Bob in AZ

Bob in AZ

In a court proceeding it is important to know who is paying the witnesses testifying. Payment in any form monetary or other is a fact always open to discovery. Deception on this topic is cause for sanction. Payment is often used to question motive for conclusions being presented.

My brother was an expert witness for the defense in a civil case. There was another expert for the plaintiff. When they testified, the judge reminded the jury that my brother was being paid for his work, but he didn’t do that when the other expert testified.
A little bias there?

Have not seen the link anywhere else yet.

Will check it out later.

Bowling balls are “read-only” by design, it’s a feature, not a bug, as they say.

1) Marcy tells us he did not, in fact, disclose to the NEJM in July (94), only later. So he lied to them, when he obviously knew their policies.

2) Once again you ignore what I say and state your opinion on the case I’m making. This shows you to be either illiterate or disingenuous. I’ve laid out the case that I’m making clearly, and I’ll do it one more time.

A: Gruber lied by omission, to numerous reporters, editors and countless readers, when he failed to disclose an enormous conflict of interest regarding financial compensation on the issue for which his ‘expertise’ is being sought. He apparently outright lied to the NEJM in July.

B: Financial disclosure is a good in and of itself, and failure to disclose an evil in and of itself, WITHOUT any additional harm or ‘corruption’ demonstrated. This disclosure acts as a safeguard for academic and governmental integrity, and helps to deter improper behavior, and reveal it when it has occurred. No crime need be committed, nor fraud perpetrated, to make failure to disclose, which is manifestly evident here, a problem.

That this process has such a range of possible characterizations is why we need more information and disclosure about it, and why it should not be seen as an adequate basis to institute once-in-a-generation health insurance reforms that may substitute for credible health care reform.

You may be okay basing a entire $850 billion reform with no independent assessment. I’m not–it’s dangerous and stupid.

A pithy understatement. The quality of this reform will affect the lives and livelihoods of every middle and working class American family. What Congress does to pay for it is likely to affect the current health care benefits of those that have them, and the currents system of employer-only health insurance. It will dramatically empower existing health insurers, while putting their economic competitors – customers and the government – at a disadvantage.

We deserve more than a sales job for a policy already cut by the White House before debate began on the health care and/or insurance reforms we need, want and are willing to pay for.

And the problem with him doing both the pitchman and the assessment is that no one is fact-checking his claim (and as a result, no one is fact-checking the Administration’s claims). You may be okay basing a entire $850 billion reform with no independent assessment. I’m not–it’s dangerous and stupid.