The NYT editorial page has been on fire lately. This editorial about
tort reform is one of the best I've read:
"Tort reform," the Bush administration's answer to the problem of high medical malpractice costs, makes sense from only one aspect: the political. The genius of tort reform, which focuses on putting a cap on the awards from malpractice suits, is that it offends only one big-money lobbying group: trial lawyers, who are important financial supporters of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, it helps or holds harmless Republican special interests in the insurance, drug and health care industries. The only problem is that it hurts the hapless patients who suffer grievous harm at the hands of incompetent doctors.
Kathy, at the always insightful Random Thoughts, linked to a good pro-war WaPO story that looks at the Administration that Cried Wolf:
Warning of the need for urgent action on his Social Security plan, Bush says the "crisis is now" for a system even the most pessimistic observers say will take in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits well into the next decade.He calls the proliferation of medical liability lawsuits a "crisis in America" that can be fixed only by limiting a patient's right to sue for large damages. And Bush has repeatedly accused Senate Democrats of creating a "vacancy crisis" on the federal bench by refusing to confirm a small percentage of his judicial nominees.
Malsnay, guesting at Chepooka has a treat for any and all Douglas Adams fans. And if you have a crush on the Office's Martin Freeman, as I do, then you'll be even happier this morning.
Pam at Pam's House Blend, has got the goods on Neil BushCo, the only one of the BushCo clan to be a bigger loser than his brother was before he failed up to hold the highest elected office in the land. It seems that Brother Neil has wedged his snout firmly into the NCLB trough. Good for you, Neil! Now why not send ten or twenty grand to Thailand, your home away from home, to help with the tsunami relief.
Unrelated Blog Note: Tell me what you believe to be true but cannot prove here
Comments