I might be wrong, and I have learned from and enjoyed engaging with the many reasonable counter-arguments made on this thread. What annoys me so much is that you are trying to discredit the debate by association - that idea sounds like what the right (or the RCP) says, so it must be wrong. If the right circulates the idea to defend its constituency, so be it if its constituency is being attacked for the wrong reasons. I'm not trying to be precious about this. But when you say 'right wing' 'RCP' you are closing down the debate, just as much as those who see the whole agenda as shaped by the sectional intersts of lawyers. Can't we get beyond the name calling and talk about the issues? --James@rightwingRCPevilnastycommunistbanker.com James Greenstein --- Doug Henwood wrote: From: Doug Henwood Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:43:42 -0500 To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Excessive Lawsuits, Gay Rights, Tort Reform, wrote: >It's not possible to disentangle unnecessary tests due to >litigation and unnecessary tests due to other political >pressures to test for everything (it's being widely >promoted by the UK health lobby for reasons unconnected to >the law). But if doctors' professionalism means that they >continue to do the right thing, that does not excuse a culture >of litigation that encourages bad practices. You've been asserting something that basically isn't true. My concern for the pedigree of the idea, which annoys you so much, is that it's a right-wing canard circulated for a specific purpose - protecting insurers and the medical industry, an important Republican constituency. Why you should take it up is a mystery, though the second pedigree issue that annoyed you, your history with the RCP, seems to be relevant, since that organization loved to pick up right wing arguments for allegedly leftish purposes. I don't say this because I'm an enemy of the RCP; I wrote a piece for LM, and liked many of its alums that I've met, starting with James Heartfield. But this is one of those perverse things that's just wrong in an unproductive way. Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk