A look at key issues in the health care debate:

THE ISSUE: Why do medical costs increase at a rate faster than inflation?

THE POLITICS: Health care spending over the past year increased by 3.2 percent even as overall consumer prices dropped 2.1 percent. That's not unusual in the United States, where health care spending rises at rates substantially higher than inflation. Analysts agree on any number of reasons for the increases, but tend to disagree on which cause is most responsible. Among the reasons:

_Americans get too much unnecessary care — too many tests, treatments and hospitalizations that do not improve their health. The reasons for this vary: Many doctors have a financial interest in new technology, doctors and hospitals fear malpractice lawsuits and patients are indiscriminate consumers because they are shielded from health care costs through insurance or government health plans.

_Easy access to expensive new medical technologies.

_Inefficient health insurance companies with high administrative costs that don't have anything to do with actual health care.

_Unhealthy living habits that strain the system, including smoking and obesity.

WHAT IT MEANS: Curbing the rising costs of health care is at the heart of the current debate on overhauling the nation's health care system. Rising costs have placed Medicare, the federal government insurance program for the elderly, on an unsustainable trajectory that would be responsible for exploding government deficits. At the same time, employers and their workers have met with rising health insurance costs that are straining business and family budgets.

Perrysburg Township trustees are suing a Toledo law firm, contending that one of the lawyers asked for several thousand pages of copies in a public records request but did not pay for them.

The suit, filed yesterday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, names Cosme, D’Angelo, & Szollosi and lawyer Joshua Hughes. It requests complete payment for the copies and punitive damages in excess of $3,000 “for intentionally causing the expenditure of public money for a private purpose with no intention to make repayment and to deter abuse of the public records law of the State of Ohio.”

The suit says the firm requested copies of all documentation pertaining to the Perrysburg Township fire station/EMS/police facility addition project. Because the request meant copying hundreds of documents, the township notified the firm it would be outsourced, and the firm would be responsible for the billing. The total was $1,343.79.

According to letters with the suit, Mr. Hughes responded that the firm was not liable for extra “office supplies” such as binders, and that only fair copy costs and postage would be paid. The township received a check for $338.89.

A Michigan Supreme Court justice may be called as a defense witness on behalf of a retired Wayne County judge accused along with an assistant prosecutor and two police officers of allowing lies during a drug trial.

Justice Maura Corrigan's agreement to act as a character witness on behalf of former Wayne County Circuit Judge Mary Waterstone was revealed after Corrigan abstained from issuing an opinion in the drug case at the heart of felony charges against Waterstone; Karen Plants, the former head of the Wayne County prosecutor's drug unit; and Inkster Police Sgt. Scott Rechtzigel and Officer Robert McArthur.

Because of Corrigan's abstention, the High Court deadlocked in a rare 3-3 split announced Friday that rejected an appeal by Alexander Aceval. The Inkster bar owner was imprisoned in 2006 after two trials in which the conduct of local legal authorities has been described in a state Court of Appeals review as "reprehensible."

Waterstone was charged in March with felony misconduct stemming from Aceval's 2005 trial. It's alleged Waterstone let the jury hear false testimony. The charge carries a possible five-year sentence.

Waterstone declared a hung jury in the first trial, and she testified as a witness at Aceval's second trial, overseen by a different judge. Waterstone has claimed she allowed lies to cover the identity of a police informant because she feared for the man's life. The informant led police to arrest Aceval in possession of a large shipment of high quality cocaine.

Plants, Rechtzigel and McArthur have been charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly misstating facts and allowing the informant to lie. Their charges are punishable by up to life in prison.

Plants retired after being charged. The officers remain on duty. Investigations of Plants and Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's involvement in the incident are pending before the state's Attorney Grievance Commission.

Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.

Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."

"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."

Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

Lawyers for homeowners and homebuilders who used drywall suspected of causing corrosion and possible health risks say they expect Chinese manufacturers to ignore hundreds of lawsuits filed against them.

So, who's going to be on the hook for any court-ordered damages?

That's the pivotal question for lawyers as they pursue about 300 lawsuits in U.S. District Court in New Orleans that allege a flood of defective Chinese drywall was sent to Gulf Coast states after hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. The material is known to decay, creating corrosive chemicals and fumes.

Plaintiffs' lawyers say they are considering action against U.S. investment bankers who financed the companies, and possibly seizing ships that transported the material to the United States.

Newport News law firm Consumer Litigation Associates typically doesn't cut a high political profile.

But in this year's slate of elections, the Peninsula firm is suddenly a major player, donating almost $380,000 primarily to Democratic candidates.

The bulk of the money has gone to partner Robin Abbott, a Democrat running for the House of Delegates. The firm's founder, Len Bennett, is a longtime Democratic donor who supported President Barack Obama, among others. Bennett said he wants to support candidates willing to crack down on consumer fraud.

On the campaign trail, Bennett has been aggressive, even taking to Internet message boards to defend Abbott. In places typically filled with anonymous screeds, Bennett signs his full name and offers links to articles on consumer law.

"It's probably not smart to put our name out there like that," he said. "But I've got to be able to stand behind what I'm posting."

Bennett said he hopes his campaign contributions help free state lawmakers from the financial reliance on major donations from lobbyists and corporations so they can make "the right decisions."

"Maybe it's naive, but we'll see what happens over time," he said.

Abbott's opponent, Newport News Republican Del. Phil Hamilton suggests ulterior motives.

"You've got to kind of wonder what they're after," he said. "What is Consumer Litigation trying to buy?"

So far this year, the firm has donated $379,643 and Bennett has chipped in another $38,800 almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. The sole Republican donation — $5,000 to Newport News Del. G. Glenn Oder — was likely linked to Oder's work against payday lenders and was cut before Democrat Gary West entered the race.

Bennett has donated cash, office space and laptops to Abbott's campaign and reached out to fellow trial lawyers with a pledge that he would match donations to Abbott. According to the Virginia Public Access Project, which tracks campaign spending, nearly two-thirds of Abbott's cash comes from the legal community. Meanwhile, the firm has given generously to Democrats running statewide, cutting large checks to Creigh Deeds, Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon.

The state of Wyoming has asked a federal appeals court to give a judge authority to block a proposal reducing the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone National Park.

The National Park Service has said it intends to release a plan that could limit snowmobile traffic into Yellowstone and neighboring federal lands to 318 trips a day — less than half of last season's daily limit of 720.

The Wyoming Attorney General's Office argued Friday that the plan would violate U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer's order that set the daily limit at 720 snowmobiles a day.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver heard arguments Friday in Laramie on an appeal by the National Parks Conservation Association, which wants Brimmer's order invalidated.

Snowmobile management issues in Yellowstone have been in turmoil over the last few years as federal courts in Wyoming and Washington, D.C. both have presided over lawsuits on the issue.

Conservation groups have sued seeking lower daily limits while Wyoming, Park County and snowmobile groups have pushed to maintain access.