Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

[FredF]

Nowhere in either of those articles were Out of court settlements figued in. The majority of suits are settled out of court and sealed by both parties. Why? Well because they are afraid of loosing in court and being out millions. By putting a cap on the limits, AND putting in place a looser pays system where by if you sue someone and you loose, you pay the court costs and atty fees, you would reduce both the number of suits and the settlement amounts.

That alone woule reduce the amount of mone that insurance companines pay out. Would that make them then reduce their premiums? That is another story all together.

Also, these are for insurance sold to the general population. I personally and not looking to by malpractice insurance although there is a policy in my family.

 

[sentrido]

I think this should be its own thread.

 

[sentrido]

Since you got me looking at Drudge today....

I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years

And ...

CEOs have banner year for salary increases

This could have something to do with why people feel like the economy is in the crapper.

 

[diogenes]

Nowhere in either of those articles were Out of court settlements figued in. The majority of suits are settled out of court and sealed by both parties. Why? Well because they are afraid of loosing in court and being out millions. By putting a cap on the limits, AND putting in place a looser pays system where by if you sue someone and you loose, you pay the court costs and atty fees, you would reduce both the number of suits and the settlement amounts.

That alone woule reduce the amount of mone that insurance companines pay out. Would that make them then reduce their premiums? That is another story all together.

Also, these are for insurance sold to the general population. I personally and not looking to by malpractice insurance although there is a policy in my family.

Fred, on the surface that seems right. But if the insurance companies were losing money by such magnitudes, and had such good cases, somebody, somewhere, would take their chances in court.

I'm not saying there aren't scumbag lawyers. My good friend works in the court system, and lawyer jokes are her favorite (What have you got when you're walking down the beach, and find 100 attorneys buried up to their necks in sand? A good start!)

But not every, or even most, lawyers are scum. And short of fisticuffs or a gunfight at the OK Corral, how else are we to resolve our differences?

Moreover, those selfsame companies hire lawyers by the covey, and they are NOT all there to fend off the John Edwards of the world. As near as I can tell, most of them are on staff to dream up legalese to put in our policies to screw us out of coverage.

 

[UAL_TECH]

On the Humorous side.............

This Land is Your Land!

🙄 UT

 

[FredF]

Since you got me looking at Drudge today....

I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years

And ...

CEOs have banner year for salary increases

This could have something to do with why people feel like the economy is in the crapper.

You are actually going to look at a report of income from two years ago and relate that to the current economy? How ludicrious.


A person is smart, people are sheep. People think that the economy is doing bad because that is all that you see reported in the press. Even though jobs are being created left and right, un-employment is down, inflation is low, interest rates are low, housing starts are way up, first time home buyers are way up.

Reality and perception are two different things all together and the reality of things are that the economy is going strong but if the perception is otherwise, then sKerry actually has a chance of getting elected.

 

[KCFlyer]

You are actually going to look at a report of income from two years ago and relate that to the current economy? How ludicrious.


A person is smart, people are sheep. People think that the economy is doing bad because that is all that you see reported in the press. Even though jobs are being created left and right, un-employment is down, inflation is low, interest rates are low, housing starts are way up, first time home buyers are way up.

Reality and perception are two different things all together and the reality of things are that the economy is going strong but if the perception is otherwise, then sKerry actually has a chance of getting elected.

Fred,

I read a book by Jim Hightower. Now, this guys a democrat, so I guess that makes him inherently evil. But you might want to read his book "If the gods had meant for us to vote, they'd have given us candidates". It's a good read, and humorous enough to keep you interested. And while he's a democrat, he doesn't pull any punches on Bill Clinton (the book was written in 2000). He doesn't pull any punches on Bush or Reagan or any other president either. Bottom line, the "jobs" and "economy" focus has shifted to the Dow Jones. Ever notice how, when a company lays off 30% of their employees, this is reflected as "good news" because the stock price of that company rises in response to "cost cutting efforts" of that company? Shareholder value is improved dramatically. I would say that the people who were a part of that 30% would disagree mightily that this was "good news" in any form.

I'll use a local company in my town - Sprint. Sprint's stock price was hit as bad as any other telecom stock these past few years. The company undertook drastic steps to improve the stock price - in the form of tens of thousands of layoffs of people earning a good wage that allowed them to either buy their first home or move up to a nicer neighborhood. This improved the stock price because the company was aggresively "controlling costs". The 10,000 folks that Sprint laid off found that they were "overqualified" for any of the jobs that have been "created". Lots of guys with MBA's who were fast trackers at Sprint now find themselves wearing a Home Depot apron during the day, and stocking grocery shelves at night. And they still have a helluva time making payments on their house. But what's reported in the business pages and cited by the government as a "good" economy is a good economy primarily for the shareholders of a company...not the working public. Look at how Wal Street adores Walmart because they offer low pay and minimal benefits, but they are critical of Costco because they are "too good to their employees"...in other words, shareholders could make more if they would only pay their employees less. That's great advice for "improving" the economy, don't you think?

And it ain't just a "democrat vs republican" issue - big money rules in our government. The most liberal democrat (Bill Clinton) was just as beholden to corporate dollars as GW Bush is. Kerry and Bush will get financial support from the same companies...they want a seat at the table when decisions that affect their industry are made. Everybody wants to keep government out of business, but what really needs to happen is to keep business out of government. And it doesn't matter if Kerry, Bush or even Nader is elected president, the corporations are going to be the guiding force in 'economic policy'.

So take those job creation numbers with a grain of salt. Because in a lot of cases, two of those jobs will be filled by one person - they simply don't pay enough for a person to support a family. Look at the industry that these boards are dedicated to...AMR and UAL have a "bright" future, but tell that to the thousands who used to work for them how great things are.

 

[diogenes]

Well done, KCFlyer!

 

[NWA/AMT]

Well done, KCFlyer!

Indeed, well done!

While it may have been unintentional, I like the term 'Wal Street' as that describes a lot more about our financial center than its physical location. When the good jobs are gone and we all work part-time for Wal Mart and Home Depot will we change the name of our nation to The United States of Wal America?

 

[AA-MCI]

First off, what covers congress and the military is not the same plan, but it is not socialized medacine.

Yet just like the Canadian plan it provides for individual choice in picking the health care provider and provides coverage by making the government the 'single payer' for that care.

Why is it that what is good enough for employees of our government isn't good enough for the rest of us? Even the Iraqis are guaranteed health care by their Constitution, the one we wrote for them:

Article 14 [Security, Education, Health, Social Security]
The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.

Sounds like the Bushies are in favor of so-called 'Socialized Medicine', just not for the American people.

 

[AA-MCI]

When the good jobs are gone and we all work part-time for Wal Mart and Home Depot will we change the name of our nation to The United States of Wal America?

"Sams Country"!!

 

[FredF]

So what is your solution to this problem as you describe it?

More Government spending? Higher taxes?

How do you think that it should be solved, or do you not believe in a free market?

 

[KCFlyer]

So what is your solution to this problem as you describe it?

More Government spending? Higher taxes?

How do you think that it should be solved, or do you not believe in a free market?

Who is this being asked of?

 

[JOEMATTERS.COM]

The solution is "Make new friends, but keep the old."

John Kerry is God Sent, and he should be supported by other men.


All my friends say if John Kerry loses, there is going to be a nuclear war, and the United States is going to be struck again.

You guys might not care because you'll be able to just get in your planes and fly away.

But I don't want to have to spend the rest of my life taking care of other people's bleeding American children in America.

We don't want the United States to be attacked again! WE LOVE JOHN KERRY, AND WE WANT HIM TO WIN! Why? BECAUSE WE LOVE OUR COUNTRY, and we want to be respected in the world. 🙂

LOVE



http://www.joematters.com

 

[TWAnr]

From Capitol Hill Blue:

Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election'

By TERESA HAMPTON & WILLIAM D. McTAVISH
Capitol Hill Blue Staff
Jul 30, 2004, 08:12

The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.

Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President’s re-election effort.

“Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither to most members of the President’s family,â€￾ says a spokesman for the former First Lady.

Reagan’s son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month’s Esquire magazine that “George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies.â€￾

Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush’s re-election effort. Only brother Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is manipulating his mother.

Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan’s biological child. He was adopted by Reagan during the actor’s first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best.

“He is her favorite,â€￾ Michael Reagan told Fox News. “Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it, Ron can do no wrong.â€￾

Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build.

“My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,â€￾ Reagan writes in Esquire. “His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right.â€￾

The Reagans’ split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for Alzheimer’s, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with the exception of Michael, support such use.

There’s more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.

During the week of Reagan’s funeral, the former First Lady “went ballisticâ€￾ when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in “poor taste.â€￾

“Mrs. Reagan doesn’t care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on the air,â€￾ says a spokesman for the First Lady. “She does care about whether or not the memory of President Reagan is used for political purposes.â€￾