Fred Barnes has some interesting observations:

"THE WORDS OF HUBERT HUMPHREY became the motto of American liberalism almost from the moment he uttered them on the Senate floor in 1977. "The moral test of a government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life--the children; the twilight of life--the elderly; and the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." Liberal Democrats embraced the Humphrey dictum as a measure of what they'd done and what they planned to do. This was the high moral ground they thought of as the Democratic party's exclusive heritage.

It no longer is. The indifference of liberalism to the fate of Terri Schiavo, by itself, demonstrates that. Those in the dawn of life and those in the shadows do not have advocates in liberalism and the Democratic party, at least not many. More often the weak and the innocent are targets. Democrats and liberals have fled the moral high ground, and they've done so voluntarily."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/439ieepd.asp

I also loved how the liberals derided the throngs of the pro-life "religious Right" during the Schiavo ordeal. The libs should be reminded how crucial the Bible-thumpers were to our history.

Lincoln needed the votes of the abolitionist Christians in both of his Presidential campaigns. When Lincoln's re-election victory was in doubt due to a very unpopular (civil)war, he pandered to the "religious Right" and emphasized the war's goal of emancipating all of the slaves.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment062200f.html

Now it's time to go after people who are not even in a "persistent vegetative state" but are merely ill or old, and so much for the ballyhooed "living will":

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43721

All moxie trolls screw me off and lie in my face.

You don't tell conservative truth. Truth is conservative, stoopid.

i heart you baby

Still...I know which lawyer I'm gonna call the next time I get disemboweled by a pool drain while attempting to give water birth at the Betty Ford Clinic.

Edwards fights for the little people......I mean guy.

BS filtrate,

Fred Barnes-

To twist what HH said 30 years ago as if he spoke for "liberal America" is just more self serving drivel. HH was not speaking to the issue(s) of brain death or vegetative states. Or if he was, to suggest that he thought the “Moral Test of government” means keeping people alive against their will is a reading that has no basis in fact. Barnes cannot know what HH meant, but it suits his dialectic to decide he does. The old RW strategy: Set'em up with distortions to your liking and then knock'em down with cheap shots. How about the incredible pain and suffering the RW embraces in the pursuit of democracy in Iraq? You hypocrites.

Facts on tort reform:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7245

Moxie takes a different tact than Barnes. She just lies. She repeats the pernicious RW line about rising costs of health care and malpractice settlements. There is no link. In fact as the value of settlements has dropped in the last decade the cost of health care has risen unabated. Barely .4% of the cost of health care is represented by the value of settlements and judgments. If all lawyers died tomorrow and all the plaintiffs too, there would be no change to the cost of delivering health care. But that FACT does not help the RW agenda of tort reform and the case to discredit trial lawyers who are overwhelmingly Democrats, does it Mox? Tort reform is intended to protect corporate America not Americans. Just like the recent Bankruptcy Bill. NO benefit to Americans; just more cover to the usurious lenders in Delaware.

And the search for the truth in Moxieville continues as it has in the past: passing it by and kicking some dust over it.

You should read the Bible more, not so much for the religion and what-not as for the constant smiting and plagues (read Frank Reads the Bible at imao.us).

the bible has it all! sex wars, murder, intrigue, magic! more. plus there're morals in it. that's the only thing keeping liberals from loving it!

i like tony's blog, and take a read fairly often, when i'm home at least!

Ya know strawman I paid a visit to http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7245 as you recommended......such drivel. I did however find one bit of information I thought telling;

"Examination of their financial statements reveals the extent of the scam: From 1996 to 2001, insurers nationwide paid out an average of only 69 cents in claims for every malpractice premium dollar they took in."

Good Lord! How much do you think they (we..any of us) should be allowed to keep? Do me a favor, go try to operate a business on a gross margin of 31%!

Also I think it's important to note that the afore mentioned tort reform would apply to "non-economic" damages, not tangible losses.

One more thing ".4% of the cost of health care is represented by the value of settlements and judgments." reference please.

P.S. Miss Moxie, would you be kind enough to post a Chuism? I've come to rely on them.

Edspecial,

I will look for the reference to the .4% number. Although just thinking about it, it does not seem like a stretch.

I still ask the question-who or what is tort reform protecting?

And the idea that eliminating non-economic damages is insignificant is crazy. My 93 year old mother, who earns nothing, fell on her face at the mall because of a slippery un-carpeted floor during a snow storm. Since she is no longer a wage earner and is fully insured this event had no economic impact. Should she not be able to collect against the Mall? They were negligent. She suffered plenty of pain and short term disability. The purpose of punitive damages is to cause a change in behavior in the defendant as well as to compensate the injured party for their pain and suffering. Otherwise why should the Mall go and buy the carpet and hire the labor to cure the defect? McDonalds was sent a strong message in that classic case of the hot coffee. Everybody laughs and then gets angry at this case. It has become the poster boy for tort reform. The fact is McDonalds knowingly and willfully kept its coffee at a scalding temperature even though they had been warned numerous times that it was hot enough to cause burns. They saw no reason to change their policy and finally someone did get burned and sued. DO you think there would have been any change in behavior if their exposure was limited to the direct losses of the injured party? 5,000,000 dollars got their attention otherwise the coffee would still be scalding and what of the next victims?

Thank goodness McD's was forced to lower the temperature of the coffee (kept high to make sure customers got a hot cup instead of a lukewarm one they had been complaining about) and didn't have to rely on the "ATTENTION MORONS! Dumping hot coffee on your skin may cause BURNS! Contents are HOT! OUCHIES may RESULT!" stamped in the styrofoam cups and plastic lids. Whew. That mega-corp got taught a lesson there! And now takes whining about the tepid coffee.

Too bad they can't sue for misusing a product. That would work with so many other industries.

Ootlaw,

Another simpleton dumb redneck comment.

What shall you say to your wife at the emergency room as they attend to the third degree burns on your kids neck caused by the cup of coffee you wife spilled when she had a little fender bender in the parking lot or reached to answer the cell phone? How about "you dumb shit, don't you know how to handle a fu'king cup of coffee" then you slap her silly, right?

You my friend, will be banging on Johnny Cochran's coffin pleading for him to get the fuck up and get you the settlement you deserve. Oh, wait, that will be zero dollars after tort reform, since you can't prove monetary damages with a non wage earning kid, and since you are on the dole the medical will be picked up by the feds.

Think it through before you start whining about the whining.

BTW, coffee tastes like shit when it is brewed that hot. 195-205 F. is the optimum extraction temp. Hoter leaches out foul tasting esters that should be left in the bean. Ever wonder why nobody goes to McD's for the coffee? Actually the biggest wonder is why anybody goes there at all. It always sucks.

Wow. Afer strawman's comment it's nice to know that we have living proof of liberal incompetence. If he/she somehow manages to dump hot coffee on our kid while juggling chainsaws, swallowing swords, and strumming a guitar with their left foot while driving then yep...i'm sure going to sue somebody. pshh.

Solution one would include telling them to use a cup holder of some sort (no the child is not a cup holder), don't consume food and drink when you drive and drive and be a defensive driver. Solution two: Don't talk on the phone when you drive! My goodness. If these tings are too difficult then that's your problem.

Or you could take the ignorant liberal route and refuse to educate yourself enough to solve your own problems and call on somebody else to do it for you. Of course if they don't solve your problem then just sue them out of existence. We've all learned that the polar opposite of common sense is liberalism.

Alice, I’m going bowling,

Speaking of antidotes to common sense, I find your post perfect. Preposterous and shallow, are you ten years old? I did in my example give you the "scolding the stupid" option (which is clearly where you live) when I used the cell phone example which hind sight tells me I should have eschewed, since it gave you all the wiggle room you needed to avoid the real example of “something out of your control”. Oh, wait, you suggested defensive driving. You would be so cute if you weren’t so dumb.

So, here we have a perfect soccer mom, who, before getting her cup into the cup holder gets rear ended by some flaming liberal on the way to ask Bush an unscripted question at a bash social security love in, and the scalding McD's coffee went down the back of her, well strapped in place, tot's neck. Should she take full responsibility? Should the scalding coffee provider share in the responsibility especially after ignoring government warnings? Would you just swab your daughter’s neck and slap yourself for being such a clumsy stupid person? I think not.

Or here’s one you can relate to. Those Vlasic dills you serve your family when they are craving vegetables some times have some glass chips in the pickle juice. The company, wishing to keep the delicious pickle nectar from leaking, has the lid tightening machine turned up to 11 causing the neck of the jar to chip. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Vlasic are aware of the problem but turning down the machine is too risky so they printed instructions on the label warning that before serving the juice to the kids on those balmy summer eves, you should filter the swill in your Mr. Coffee machine. Have the Vlasic’s done enough to protect your kids? In your world I guess they have.

Holy cows Alice, accidents can happen even to those like yourself who are just brimming with common sense. Even defensive driving cannot protect you from a barefoot liberal in a hurry to expose the president’s ignorance. Not that that is a challenge from an intellectual prospective, but the difficulty of getting around the Gestapo who protect his ignorance can be daunting.

So Alice, give me the answer now that I have removed your easy out. And add to it your affidavit of auto culinary abstinence, and your vows not claim your next fender bender to your insurance company.

Mox,

You're overlooking that if the two Johns had won, Terri Schiavo would have been cured, just like Christopher Reeve.

Hey Strawman,

What'djado? Forget to take the Ginko? This was a discussion about tort reform w/regard to medical malpractice, not product liability. Or is it just that the premiums got so high that MD's are tossing fry's and coffee?

Maybe if you took a shower, cleared the air around your head of your own unwashed stench, you might be able to form a cogent thought pertaining to the subject at hand.

BTW you never got back to me about the origins of this dubious statement "Barely .4% of the cost of health care is represented by the value of settlements and judgments."

But I suppose since it seems probable to you; "just thinking about it, it does not seem like a stretch.", we should all just stop making a fuss 'cause Strawman the halftard has a feel for numbers. I can almost hear that .4% screaming in agony with machinations that must have taken place in order to bring it into being. Just at a glance, it fails to account for savings realized throught the elimination of unwarranted/hyper-precautionary testing and screening.

Another thing, if need be I am sure that I would have no trouble illustrating for any rational person how the loss of a limb or ones mobility is an economic one, no matter what the age of the victim. In fact if you think about it, what will necessarilly result is a sort of legal sliding scale, ie. Economically speaking your arm is worth more at 12 years of age than at 62, get my drift?

You're just jealous cause all you got is Teresa.

Edspecial,

Remove MOXIE from this link( she has some filter on her site that is having difficulities with this link,) and you will find all the info at this site. Clearly, I think, tort reform is not nearly as important as the RW would have you believe. Removing 290 B. from the treasury by eliminating estate taxes is a far worse crime against the interests of Americans than placing tighter controls on settlements

http://www.MOXIEnewsbatch.com/tort.htm#t6

OOOhh now it's a discussion of 290b, what happened to .4%???? Scrapping the estate tax is a fantastic idea, it is without a doubt the most odious tenent of the entire code, it never should have been law to begin with.

Once again I followed the link you provided. Once again, it's a bust.

Newsbatch (.com) is a site compiled from many different resources by Patrick Coony, one very liberal attorney from Escondido. Try again, this time think tort reform/medical malpractice.

AKA EdSpecial