[fabsroman]

That's alright, my son Luca, will be all grown up by the time I decide to run for dictator of this country.

Malpractice insurance costs are pretty high for OBGYN's. That I will admit, but malpractice insurance and the cost associated with it isn't really increasing at the rate that medical costs in general are increasing. So, that really isn't the problem. If malpractice insurance costs increase at a rate slower than inflation, then that really isn't the problem that is causing medical costs in total to increase quicker than inflation.

Now, you are one for less regulation, correct. Well, about 12 years ago Maryland passed a law capping the recovery for pain & suffering in any tort case. Back then it was $350,000. Now, I believe it is $500,000. Are you for this regulation or against it. Based upon what you wrote, I would guess you are for it. Me, I'm against it. A jury should be able to award any amount it sees fit, without the General Assembly putting a cap on it to keep auto, homeowner, and medical malpractice insurance premiums lower for the society in general. So, a select few get screwed so the majority of people can have their auto insurance bill be $100 cheaper every year.

So, are you for regulating when a plaintiff can bring a medical malpractice case? If so, you are in favor of MORE regulation. In Court cases there is something called Summary Judgment. If the case has no merit after all the discovery is done, and there is no dispute of material fact that a jury needs to decide, a Judge can throw that case out on Summary Judgment before it ever gets to trial in front of a jury. It happens. I was in on a $10 million auto accident case where it happened. Luckily, I was defending the insurance company and the case got thrown out.

We conservatives say we are not in favor of more regulation, but how about the law passed in Maryland wherein people (i.e., anti hunters) cannot interfere with a lawful hunt on public property? Are you in favor of that regulation? I bet you are, as am I. We just pick and choose the ones that suit us.

How about the seat belt law that reduces medical costs for society in general. Is it more important to reduce those costs to society in general and help save lives, or should people have the freedom to drive without wearing a seatbelt? How about speed limit? Should people be allowed to drive any speed they want. Then you and I would have to worry about the morons that have nothing to lose driving way too fast to get to their next crack deal. Again, regulation is fine when it suits us.

How about the regulation of drugs. Should we regulate those, or should they just be legalized? Should people have the will to choose drugs if they want, without any legal ramifications. The current drug laws are definitely hindering free choice.

The only reason gun regulation can even be shot down, no pun intended, is because of the 2nd Amendment.

Society is a bunch of regulations, starting with the criminal code.