Where does Dean stand

on TORTE reform considering the fact that he is a doctor? Lawyers are a huge base and money provider for the Democratic party and I was just wondering where Dean stands on this.

<>

I wonder if Dean is a member of the AMA. I know a liberal doctor who wouldn't dream of belonging to that organization.

Anyway it might be covered in his health care plan. Good question.

Just curious, since you're new, if you support any candidate and what your opinion of Dean is. Myself, I'm a Gephardt supporter, still waiting to be inspired by Dean.

He is a moderate.

on his position on malpractice limits. I used to work on his campaign and even then they would give everyone the runaround about his positions on everything unless the troops had to do damage control.

The trouble with malpractice limits is that there is no incentive not to malpractice in certain types of cases. Attonerys often won't represent victims of malpractice because of the limits. These are damaging to the reputation of the medical profession because of the few bad doctors who will do what they can get away with and damaging to families who often lose a relative they love when that loss in unnecessary.

At least that's what he said on Face the Nation in January. But that's just one interview, so maybe he'll evolve on the issue. We'll see.

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_dean2004_archive.html

BORGER: Well, Governor, you are also a doctor. And as long as we're talking about insurance, I want to ask about something that happened in West Virginia last week, which is that all the surgeons walked out because they were protesting these high malpractice insurance rates.

What would you do about that problem?

DEAN: Well, actually, I think that's a problem for the legislature in West Virginia to deal with. In Vermont, we don't have a problem like that. In some states there's a very severe problem.

What happened in Mississippi, where they had one of the worst problems, is that the legislature enacted tort reform. And I don't see that as a federal problem. I see that as a state problem.

So, I think it's up to the governor of West Virginia and the governor of Pennsylvania, which are two states that have a very serious problem, to enact the necessary reforms needed for their states. But I don't think this is a nationwide problem.

BORGER: Well, generally, do you think malpractice awards should be capped at some particular level?

DEAN: I think that depends on the state. In our state, we don't have a problem with runaway juries. It would not be appropriate. It might be appropriate in other states, and I think each state has to figure that out for themselves.

that on an inordinate number of issues, Dean's response is "that's a state matter"?

state's issue.

...see, that's him, about 1 foot to my right side.

on edit - I only read the headline. Get it???

I don't see a red line indicating that you did....were you just looking for an excuse to show a pic of you and Dean together?

He said that since the problem is particularly acute in some states, and since the cost of living is different in different areas, states should put caps on damages if they need to but the federal government should not, since states that have this crisis are better suited to dealing with it and will be able to put a cap that reflects the local cost of living.

Note: I am pretty sure this is accurate...but I am not an official spokesperson so don't take this or anything else I say as his official position.

I mean, if states have varying caps or some states have no cap, isn't that going to mean that some states AIN'T GONNA HAVE NO DOCTORS?? Cause in some states it is going to cost a bizillion dollars for liability insurance??

Personally, I think a large, but realistic cap should be put on malpractice awards. But I think that the amount being discussed earlier in the year was ridiculously low. Wasn't it like $250,000??

American have the right to redress their grievances in the courts.

I think malpractice limits violate people's constitutional rights to recover their damages in a court of law.

And I think limits are very dangerous for the economy. When people don't recover their damages from the people who negligently or intentionally caused them harm, then society ends up picking up the tab through either accepting the fact that there are many injured, unproductive people not achieving their full potential, or by actually having to pay for these people's care which isn't met from the people who harmed them.In many cases, that money is coming from a federal source.

(And that's why the federal constitution cares so much about whether people can recoup their civil damages in a court of law.)

Therefore, it is a federal issue. And an important one.

That is a surprising position coming from an Edwards supporter. I basically agree with you though...there probably should be some caps but $250,000 is ridiculously low. But the crisis seems to be concentrated in certain states...I think part of that is because states set a lot of the rules governing insurance...so it makes sense for states to be in charge of this. Plus, a federal cap would not make sense because it would not take into account the local cost of living. What is a lot of money in New York and what is a lot of money in Mississippi are two very different things.

Yeah, it looks like I am an Edwards supporter.

Note: I said 'supporter', not 'worshipper'. The Edwards campaign does not require that its supporters relinquish their ability for independent thought. Gosh, other campaigns should try that!!

Candidates are not God?

only one of them is.

He supported Carter in the primaries back in 1980, and Al Gore in 2000. But was he a Mondale or Hart backer in 84, a Dukakis backer in 88, and who did he endorse in the 92 primaries?

Not that it's essential knowledge, but it helps to show if the candidates which he has supported reflect the values he has espoused.

I would think him to have been a Tsongas supporter in 92 but I am only guessing. I wouldn't hazard a guess in the other years. He also supported Carter in 76 as well.

If I had to put my money on it for 1992, I would say he probably would have been for Tsongas, because Tsongas' big issue was balancing the budget. But he may have backed Clinton because they were friends from the NGA...in fact, I read that during his presidency Dean was one of Clinton's favorite governors...I forget where I read it and what the reason was that they gave, but I know I read that somewhere...does anyone have anything to back that up?

I am sick of his "states rights" bullshit. Why is it he "evolves" but the others are DINO's. Give me a break. Everyone bitched about Lieberman not fighting Torte reform.

Every hard issue becomes a "state" issue: guns, medical malpractice, even the frigging Confederate flag. Jeez. What a CRAVEN, lying politician.

like the difference in speed limits between an interstate highway and a dirt road.

and frankly I am tired of it. Just where is the bill, sponsered by Edwards, that would end the practice of states capping awards. I want the citation. I want to see it.

and BTW where are Kerry, Edwards, Graham's and Kucinich's sponsered bills to ban states from capping damages? Many states have done exactly that and I don't recall any of them trying to stop that practice.

Because he opposes it on a national level, and he is running for national office. So he is essentially saying that as president he would not sign into law any federal caps on damages. If individual governors do that is their own business.

or did I miss something?

WHO evolves?

That is not at all surprising...they seem to support the same brand of populism...Harkin would have made a great president, though if he had gotten the nomination he would have had a much harder time beating Bush I.

yea!~:)