Around noon, Chief Charlie Deane held a press conference over the taser incident in West Gate Sunday before last.  You may read  at insidenova.com      Overview:

Chief Deane said that unless new facts are discovered, the officers acted appropriately and within policy.  The woman was not pregnant and is still in jail. A Spanish-speaking officer was one of the first responders.  There was no language issue.   The grandfather was released on his personal recognizance. 

Because of the heightened media coverage of this story, Chief Deane wanted to dispel myths.  There is a streaming video on insidenova but the sound quality is very poor.

 

 

From the New York Times:

Senate Confirms Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice

Voting largely along party lines, the Senate on Thursday
confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th justice of the
Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31. She will be the first
Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the cour

 

98 Thoughts to “Quick Up-Dates Thurs. Afternoon”

  1. Moon-howler

    Hello, that’s an interesting story. I decided on 9-11 that our world had altered forever and that we no longer had the freedoms and privacy we had before that day.

    I guess everyone thinks they are the good guys and shouldn’t be watched or monitored. In my activist days, I just assumed I was being checked up on.

    I am not so sure that one can fault the White HOuse totally for this story. It happened pre-Obama. It sounded to me like FBI and NSA for the most part. I didn’t read real closely. A vicious 5 pound monster was eating my toes.

  2. @Moon-howler
    Do I want to know what was eating your toes, MH?

  3. @hello
    Wow. That’s creepy. I mean, if someone makes a complaint and asks the cops to check into potentially criminal activity–whether we as citizens agree with that complaint or not–the cops are responsible for checking it out and noting it.

    Now, that said….cops have a strong internet presence. We don’t know who they are or where they are monitoring. I’ve often said I would like them to be MORE present in places like internet chat-rooms where criminals like to hunt. They would have to do this undercover.

    I am wondering where we draw the line. We want protection, but we don’t want big brother watching us, either. Should dissenters be noted? No. Should cops be vigilant? Yes. But how are cops supposed to be vigilant without noting whom they are keeping an eye on?

    I don’t know the answer to this. Anyone?

  4. Moon-howler

    There is no answer to it. It is a delicate balance.

    Yes, cops are supposed to check out complaints, real or otherwise. Old ladies with 100 cats who call 5 times a day are even supposed to be checked out, although I suppose there are times when one is finally declared a nuisance.

    re toes a dog

  5. hello

    Hi Moon and Pinko… “I am not so sure that one can fault the White HOuse totally for this story. It happened pre-Obama.”

    Uh, no, it started this week (8/4/09 to be exact). The WHITE HOUSE is directly soliciting people to turn in other people that may be talking about Obamacare that they don’t agree with.

    Don’t believe me, just check out the White House web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

    Where you will find this: “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

  6. I looked at the link, Hello. It sounds like they are trying to combat misinformation over the internet. Lots of places do things like that. I’m not sure I want to get overly paranoid at the moment.

  7. hello

    Hi Pinko, outside of Nixon can you tell me another president that did something similar to this? They are basically asking citizens to report on anyone or any site that puts out political content that doesn’t match the theirs… am I wrong?

  8. Emma

    hello, I was more concerned about the sentence that came before the one you quoted:

    “These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.”

    “Casual conversation”??? You mean like lunchroom conversations at work? Are my coworkers going to rat me out for my opinions?

    Big Brother is watching (and listening).

  9. hello

    scary isn’t it Emma… notice how there wasn’t any violence at these town hall meetings until Dems started asking their union supporters to show up and the White House advised Dems “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,”…

    This is starting to get scary and I honestly see this as a HUGE mistake on their part. It only incites violence, straight from the WHITE HOUSE. However, I can’t help but to wring my hands and think to myself (in my best Mr. Burns voice) EXCELENT…

  10. @hello
    I guess I put it in the same category as Snopes getting reports on fake emails. Snopes gets these chain emails, researches the information and then reports on what is true is what is not. If it’s good enough for Snopes, why is it not good enough for the White House?

    I guess I don’t see that they are collecting information so they can harass people. I see it more as they are trying to debunk myths, but they can’t do that unless they know what the myths are. Maybe I am being naive.

    What is it you fear about this, Hello? Maybe if you explain that, I will understand a little more where you are coming from.

  11. hello

    Does anyone know if the honorable and esteemed Gerry Connolly will be holding a town hall meeting on health care? I went to his site and only found that he has a video of him “discussing the health care debate on CBS”. I suggest everyone watch it. By the way, want a good chuckle, take a look at his events page, apparently this guy has nothing to do. I must admit that I hated this guy for voting for CAP AND TAX, but he sounds like he opposes Obamacare and he brings up some good points (until the end of the vid).

    However, keep in mind that this guy represents one of the ‘richest’ districts in the US. I just hope that he isn’t one of the Dem cowards that does nothing in the form of “town hall” meetings and decides to ‘phone’ it in…

  12. hello

    Hi Pinko… “What is it you fear about this, Hello?”.

    Ummmm, how about our President soliciting that citizens report on any and all who email them on political issues that the President doesn’t agree with. That isn’t odd to you, not in the least bit? Just a little? Again, can you tell me the last President that did something similar? Ill answer that for you :-). Nixon… and what happened? Ill answer that for you again :-). It was OUTLAWED!

    Am I alone? Am I the only one that finds this creepy? For example, if I said that Obamacare wants to kill off old people, KG could send Obama an email telling him that “Hello, from PWC, said that Obamacare wants to kill off old people”.

    You don’t find that scary, creepy, odd, non-Presidential, Nixon-like, intimidation of opposing views, any of the above? Or is it cool as the other side of the pillow?

  13. @hello
    Okay, you got me when you said “non-presidential.” I was looking at it from an internet kind of standpoint. Because I see this stuff all the time, it just didn’t sound odd to me. But when you put it that way, yeah….maybe it IS kind of weird.

    BTW, don’t worry. Your secret is safe with me heh heh.

  14. RingDangDoo

    @hello

    Look here for Connolly’s opinion on town hall meetings..

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/freshman-dem-assaulted/

  15. hello

    Great link RDD… judging from Connolly’s statements there is no way he is holding a town hall (exhibit A – his comments), (exhibit B) just take a look at his events calendar on his own site.

    I love how the left trashes anyone who demonstrates their 1st amendment rights by calling them a ‘mob’, ‘right wing extremist’ and insinuating that they are going to ‘riot’. Just take a look at the DNC’s newest ad: http://vodpod.com/watch/2007913-enough-of-the-mob-dnc-ad-fights-bac

    The only douche they could find was a ‘birther’, of which I am not one. I’m telling you, people are only going to get even more pissed and frustrated when they are called names, painted with a big brush and dismissed when they simply don’t agree with their elected representatives.

    Not only are the Dems fighting each other (libs v.s. blue dogs) but they are only making the opposition stronger, mainly the independents. The ones that got Obama elected.

  16. Moon-howler

    How are some of you all going to stand to live until next election?

    I didn’t find the White House nearly as scary as some of the reports I have been reading about the retelling of this request.

    What is illegal re Nixon was collecting data on people including voice samples because they attended anti war rallies and things like that.

    Asking for fishy information asks for the information, not information on individuals. I would rather the fishy information being addressed. There are some scary things going on out there. This to me, isn’t one of them.

  17. Moon-howler

    Actually, had the Republicans not turned on each other and fought to the death, the preident might be a Republican. If Republicans hadn’t talked about McCain like he was a POS, perhaps he would be President. If some idiot hadn’t convinced him to hook up with Sarah Palin, perhaps he might be president. Nothing against the lady, she just really wasn’t presidential or vice-presidential material.

    So I would probably tread real carefully about the blue dogs. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw boulders.

  18. hello

    Hi Moon, “There are some scary things going on out there. This to me, isn’t one of them.”

    Okay, lets roll back the clock… The U.S. just invaded Iraq, if Bush put a request out on the WHITE HOUSE website that stated:

    “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about the war in Iraq that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

    Would you still feel the same way?

  19. hello

    Wow Pinko… I’ve got a whole new respect for you “But when you put it that way, yeah….maybe it IS kind of weird.”

    What do you think about the government getting your employment/financial information from a used car dealer? If you happened to take advantage of the “cash for clunkers” program they would have all of your info… When the dealer logs into the site there is a disclaimer:

    “your computer is now considered the property of the Federal Government, including all content on your computer, and gives access to both the US and foreign governments”

    So, Joe at Joe’s used cars has now agreed to let any and all information on all of his clients be provided to “both the US and foreign governments” according to the disclaimer. Question, why foreign governments?

    Moon, you didn’t blink an eye at the snitching request by the White House, what do you think about this one?

  20. hello

    Full disclaimer: “This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

  21. @hello Hello, where can we see that disclaimer?

  22. Moon-howler

    Hello, yes. I dont see it as snitching. Fishy information. Not fishy people. And as for snitching–what is wire-taping and many parts of the Patriot Act.

    As for getting information on residents from used car dealers…the government can get any kind of information it wants on anyone at any time. How about dmv records for starters. Ever given to a political campaign? How about the IRS? Do you think they are some agency out there to help you or …could they be a government agency?

    Then there’s the census, DOT, social security administration, VA, the list is endless. If you think you have any privacy, you have truly been misguided.

    If you are a privacy nut, all these things should scare you. They are way down my list however. I would worry more about terrorism, domestic and international. When a man gets blown away in his church or holding a door for some old codger, then these thing are much more real to me.

  23. Doesn’t DHS tap our phones anyway?

    I guess I just assume we are all being watched one way or another. If they want to know anything about me, all they have to do is read my internet postings. So long as they don’t misuse what they know about me, I don’t care much.

    Going back to the White House health-care thing, maybe Obama should just read Snopes. Any myths are bound to turn up there eventually. 🙂

  24. hello

    Hi Pinko… sure, you could look at these links or google it if you don’t trust them. From what I have heard they have removed the disclaimer but can’t say if they have stopped “intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign” portion of it…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vte_Eza72Os
    http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-307485

  25. hello

    Hey Pinko… “If they want to know anything about me, all they have to do is read my internet postings. So long as they don’t misuse what they know about me, I don’t care much.”

    Isn’t is odd that now we can say such things… Am I alone in thinking that this is what Russians citizens said years ago? Pinko, seriously, let’s please be more pro-active about our rights! I don’t always agree with you (okay, almost never agree with you) but as Americans can you and I take a stand for the rights that our forefathers provided us!

    It’s so sad that someone would actually say “I guess I just assume we are all being watched one way or another”. Wake up! Where is your spirit!

    NO, I WANT TO BE FREE! As of right now this is still the U.S.A, not the U.S.S.A. Why would you just accept something like that without a fight?

  26. hello

    Come on Moon… “the government can get any kind of information it wants on anyone at any time.” and “If you are a privacy nut, all these things should scare you. They are way down my list however”.

    What the hell man!?! So our government knowing everything about you (and soon to be your medical records) are way down on your list?

    For f@ck sake man… have you all just given up or are you cool with this? If I told my grandfather that he would make me pick a switch from the back yard (for those of you who know what that means) and whip my ass.

  27. Moon-howler

    Hello, where have you been? I am curious why you thought you had total privacy. It doesn’t matter if I am cool with it or not. Just is.

    You are going to make yourself miserable if you get all worked up over things that have been in place for decades. Let’s just start with birth. You have a birth certificate. Then comes the social security number. Start school, there is a shot record, a medical record. Your grades become part of a permanent record. Certain things cannot be in that permanent record. That ommission is fairly new. Military information. Try not registering for the selective service (if the draft comes back) stuff if you are male. Bank accounts? All are tied to your social. Have a bank account or co-signed a loan? Gotcha. Credit bureaus know all about you. Credit card companies do profiles of your spending. Can I stop now? When should I have started shaking my fist at the enemy?

    Privacy is an illusion.

  28. hello

    Moon, I understand… however, doest that give the White House authority to do what it wants? When do we draw the line? Should they be able to accept email from you telling them that I, hello, don’t like their health care plan? When has that ever happened before? When does ones political beliefs or what they say or email to someone become property of the government? And when do people say “is that even legal?”?

    Obama has already broken one law he co-sponsored (gave IG Walpin 24 hrs to resign or be fired, he was fired) now, I think, he is breaking another.

    If Bush said okay, if you trade a car any and all data on that computer can now be “intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

    If that doesn’t scare you Moon, then I suppose your right… Privacy is an illusion. Were you ever upset over the Bush wiretapping? Nah, of course not… just throw that into Obama’s bag of tricks as well.

  29. Moon-howler

    No, I wasn’t upset over Bush’s wiretapping, per se. I disliked the notion but I also realized how much evil was going down because it hadn’t been done. I may have said this before but I decided on 9-11 that the freedoms we had known were probably a thing of the past. I was willing to relinguish that freedom to be safe from terrorists and to have my family safe from terrorism. It isn’t something I really care that much about. Whoever listened to me on the phone would fall asleep anyway.

    I believe that whoever worded the White House blog invitation/directive probably could have made the same request and had it sound a little better. It was awkward. However, awkward speech isn’t a crime. Every administration has probably had similar situations. This administration just uses technology more.

    There are other things that bother me. This just isn’t the sword I am going to fall on. I worry much more about the government interferring with reproductive choices and my offspring being subjected to someone’s stupid ass religious beliefs than I do someone telling the White House what I think.

    Hello, I can sleep soundly tonight knowing full well that you have already told Obama what you think, in no uncertain terms. Am I right?

  30. kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    I worry much more about the government interferring with reproductive choices and my offspring being subjected to someone’s stupid ass religious beliefs than I do someone telling the White House what I think.

    Privacy may be an illusion, but those reproductive choices that you hold so dear depend on the “right to privacy.” The Supreme Court (http://law.jrank.org/pages/9910/Roe-v-Wade.html) originally declared a Texas abortion law unconstitutional because it invaded a woman’s right to privacy.

    You are quite correct about all the information tied to a social security number. But personal medical information has always been viewed as private, which the government has not typically been allowed to access. If medical information is no longer viewed as private, then the constitutional stack of cards on which the right to abortion is built may fall as well.

  31. kelly3406

    hello :
    Were you ever upset over the Bush wiretapping? Nah, of course not… just throw that into Obama’s bag of tricks as well.

    I was never upset at Bush wiretapping, because he was collecting information from overseas cell phones that had been connected to terrorists. But I AM upset by Obama asking for citizens to report on fishy emails/statements regarding healthcare. These are exactly the same tactics used by the Soviet Union to capture dissidents — in fact, the Soviets encouraged children to report on their parents. This is not really too different than what Obama is doing.

  32. Moon-howler

    How do those medicare seniors get around the right to privacy? There are medical reviews done all the time. My mother had one done when tried to get motorized chair. This situation leaps out at me. She was declined because my brother had bought her a push wheel chair a year or so earlier. (not the kind you can even work yourself) Her doctor and a respiratory therapist told her no one was a better candidate than she was. Once medicare declines you, that’s it. private insurance and bridge policies will not pick up the slack.

    Griswold v. Connecticut is the case that ruled the Constitution protected a right to privacy. What is horrifying about this case is that it ruled in 1965 that married couples had the right to use contraception–in Connecticut no less. Roe v. Wade was partially decided on privacy and that privacy (whatever the legal word is) was built on the Griswold case.

  33. Moon-howler

    I find it amusing, in a sick way of course, that people feel their health care coverage is better that something the govt will provide. Thosse sleazy insurance bastards have more tricks up their sleeve than you can shake a stick at. They don’t have to cover jack and can hold you up for years. Anyone who thinks they have control of their health care is living under a false sense of security. Furthermore, Americans are helpless to do anything about it. Your only real security is if you have enough money to pay for whatever it is yourself, out of pocket.

    I just sit back and laugh over people thinking that they are calling the shots with private health care. They can also whammy the providers into cutting you off by simply making their paperwork too cumbersome to provide that service to a class of people. Example: people who need chiropractice maintaince therapy.

  34. Juturna

    Don’t know why everyone think everything in New England is very liberal….. in some ways yes, other ways it is down right Puritan-istic. Connecticut Blue Laws were very conservative and prevelant through the 80’s may be some left. Perphaps it was the prevalance of the Blue Laws and so many other regulations left over from the Puritans that cause NE to spin to the far side. After all, Peyton Place did not take place in Maryland.

  35. Moon-howler

    My shock and awe over Griswold is not because is is necessarily New England but rather it is on the East Coast in 1965 rather than some backwater state inhabited by snake handlers. The established east coast in 1965? One wouldn’t think the issue of birth control would even be an issue. Other states had restrictive laws in this area also from what I have been told.

    Put another way, birth control being legal in all states is only 44 years old. That is freaking horrifying! Even now there is debate over a conscience clause. (claws?) We really aren’t so far from the dark ages.

    Juturna, my husband is originally from New England and I agree with you. LOL @ Peyton Place.

  36. kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    I find it amusing, in a sick way of course, that people feel their health care coverage is better that something the govt will provide. Thosse sleazy insurance bastards have more tricks up their sleeve than you can shake a stick at. ….. Your only real security is if you have enough money to pay for whatever it is yourself, out of pocket.

    Talk about painting business with a broad brush … that is a very anti-capitalist statement. Although I agree that one’s only real security is to pay out of pocket, there are good insurance companies and there are bad insurance companies. When I have purchased my own healthcare policy, I independently managed to find good companies.

    As someone who has experienced government healthcare (through the VA) and private healthcare, I much prefer private healthcare. One does indeed have much more (not absolute, but much, much more) control over the direction of your treatment with private health insurance. There are many, many rules, frustrating denials of treatment, and long, long waits to do anything in government healthcare. These things do happen with private healthcare, but there are reputable insurance companies that treat their customers well.

    The insurance company used by my employer is an example of a very reputable company. The workforce at my place of employment is very senior, so there are a lot of claims. But everyone agrees that our insurance provider has provided excellent (albeit not necessarily inexpensive) coverage. However, our claims this year were fewer than expected, and so we get a break in our insurance premiums during the last two months of the year. That will NEVER happen in government healthcare …..

    The bottom line for me is this: I do not want any further government intrusion into my life.

  37. @hello
    LOL! Because my husband works for DHS and they have already crawled so far up my _ss, I guess I’m just not as sensitive to it anymore. 🙂

    I realize a lot of people are much more private than I am, however, and I completely respect that. But as you point out, with the internet, not much is private anymore. We can get all kinds of information about each other from doing simple searches, from paying companies to do background checks and from making FOIA requests. So if you want to fight for your privacy rights, you probably have to start with regulating the Internet, IMO.

    BTW, we disagree a lot, but you are interesting to dialog with…and you aren’t a meanie 🙂

  38. kelly3406

    Oops. I messed up the quote in my previous post. The snippet of Moonhowler’s quotation ends after the first paragraph. The paragraphs following the first are my opinion, and my opinion, alone. Sorry about that.

  39. Moon-howler

    My statement was not an endorsement of govt health care but a damnation of private health care. Just out of curiosity, have your premiums gone up? Have your co-pays gotten larger? Have services been cut back? How about rx? My only comparison is medicare. Private relies on what medicare pays and doesn’t pay.

    Kelly, I am curious. Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without sneaking in an insult? I am referring to “.. that is a very anti-capitalist statement.”

    You know, I do my best to keep the conversations moving on this blog. I don’t get paid for it. I am going to make it a practice to simply ignore you if you continue that kind of discourse. I don’t make anti-capitalists statements. That just reeks of McCarthyism. Hrrumpph. I don’t have the time to walk on egg shells and weigh my words so Kelly doesn’t think I am a commie.

    My point: private plans are getting less and less reliable for reasons stated above.

  40. kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    Kelly, I am curious. Is it possible for you to discuss a topic without sneaking in an insult? I am referring to “.. that is a very anti-capitalist statement.”

    Okay. I thought you were endorsing govt health care — my apologies. That was not intended to be an insult.

    My medical premiums and co-pays have gone up in last 10 years, but then so have the costs of Big Macs, gasoline, and universities. The big difference is that there are more medical technologies, drugs, and treatments for a variety of ailments than ever before. We pay more, but we get more. That’s not generally the case for the other items that cost more also.

    If we really want to get costs under control, the main issues (in my opinion) are government regulation and tort reform. There is nothing in the current health care initiative that remotely addresses these two issues. The current legislation does add layers of bureaucracy and extends coverage to more people, which will increase costs, not decrease them.

  41. Moon-howler

    No, I think we need health care reform but not govt health care, if that makes sense. We need to find a way for those without insurance but who don’t qualify for medicaid to not be using emergency rooms, walking on bills, etc. Also, people who are without a job surely won’t have medical coverage. That needs to be fixed. I don’t know how it still works but it used to be if you lost your job, went on cobra, it you could be charged triple what everyone else in the company was charged. That needs to stop also.

    I actually have no answers. I know the various systems are putting a huge financial burden on govt, hospitals, people, and companies. Don’t forget about the boomers who are all ready to qualify for medicare.

  42. If we want a national healthcare program, we need to start by steamlining the programs we have (such as VA programs), the ones that require advocates to get patients through the process because that process is so ridiculously confusing! It IS possible to get everyone quality healthcare, but jumping into government care isn’t it. There must be a gradual change, and it must begin by demonstrating the government has the ability to do this well and consistently without taxing us into poverty.

    Incidentally, I’m not impressed with insurance companies, either, which is why the national healthcare plan has been suggested. If insurance companies did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn’t have these issues.

  43. An Ordinary Joe

    “Incidentally, I’m not impressed with insurance companies, either, which is why the national healthcare plan has been suggested. If insurance companies did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn’t have these issues.”

    @Posting, I do not disagree with you about the need for streamlining. But your last paragraph confuses me. What is it that insurance companies are “supposed to do” other than make a profit? They are not a volunteer organization set up for the greater good.

    The economic system works on some very simple premises. First, there has to be a demand. Then there are producers that meet the demand for profit. (Of course it can work backwards where producers convince consumers that they have a demand.)

    When the producers evolve into products that do not meet the demand, then the consumer finds someone else to do it, much like what has happened to the US auto industry. The thing that makes the system broken is when the consumer accepts products it does not want and thus has no consequence for the producer, then the value of the product declines. But if the system works, the producer retools its product to meet the demand. That is how products are improved.

    Government intervention in the consumer/producer system may solve short term problems such as insolvency but it does almost nothing for value of the product and thus the decay continues although hidden from view since the financial incentive of the producer is satisfied. In other words, Government intervention does not improve the product, only consumers can improve the product by demanding the better product.

  44. Joe, I guess I don’t believe healthcare should be a for-profit industry. It’s a human right, IMO. So how do we afford that? We all pay for it. BUT there has to be a smart way of doing it, and government bureaucracy isn’t smart.

    I agree consumers must demand a better product, but since we have little protection against large corporations, we are rather at a loss when it comes to this.

  45. An Ordinary Joe

    Well, I agree but I wouldn’t isolate it to big corporations and insurance. There are plenty of culprits to go around. Lawsuits leading to malpractice insurance costs, medical school costs, R&D for drugs, hospital equipment, costs for procedures that are not paid for by many people (not an immigrant comment more of a poverty comment) and of course profit. I am sure people can add many more. It does not sound like this health care legislation is attacking any of the root causes of the costs but seems to be hitting the hot button issues. Well, if you don’t do the correct analysis you end up solving the wrong problem. Again it makes you feel good for a short time until you realize that those root costs are still out of control and you end up just putting a bandaid (pun intended) on the problem and your costs rise exponentially.

    I understand that the rush is because the shine has gone off some of the Administration’s initiatives already enacted and to get something done will need to be accomplished before the next election cycle. But I am not happy if we just gloss over the real problems with health care by passing “feel good” legislation like “capping compensation” or other unnecessary intrusions.

    Healthcare is like any other consumer product. There is nothing wrong with incentive like profit but the domino effect of different root items like lawsuits will continue to undercut the healthcare system unless a just system is put into place.

    People who are the victims should be adequately compensated but the compensation should not be such a punitive measure as is often the case. As the “little guy” we may cheer when “the man” is stuck, but when it comes down to it, it rarely is “the man” that gets stuck–it is every one of us who pays for higher health care. It is like some juries forget that they are sitting in a civil case and try to punish as though it is a criminal case. If there is a criminal case, let the criminal courts handle it.

  46. Moon-howler

    Pinko, I am afraid that health care is not a human right. As for non profit, there aren’t enough Catholic charities in the world to compensate. Nasty old capitalism wins out every time. Unfortunately, there needs to be a great deal of oversight because people who aren’t well are often the most vulnerable.

Comments are closed.