang, and Jeffrey Clausen, “Malpractice Premiums And Physicians’ Income: Perceptions Of A Crisis Conflict With Empirical Evidence,” Health Affairs – Vol. 25 , Number 3, p. 750 (May/June 2006).
Quote
You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?
I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?
I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?
Wooderson is right. There is plenty of evidence that tort reform in reagrds to medical malpractice doesn't cause premiums to drop. California put a cap on damages in 1975. In the 13 years that followed, premiums rose 450%. The “liability insurance crisis” of the mid-1980s was ultimately found to be caused not by legal system excesses but by the economic cycle of the insurance industry.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 05, 2008, 12:57:21 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2005
High cost of malpractice insurance threatens supply of ob/gyns, especially in some urban areas
UMHS study finds premium rates affect where ob/gyns choose to practice; could have major impact on urban areas.
ANN ARBOR, MI - The high cost of malpractice insurance for some medical specialties affects not only how many doctors are entering the field of obstetrics and gynecology, but also where they offer their widely needed obstetric, prenatal and gynecological care, according to new University of Michigan Health System research.
heir study, published in the June issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, gives a foreboding prognosis for the supply of doctors specializing in the field because of the rising costs of malpractice premiums.
Malpractice insurance premiums vary widely from state to state. Florida is the highest-premium state, with an average 2004 premium of more than $195,, followed by Nevada, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.
The 10 lowest-premium states are Oklahoma, at about $17,000 on average, and Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas and South Carolina.
Many areas of the country, especially around major metropolitan areas, are experiencing large increases in the average costs of premiums. Between 2003 and 2004, Dade County in Florida, which includes the city of Miami, went from $249,000 to $277,, an increase of about 11 percent.
In that same period, Cook County in Illinois, which includes Chicago , jumped about 67 percent from $138,000 to more than $230,000. Wayne County in Michigan , which includes Detroit, went up 18 percent, from almost $164,000 to nearly $194,000.
University of Mich. Health System
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This report seems to conflict with yours, which, while it may be true, may not be necessarily accurate.
I know if my insurance rates were to jump 67%, I'd seriously be considering getting out of the business.
Post by: De Selby on January 05, 2008, 01:50:34 PM
That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.
There's what Steve said, which is true, and then there's the fact that you can't use a single doctor for all cases. He has to be the same kind of doctor, doing the same kind of procedures, under the same conditions, as the doctor you want to sue.
The statistics speak for themselves-Medical malpractice cases lose about 85 percent of the time. It is not a profitable business; if you do personal injury, just about every other type of case is more profitable and easier to manage.
Post by: De Selby on January 05, 2008, 01:54:14 PM
Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?
He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades. Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 05, 2008, 02:42:38 PM
Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?
He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades. Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.
In TX the legislature put in caps on damages. Surprisingly a lot of suits never got filed and insurance rates went down.
In MS rates got so high that many counties do not have an OB. There are shortages of specialists all over the country where insurance rates have put doctors out of business.
My older brother has been named in a suit two or three times. The last time he was named because he had seen the patient once in the hospital so his name was on the chart. That was his total involvement with the case. But he had to hire a lawyer and get himself removed from it, costing him money. And the suit was without merit anyway.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 03:02:27 PM
Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?
He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades. Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.
http://server.iii.org/yy_obj_data/binary/729103_1_0/Medmal.pdf
Post by: SteveS on January 05, 2008, 03:13:33 PM
This report seems to conflict with yours, which, while it may be true, may not be necessarily accurate.
The same holds true for your article. We don't have access to the raw data.
Quote
Tort reforms, such as the one implemented, in California work.
No they didn't. As I said, in the 13 years that followed the tort reforms of 1975, premiums rose 450%. They didn't drop until after Prop. 103, which placed stringent regulations on the insurance industry.
From an article Business Insurance (in 1986):
Quote
The Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General concluded after studying the “crisis” in 1986: “The facts do not bear out the allegations of an “explosion” in litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and such a litigation ‘explosion.’ Instead, the available data indicate that the causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the insurance industry itself.” Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., “Analysis of the Causes of the Current Crisis of Unavailability and Unaffordability of Liability Insurance” (Boston, Mass.: Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, May, 1986). State commissions in New Mexico, Michigan and Pennsylvania reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., New Mexico State Legislature, “Report of the Interim Legislative Workmen's Compensation Comm. on Liability Insurance and Tort Reform,” November 12, 1986; Michigan House of Representatives, “Study of the Profitability of Commercial Liability Insurance”, November 10, 1986; Insurance Comm. Pennsylvania House of Representatives, “Liability Insurance Crisis in Pennsylvania,”September 29, 1986. Even the insurance industry admitted this internally. In 1986, Maurice R. Greenberg, then President and Chief Executive Officer of American International Group, Inc., one of the country’s leading property/casualty companies, told an insurance audience in Boston that the industry’s problems were due to price cuts taken “to the point of absurdity” in the early 1980s. Had it not been for these cuts, Greenberg said, there would not be ‘all this hullabaloo’ about the tort system.” Greewald, “Insurers Must Share Blame: AIG Head,” Business Insurance, March 31 1986, p. 3.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 03:47:42 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 05, 2008, 03:48:16 PM
Why, I can't believe they'd claim that malpractice suits were costing doctors money!
(oh, AND the American Tort Reform Association!)
Post by: De Selby on January 05, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?
He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades. Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.
In TX the legislature put in caps on damages. Surprisingly a lot of suits never got filed and insurance rates went down.
In MS rates got so high that many counties do not have an OB. There are shortages of specialists all over the country where insurance rates have put doctors out of business.
My older brother has been named in a suit two or three times. The last time he was named because he had seen the patient once in the hospital so his name was on the chart. That was his total involvement with the case. But he had to hire a lawyer and get himself removed from it, costing him money. And the suit was without merit anyway.
Caps in California apparently led to increases, by this same reasoning.
There is no correlation between damage caps and insurance premiums-just like there's no correlation between the number of suits, success rate of suits, and insurance premiums.
The main factor in setting insurance rates is the insurance company-and the risks the company faces from lawsuits simply have not changed, except to become mitigated by legislation, for a good half-century.
Malpractice lawsuits do cost money. But they have always imposed costs-the rate and percentage of costs has simply not increased over time, despite skyrocketing insurance rates.
And there's also the fact that, of all torts, medical malpractice makes it the most difficult for a plaintiff to obtain recovery. Doctors already have special protection from lawsuits, so even if you don't buy that the number of med-mal lawsuits and the damage caps had nothing to do with insurance premium rises, I'm not sure what you would propose.
Should we just ban all lawsuits for medical malpractice? If not, what are some specific measures that you'd all want?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 06:58:36 PM
Stop and think about that for a moment. If it's easy, risk free money for the insurers, they'd all be racing into the so-called "crises states" to sell as many of those super-profitable insurance policies as they can. Yet that's the exact opposite of what's happening. In crises states, they're selling fewer policies to fewer doctors, or even ceasing coverage outright. They're doing whatever they can to reduce their exposure.
They wouldn't do that unless the value of the increased premiums were outweighed by even larger increases in their risk.
Simply put, your belief that there's no justification for the increased premiums (no increased risk/cost) doesn't square with reality. The financial risk to the insurers really is way up in those states. You may not believe it, but the insurers certainly do.
Methinks that they're right and you're wrong.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2008, 07:05:34 PM
Post by: De Selby on January 05, 2008, 07:08:27 PM
You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it. This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.
But yeah, Hillary lost-and she won't be the one dealing with this problem. Who will, and how? No way to call it yet.
Post by: Bogie on January 05, 2008, 09:53:03 PM
Nominate Hillary!
Besides, I've got a whole buncha stickers made up for Knob Creek.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 04:42:24 AM
Headless,
You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it. This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.
But yeah, Hillary lost-and she won't be the one dealing with this problem. Who will, and how? No way to call it yet.
No, that is NOT what drives insurance premiums. Your understanding of the insurance business leaves something to be desired.You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it. This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.
But yeah, Hillary lost-and she won't be the one dealing with this problem. Who will, and how? No way to call it yet.
Insurers make money 2 ways: premiums and return on their investments. The business is extremely competitive. Anyone who has shopped for term life in the last 10 years will see this.
Premiums are set based on risk. There are insurers who will grab market share by underpricing risk, but it usually comes back to bite them.
Headless's point is an excellent one: if the policies in high risk states were such a money maker, every insurance company would be rushing in to write them. They are not.
On the topic of caps, you need to explain how caps worked in TX but failed in CA. Are Californians somehow immune to the laws of economics? Or are Texans less litigious?
On the subject of litigious, does anyone really believe that Edwards is for "the little guy"? This is someone who has made millions of dollars suing corporations, corporations that employ and pay wages to...the little guy. Law suits are an unstated tax on our economy, and a big one too.
Post by: RocketMan on January 06, 2008, 09:34:48 AM
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread derailment.
Post by: De Selby on January 06, 2008, 10:27:27 AM
Quote
Your understanding of the insurance business leaves something to be desired.
Insurers make money 2 ways: premiums and return on their investments.
Insurers make money 2 ways: premiums and return on their investments.
I bolded the part that I was referring to with this piece above:
Quote
You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it. This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.
Considering that there seems to be no correlation between imposing caps and making it harder to sue for med-mal an insurance premiums, explanation number 2 (what you refer to as way number 2 that insurance co's make money) is a much more plausible explanation for the rise in rates than a change in the risk of lawsuits.
The fact that the risk of lawsuits has only gone down for a good half century is further evidence of this-there has been no increase in the percentage of suits, success rate, or proportional damages requested by plaintiffs for decades. In that time, the trend has been towards making such lawsuits even more difficult on every front. So your claim that risks are driving the insurance increases simply does not wash with the facts-the risks have, if anything, gone down, while premiums have continued to jump wildly.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 10:31:13 AM
Rates are not dictated by returns but by risk.
You have still failed to explain how caps worked in TX but did not work in CA. You use CA to show that caps dont work but conveniently forget TX where they did.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 06, 2008, 10:34:37 AM
what planet do you live on?
Post by: De Selby on January 06, 2008, 10:36:15 AM
You have succeeded in not explaining yourself. Admirably I might add.
Rates are not dictated by returns but by risk.
You have still failed to explain how caps worked in TX but did not work in CA. You use CA to show that caps dont work but conveniently forget TX where they did.
Rates are not dictated by returns but by risk.
You have still failed to explain how caps worked in TX but did not work in CA. You use CA to show that caps dont work but conveniently forget TX where they did.
Rabbi,
Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Rates bring in cash; investments bring in more cash on the money they collect in rates.
If an insurance company's profits drop because the investments bring in less cash, what do you think happens? Rates stay the same, and insurance companies just eat the loss?
No-rates go up to achieve the demanded profits.
The reason rates changed in TX but not in CA is that Texas and California have different schemes for regulating insurance and insurance premiums. The damage caps and bars to lawsuit, which are similar, obviously weren't the controlling factor, or insurance premiums would've dropped in CA also.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 12:51:50 PM
That hasnt happened and it doesn't happen.
Insurance companies do lose money periodically. Typically when investments underperform and/or insurance losses are higher than what the stats would have predicted.
I also dispute that caps did not cause rates to fall in CA. They did, initially. The fact that rates rose after that might be correlated to the enormous inflation the country was experiencing during that time.
Post by: gunsmith on January 06, 2008, 05:40:38 PM
I know people who are voting for Edwards and Obama, they are not news junkies
and they can not tell you what the first two amendments are.
Generally, it is "cool" to be against GW and the repubs, Obama and Edwards seem
like nice guys. Thats all they have to do for the uninformed.
I choose political critters on how much damage I think they'll do to gun rights then after that illegal immigration, then pro life.
I think Obama and Edwards will be easier to beat then shrill hill...I loved the Iowa outcome.
more more more!
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 06:14:01 AM
But for me, the question is: is sinking Hillary early worth increasing Dem victory chances by having Obama instead? Or, is it better to weaken the Dems now by having Hillary, at the price of potentially having Hillary elected?
Post by: wooderson on January 07, 2008, 06:27:13 AM
I'm very curious how he alters that message for the general. I hope the Democrats wouldn't be dumb enough to make gun control an issue after 2006, but you never know.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 06:35:12 AM
Short of racism, the only glaring negative for Obama in terms of appealing to independents and cross-overs is his stance on guns.
You should add lack of business and executive experience, at the least. Also, AFAIK, he has not done military service, which will be another putoff for some. Finally, there are independents that just don't like overly liberal candidates. Such might vote for somebody like Dodd, but they will be put off by parts of Obama's rhetoric.
Post by: wooderson on January 07, 2008, 08:31:38 AM
Quote
You should add lack of business and executive experience, at the least. Also, AFAIK, he has not done military service, which will be another putoff for some.
There are lots of things that will "put off some."But there's no reason to believe that "business and executive experience" or "military service" effect support to any meaningful degree. In the last 30 years we've had one (1) President with legitimate military experience (Pappy Bush). In the last century-plus, we've only had two Presidents for whom military experience was a significant element of their prestige.
Likewise, we've not elected someone with 'business experience' - and no one in the primary or the general, Romney aside, is a captain of industry.
Executive experience - people may like state execs, but there's not conclusive evidence that gubernatorial experience weighs in the public mind more than being a sitting Senator. And in all likelihood, Obama wouldn't be facing a former governor in the general.
You're proceeding from a lot of strange assumptions.
Quote
Finally, there are independents that just don't like overly liberal candidates.
Um, yeah, except that Obama isn't positioned as "overly liberal" - hence his stance on gun control (the most 'liberal' position taken) is what I find as potentially objectionable to moderates and crossovers.While I know that the APS hive mind thinks he's a Stalinist, Obama's rating among self-described moderates and conservatives in the rest of the world is pretty bloody good. Certainly far superior to Hillary.
Post by: Paddy on January 07, 2008, 02:05:42 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 07:08:52 PM
Hillary seems to be in meltdown, crying and all.
"Mmm, let me taste your tears! So sweet!" Eric Cartman, South Park
Post by: gunsmith on January 08, 2008, 01:18:22 AM
If we can beat her in the primaries it will be a joyous occasion!
We just gotta make sure Rudy gets nowhere near the Whitehouse.
Its to bad the left wing moon bats who like Ron Paul couldn't get it together to actually register and vote for him.
The ones I've talked to say they thought the base would vote for him.
So who do we gunnies support?
We should decide and unite soon because it won't be a cake walk beating Obama, all the kids like him & they're organized and voting.
Post by: roo_ster on January 08, 2008, 05:41:27 AM
Post by: pistolchamp on January 08, 2008, 07:20:02 AM
On CNN (Communist News Network) yesterday a shot was shown of the Obomination with a bunch of black guys standing around him and the commentator simply said "I wonder if that's what the new cabinet would look like" and he was cut off instantly and not heard from again. OPPS! Guess the Commies can't take a joke or was it the truth, God help us.
I'm not in love with any of the Republicans, but, we gotta have one of them and its looking more and more like a possible Huckabee/McCain ticket... not the pair that I would choose, but, I am only one vote. However, I'd bet my socks they would beat the Obomination and whoever it chooses as a running mate. It certainly will NOT be the Hildebeast as she would never accept second place... for anything, however, she did look very good in third place.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 08, 2008, 08:44:57 AM
If they are smart, they'd gang up. Actually, I can see it as a possibility since Thompson did not go after Romney the way all the others did, especially McCain and Huckee. So, he did not burn any bridges. Incidentally, after the Sunday debate Huckee should be history in the books of almost anybody but the staunchest evangelicals.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 08, 2008, 11:22:43 AM
Maybe she'll do a remake for Hillary........
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 11:24:14 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 11:39:05 AM
Romney - old Romney, sure, he could just as easily have been a Democrat. But NuRomney is solidly Republican - just depends on the extent to which you believe the words coming out of his mouth.
Post by: Werewolf on January 08, 2008, 12:23:03 PM
Oh, come on. Like Giuliani would ever have a place in the Democratic Party.
Wasn't Giulianni a Dem prior to running for NY Mayor at which point he switched?Quote from: wooderson
Romney - old Romney, sure, he could just as easily have been a Democrat. But NuRomney is solidly Republican - just depends on the extent to which you believe the words coming out of his mouth.
I've known guys who earned their living hustling 3 card monte that are more trustworthy and honest than Romney.Hmmm... I suppose that is a bit of an exageration but not by much - no - not by much.
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 01:14:26 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 01:20:34 PM
On CNN (Communist News Network) yesterday a shot was shown of the Obomination with a bunch of black guys standing around him and the commentator simply said "I wonder if that's what the new cabinet would look like" and he was cut off instantly and not heard from again. OPPS! Guess the Commies can't take a joke or was it the truth, God help us.
God help us, we might have a cabinet full of "black guys"? This worries you?
You thought the commentator's remark was a good joke? To me, it just sounds like a very idiotic comment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 01:46:27 PM
God help us, we might have a cabinet full of "black guys"? This worries you?
Post by: El Tejon on January 09, 2008, 01:39:58 PM
*kicks rocks*
Post by: Manedwolf on January 09, 2008, 01:42:01 PM
I've heard the phrase Obama-nation a few times. Are his supporters really using that phrase?
Everything is a freaking "Nation" in marketing now. Even college sports franchises.
If his supporters use that and can't pick up on the amusing phonetic result, they can go right ahead.
Post by: SteveS on January 09, 2008, 04:29:23 PM
I've heard the phrase Obama-nation a few times. Are his supporters really using that phrase?
You have to admit is is better than Joe-mentum.
Obama has built up quite a cult of personality, from what I have read on other forums and blogs. For whatever reason, I don't get a sense of what people like about his policies.
Post by: Tuco on February 20, 2008, 12:33:00 PM
My previous happiness is now tempered by a clearer vision of her opponent. He's kinda like a zombie. Motivated, determined, hollow, and dangerous.
I still can't think of anyone I'd rather have her beaten by, so I will smile a tentative smile.
Soakers
Post by: Bigjake on February 20, 2008, 05:09:40 PM
Quote
Hillary lost!
I never tire of that heading...
Post by: Bogie on February 20, 2008, 05:39:03 PM
Why?
Because the democratic party, and the majority of media outlets, has preached a rhetoric of reform and "change" since the second Wednesay in November of 2000.
Because "Bush is Bad" and "Republicans are Evil." So they want CHANGE!
Hillary thought she had it locked. She started off playing nice-nice, and actually talking about issues. That confuses the heck out of around 50% of the population. Maybe more.
Well, he jumped on that HARD. He's got the preacher voice down, and Hillary just can't do that. She already sounds like she's been gargling with Drano.
So he's taking that reform snowball, and pushing it around the country, and it just keeps growing. Never mind that it's comprised of nothing but ice crystals of empty rhetoric, which are going to leave a mess when they melt - they've got CHANGE!
Post by: doc2rn on February 20, 2008, 05:41:28 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 20, 2008, 06:50:25 PM
Post by: Bigjake on February 20, 2008, 06:54:11 PM
With Obama's politics, he'll probably give free gas cards to welfare recipients, mandate no new refineries or improvements to existing ones, and that we buy all our oil from Venezuela...
You just now figured that out, Comrade?? (kidding, big guy)
Post by: Phyphor on February 21, 2008, 12:31:55 PM
Well what the hell are we supposed to do? Neither party is producing anyone even close to Presidential material, government is outta control and getting bigger, oil prices are outta sight and getting higher, the dollar is circling the drain, the national debt goes as far as the eye can see and beyond, liberties are being lost right and left, the country is being invaded by millions of illegals, et yada on and on.........
100% pure distilled TRUTH.
Quote
.......and we're just supposed to sit still a take whatever the two parties serve up? Who the hell runs this country anyway? Us, or the political parties and their apparatchiks?
Heh. Do you want an answer to that?
Post by: RoadKingLarry on February 22, 2008, 11:38:31 AM