$54 billion in 10 years

That's all. The CBO says tort reform would reduce health care spending by .05 percent. Lawyers must be wetting their pants. Now, to the rest of us, that sounds like A LOT of money, but in government, which now doesn't bat an eyelash at trillions and thinks the stimulus actually stimulated something, that's nothing. That's play money. That's Monopoly money in pretty colors. We could save more than that by just cleaning up graft in the food insecurity programs in USDA.

Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits. Because of mixed evidence about whether tort reform affects the utilization of health care services, past analyses by CBO have focused on the impact of tort reform on premiums for malpractice insurance. However, more recent research has provided additional evidence to suggest that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services.

CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)

With a midwestern twang

Obama stuttered through this challenge in today's Labor Day speech in Cincinnati:

"I've got a question for all these folks who say, you know, we're going to pull the plug on Grandma and this is all about illegal immigrants -- you've heard all the lies," Obama said. "I've got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What's your answer? What's your solution?

"And you know what? They don't have one."

An out and out lie. Only about 15 million citizens (not 47 million) are without health insurance and no one is denied access. Those trumped up numbers include illegals, people between jobs, people who could buy it but don't, and people who are already eligible for government care and are having trouble applying (which can sometimes create 4 years of documentation and expensive lawyer fees to get declared disabled). He just flat out ignores all the other possibilities, like creating more competition by allowing sales across state lines for health insurance; the tort reform that Democrats run from because of their lawyer buddies (did lawyers write all these rules and lobby for this bill?); reduction of federal mandates that few people need; and reducing fraud and waste in Medicaid and Medicare and SCHIP; kick out the lobbyists, like you promised.

Your turn Mr. President. Take the plugs out of your ears. You'll hear lots of solutions.

The biggest hypocrite

It's a tough one--who's the bigger hypocrite, John Edwards who claims to be looking out for the little guy, or Hillary Clinton who thinks 30 years "behind the throne" supporting Bill and supporting highly suspect candidates when she was a youngster qualifies as "experience" because she's been thoroughly vetted by the press. But, I choose John.

John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President 2008, and Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, has assets of nearly $30 million. Normally, I don’t begrudge anyone his wealth--if he’s earned it honestly. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998, Edwards had a very successful career as a personal-injury lawyer in North Carolina. He ran for President in 2003 and was selected as Kerry's V.P. running mate, resigning from the Senate to do so. If you want to talk about experience, he probably falls behind Obama who at least was in the Illinois legislature. What I don’t like about him is his dishonesty. Readers in today’s WSJ (and I can’t find the article to which they are referring) suggest that the 25-33% contingency fee trial lawyers get in law suits is much more excessive than the greed of which he accuses corporations‘ officers. Since he wants to limit the income of CEOs (who actually are contributing something to the economy), a reader suggests that he help stop “legal abuse” and limit lawyers to $300/hour, with an income not to exceed $750,000 a year. This would help reduce the inequity he sees among the high income earners. Others suggest why stop at corporate CEOs? Why not limit entertainers, sports figures, writers, etc.? This, of course, is a straw man--people who suggest this don’t really believe in limiting anyone’s income, but they do it to point out his hypocrisy. But just tort reform would reduce our health care costs without jeopardizing our health (the way dumbing down with universal health care would). Step up to the plate, John Boy. Put on those blue jeans and come out for the little guy and the pensioner like me.