• http://vtol.blogspot.com Mike

    That tort costs are 2.2% of GDP is not debateable. What is debateable is how much of this is money well spent versus waste that goes to line trial lawyers, as well as fake claimant’s, pockets, which drives up overall costs and insurance premiums for all of us. You’ll note that I stated the same thing, albeit in a much more condensed version, above.

    Debate without evidence is just emotionally charged babble. I asked blurb for evidence re: corporate welfare costs being more than tort costs because no such evidence exists. The Cato Institute itself, which is dedicated to eradicating corporate welfare ONLY estimates the cost of corporate welfare at roughly $100 billion.

    Evidence, not propoganda.

  • Dang cold..

    Mike,

    Another quote from the article you give reference to;

    “According to figures from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an insurance consultancy, tort-system costs amounted to $246 billion in 2003óexcluding vast settlements agreed by tobacco companies (see chart). That represented 2.2% of GDP, compared with just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% by 1970, when the tort industry began to flex its muscles”

    Who is Tillinghast-Towers Perrin? An insurance consultancy? How interesting. Who commissioned them to conduct their research? What “figures” did they look at and who provided said figures?

    Again, I applaud your position on the importance of evidence. My position is that the “evidence” provided by you can be questioned and cross examined. Once again, 2.2% is debatable based on the source it came from. True figure? False? Don’t know and neither do you. Its debatable. Your basing the figure from research by an insurance consultancy as “non-debatable” without knowing how they collected their information and from where. Blurb asked you to “prove that number” of 2.2%. You responded with an article which, in its very content, acknowledges that its a disputed figure. I quoted it above from a source which you, yourself provided. Why do you say it isn’t debatable? You’ve provided interesting reading material but not indisputable evidence.

  • Ashik

    I’d just like to briefly point out that actually, yes, the Economist is fairly right leaning, having been for the most part supportive of this president for the past four years.

  • Nobody

    The larger point is that it isn’t obvious that bad lawsuits are a “miniscule” problem. Of course there can and should be discussion of the problem’s size; but simply dismissing the President’s attention to it as crazy seems premature.

  • http://vtol.blogspot.com Mike

    d_c, I don’t think you understand the article or that I’m agreeing that some of this money is legitimate and should NOT be a point of debate. The numbers that Towers-Perrin, one of the top consulting firms in the world (usually ranked in the top 10), uses amount to $246 billion. TP has used the same criteria over the past 50 years to measure the cost of tort, which shows the drastic rise in tort costs.

    The debate isn’t about that figure in and of itself. The debate is, as I’ve stated three times now, about whether the 2.2% number is good or bad. In other words, should the full 2.2% of GDP be included in the case for tort reform (i.e. waste) or should we decide that 60% of the $246 billion is money well spent and we should only debate how we can lower the last 40%.

  • http://vtol.blogspot.com Mike

    Ashik, The Economist endorsed John Kerry.

    http://​tinyurl​.com/4qutk

  • Dang cold..

    Mike. Actually I do understand the article, thank you. You’ve presented us with an article from a magazine peppered with figures provided by TP, (and thank you again I know who they are, I also know who Hill & Knowlton is (desert storm-cough). You’ve presented it as non debatable evidence and I have adequately argued that its not. In the same breath you say that debate without evidence is babble. You also say that 2.2% is not miniscual and could be used to fund building schools and higher teachers. 2.2% is a debatable figure and its relevance lies in the fact that its a number higher than may be true. In which case this issue may be getting blown out of proportion by the administration in some way. That, Mike is why 2.2% IS INDEED a point of debate. You brought it up. I’m not one to be suckered,sir. I graciously extend the last word to you. This has been a lively discussion…I’m loving it.

  • http://vtol.blogspot.com Mike

    Whether the waste is .5%, 1.5%, or the full 2.2% of GDP, what we’re talking about at the very least, the very least, is tens of billions of dollars (nominal GDP for 2004 is roughly $12 trillion). It’s not chump change. Tracking down that waste and eliminating it is important.

  • http://www.blurbomat.com dj blurb

    So, given the hubbub over consultancies, like Arthur Andersen, et al, you want to buy into Towers-Perrin?? While I don’t disagree that there are people jacking the system, and it is wasteful, Bush using it as an example, and particularly asbestos as an example shows whose pocket he is in.

    The Economist is hardly regarded as a left-leaning publication.

    What do you think the figures are for corporations who don’t pay taxes or who game the system to not pay their way? I would guess that it is more than double.

    For a President to call out a type of frivolous lawsuit in his address, and then to have this ruling come virtually the next week… All I’m saying is that Libby, Montana doesn’t fall into that category.

    I don’t think anyone would argue that frivolous lawsuits are a good thing. Or that they are cheap. I’m highly suspect of numbers, even the ones I use to bolster my claims.

  • http://noodniksanonymous.blogspot.com Miel

    I just wrote a comment and it was eaten by explorer.

    The upshot is: Yes! You are right! They can SUCK IT!

    What Bush means is: If somebody dies as the result of corporate greed, corruption, disregard of the law or negligence, well to worry about that is just FRIVOLOUS.

    You can take care of frivolous lawsuits via legal means, not by removing the last protection we have against corporate jackassery.

  • http://www.me.com me

    dude — your wife is gonna be on ABC world news — that is badass! congrats!

  • somebody

    Miel: I hardly think that is what Bush means. And I think you know it. Just More Spastic Blind Rage.

  • http://vtol.blogspot.com Mike

    blurb, you and I both know that all politicians, W included, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in hock to their donors (big business, wealthy individuals, special interests).

  • honeybunny

    somebody:

    please give me a reason why i should respect bush and his administration. after you’ve done that, please tell me how i he is worthy of me giving him ‘credit’. and then, when you’re done with that, please tell me why you’re here critisizing blurbomat, a blog filled with one man’s OPINIONS, and telling the owner that he’s driven by blind rage.

    i think W AND somebody, can SUCK IT!

    you posted:

    I like this site and an open political forum, but the extreme hatred you have for Bush really discredits your arguments. If you would give GWB some credit for something sometime (because he does deserve it) that would show you to be a more thoughtful political mind. Case in point, watching the SOTU Address… you could barely even listen to him. Every thought was an attack on him, warranted or not. Blind rage is not a point of view. It’s just blind.

  • Nobody

    “please give me a reason why i should respect bush and his administration. ”

    To help you understand his arguments as he understands them, which allows you to address him honestly rather than some bogeyman you’ve made up in your mind. You might even learn something in the process, and respect guards against the possibility that you might be wrong.

    After all, it’s characteristic of wrong opinions that you think they’re right until you realize otherwise.

  • Dang Cold…

    Mike. I can agree with you on your last point 100%.

  • Nobody

    Thread drift .…

    Here
    (http://​www​.nationalreview​.com/​t​h​e​c​o​r​n​e​r​/​0​5​_​0​2​_​0​6​_​c​o​r​n​e​r​-​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​.​a​s​p​#​055768)

    is an interesting and rigorous discussion of intelligent design vs evolution. It’s toward the bottom, search for “Intelligent Design Round-Up”. There is some interesting back and forth; search “up” from there for “evolution” to find it.

  • http://www.liberalssuck.com Faster than Nobody

    It absolutely boggles the mind the lengths that libby and lefty will go to avoid dealing with reality. They will split hairs endlessly, the larger point is always lost because its all about hate, not about solving problems.

    Let’s be honest, liberals are sickening.

  • not your honeybunny

    Dear honeybunny
    Has it ever occured to you that maybe blurbomat puts his opinions on here just so he can get people to start thinking about things, whether he is right or WRONG. I seriously doubt it hurts his feelings to be told that he is driven by blind rage when he also critisizes those who don’t agree with him.

  • Nobody

    On second thought, I don’t know why I put that link up here. It is interesting, but it has zero to do with this discussion.

    Sorry to waste your time/bandwidth.

  • Sarah

    I’m sure no one will see this late response, but I appreciate your focus on the SOTU’s asbestos comments. My grandfather sat on the docks during WWII and helped transform the country’s leisure ships into wartime vessels (and did the reverse after the war). He was the architect and project manager and was “in the trenches,” so to speak, for years. The asbestos exposure from that period of his life is what killed him, and it wasn’t pretty. I absolutely detest frivolous lawsuits, but torts have their place. Perhaps we should be legislating how much the lawyers can earn from these things (a ceiling of some sort)? As to why this issue was raised in the SOTU, when there are certainly more pressing ones at hand — well, from my perspective, it’s a bit suspect. And re: the percentages debated earlier: what is it? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I’ve done my fair share of statistics and professional research. One should always question the numbers. Thank you for doing so.

  • http://Jesse_James.bravejournal.com Living with asbestosis

    This whole asbestosis issue makes me sick. My mother’s family is from Libby. December 20, 2002, my grandfather died from asbestosis. Three months later my grandmother, mom, and all of her siblings were diagnosed with the disease. Not one of them ever had anything to do with the mines, yet they are all dying from this disease as a result of living in the area. At this stage in the game we all feel that going after money is pointless. No matter how much they have to pay, it’s not going to bring my grandfather back or improve my still living family’s greatly diminished quality of life. At this point all any of us wants is for the parties (and there are many of them) responsible to admit their fault and issue a public appology.

    But even that seems to be asking too much.

  • Susan

    Actully, Clinton turned his back on these workers WAY before W ever did.

    You need to read about the MT/ND/SD alliance against asbestos and the mining associations findings.

    The Clinton admin. killed nearly 90 complaints with merit.

    Unreal… Please educate yourself.

  • http://drowningmama.blogspot.com Nicole

    Has W been designated “whore” yet?

  • http://www.movieforums.com Chris

    Yeah, don’t let reality get in the way of anecdotal evidence.

    FYI: Dubya’s never suggested that no one has gotten abestos poisoning at any time, ever. Just that many of the claims are frivelous. Surely you can grasp this bit of nuance.