As some of you may know, the Republicans have offered up their own version of health care reform. You can read it here:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative396... understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance companymasters.With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as hell made surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers at the expense oflegitimate victims.As I have said before, even though you often (always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort reform":s. 301 Reduces (compared to current law in most jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s. 302a) Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases ofmedical negligence.b) Eliminates joint and several liability for responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious, or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time, rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed, I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims, not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.
> As some of you may know, the Republicans have offered up their own > version of health care reform. You can read it here:
> http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative396... > understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo > almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe > US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status > quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance > companymasters.With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as > hell made surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about > reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of > the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has > said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures > by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers > at the expense oflegitimate victims.As I have said before, even > though you often (always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort > reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort > reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing > "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the > legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This > Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the > provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort > reform":s. 301 Reduces (compared to current law in most > jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year > after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s. 302a) > Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases > ofmedical negligence.b) Eliminates joint and several liability for > responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract > to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find > counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this > fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of > contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim > has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability > insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of > punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious, > or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere > $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost > future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time, > rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance > company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have > probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if > anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed, > I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as > you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target > *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing > to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a > right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same > sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his > face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media > commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this > point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims, > not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.
As some of you may know, the Republicans have offered up their own version of health care reform. You can read it here:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative396... understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance companymasters. With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as hellmade surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers at the expense oflegitimate victims. As I have said before, even though you often(always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort reform":s. 301Reduces (compared to current law in most jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s.302a) Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases ofmedical negligenceb) Eliminates joint and several liability for responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious, or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time, rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed, I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims, not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.
> I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I > fixed everything by hand, and it did it again.
Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer Pelosi's plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
> Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer > Pelosi's > plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by > imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
I was actually going to post on that too, but I held my tongue. It astonishes me that the Republicans can be so brazen in their misrepresentations and scare tactics.
If you are like most people, you heard about this through a headline link on the Drudge Report. It linked to this page owned by the Committee on Way and Means Republicans:
The headline reads "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"
Did Pelosi say that? No Does the bill say that? No Is this patently dishonest politics and scare tactics of the very worst sort? Yes
I could not support any party that was that blatantly dishonest. If they are going to be that dishonest on this issue, what else are they willing to lie to you about?
The potential jail sentence is for people who refuse to pay the ~2.5% income *tax* imposed on people who refuse to obtain medical coverage. It's no different than refusing to pay any other income tax. You can go to jail for that eventually too.
As far as the "Pelosi Plan" goes, I think it sucks. I don't see how it is going to do anything to reduce the upward spiraling cost of medical care in the US in any significant way. In fact, it could make it worse. It adds yet another layer of beaurocracy to a sector of the economy that is already overburdened with beaurocracy (medicare, medicaid, VA, CHIP, private insurers, HMOs, etc.). The only way to save health care in the US is to take the 30%+ profit and administrative costs out of the equation. The Pelosi bill doesn't do that, largely because it is not a politically tenable position. IMO a single payer system is the only way to go for national healthcare, but it doesn't look like the US will ever achieve that because mainstream Americans are too easily swindled to vote against their own interests.
> I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I fixed > everything by hand, and it did it again.
You definitely have a formatting problem that begins by the inclusion of the "My" at the end of your link.
If you take off the "My" the link works fine.
I at least see that you have corrected your previous crank about "frivolous lawsuits" by adding "the legal definition" to your rant ... because as anyone knows that has a lick of sense, lay people use the term with a different meaning than lawyers. Only someone with an intent to confuse and push a political ideology would argue in a lay forum a legal nitpick.
As you know, Bill, in popular usage, lay persons typically call a lawsuit "frivolous" if they personally find a claim to be without merit, regardless of the legal intricacies of the evidence or nature of the proof offered and the politics of the participants. Regular folks use the word frivolous for political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the aisle. If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with your political opinions.
The same goes for "tort reform" which you cannot separate from your narrow and bigoted world view. You vacillate between using words of art (not only legal words but economic or scientific words as well) to facilitate your political arguments and criticizing others for not using those same words in their strictest legal, economic or scientific sense.
One could add statistics and many other disciplines to your "word abuse" catalog. You insist not only of using words in an alternating political-technical seesaw but also insist that YOUR sentences that contain the words (either technical or colloquial) is FACT and anyone who seeks to clarify which way you are using the words and what you might mean by their inclusion juxtaposed against other similar words is reviled and discarded as beneath contempt.
You have started a thread and it is a mess. You are too smart not to know why your post is a mess. It is a mess for technical reasons and it is a mess because of your political bias.
Please stop mixing legal concepts with your political desires. Stop being such a twit. People will like you better and your legal arguments can be evaluated on their merits and your political arguments can be discussed rationally and reasonably as well.
Stop stating your opinion as fact. Stop being such a twit ... did I already say that?
> > I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I fixed > > everything by hand, and it did it again.
> You definitely have a formatting problem that begins by the inclusion of the > "My" at the end of your link.
> If you take off the "My" the link works fine.
> I at least see that you have corrected your previous crank about "frivolous > lawsuits" by adding "the legal definition" to your rant ... because as > anyone knows that has a lick of sense, lay people use the term with a > different meaning than lawyers. Only someone with an intent to confuse and > push a political ideology would argue in a lay forum a legal nitpick.
> As you know, Bill, in popular usage, lay persons typically call a lawsuit > "frivolous" if they personally find a claim to be without merit, regardless > of the legal intricacies of the evidence or nature of the proof offered and > the politics of the participants. Regular folks use the word frivolous for > political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the aisle. > If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with > your political opinions.
> The same goes for "tort reform" which you cannot separate from your narrow > and bigoted world view. You vacillate between using words of art (not only > legal words but economic or scientific words as well) to facilitate your > political arguments and criticizing others for not using those same words in > their strictest legal, economic or scientific sense.
> One could add statistics and many other disciplines to your "word abuse" > catalog. You insist not only of using words in an alternating > political-technical seesaw but also insist that YOUR sentences that contain > the words (either technical or colloquial) is FACT and anyone who seeks to > clarify which way you are using the words and what you might mean by their > inclusion juxtaposed against other similar words is reviled and discarded as > beneath contempt.
> You have started a thread and it is a mess. You are too smart not to know > why your post is a mess. It is a mess for technical reasons and it is a > mess because of your political bias.
> Please stop mixing legal concepts with your political desires. Stop being > such a twit. People will like you better and your legal arguments can be > evaluated on their merits and your political arguments can be discussed > rationally and reasonably as well.
> Stop stating your opinion as fact. Stop being such a twit ... did I already > say that?
It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused criticisms of others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
> It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused > criticisms of > others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny? I started to get suspicious the other day when one of them told me he had been practicing law for 30 years and half his cases were frivolous lawsuits. I laughed out loud.
A frivolous lawsuit is where your neighbor sues you for practicing mind control over him by bouncing alpha brainwaves off the moon, or when you sue your drycleaner for $56 million because he lost your favorite pants. I don't think even Bumfuk, Louisiana (or wherever the hell he's from) is backward enough for half a lawyer's cases to be frivolous.
>> It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused criticisms >> of >> others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
> I'm getting confused.
Are you really confused, Bill? Really? Honestly?
> So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who is stalking me? Are all > the stalking posts deliberately stupid and funny, or unintentionally > stupid and funny? I started to get suspicious the other day when one of > them told me he had been practicing law for 30 years and half his cases > were frivolous lawsuits. I laughed out loud.
And yet, as used by the lay folks that you complain about ... true. You remain confused.
> A frivolous lawsuit is where your neighbor sues you for practicing mind > control over him by bouncing alpha brainwaves off the moon, or when you > sue your drycleaner for $56 million because he lost your favorite pants. I > don't think even Bumfuk, Louisiana (or wherever the hell he's from) is > backward enough for half a lawyer's cases to be frivolous.
Here in Bumfuck and other communities in the USA (apparently you are not aware of this problem because you live in a country that has no frivolous lawsuits), sometimes someone gets bumped in the rear of their car and they call up Attorney "Have you got your check yet" and visit Dr. Guaranteed Opinion and run up a few thousand in medical expenses and they pick up tens of thousands of dollars in general and special damages. No all communities have this racket of frivolous lawsuits being filed day after day but the number is growing and "tort reform" would certainly be welcomed by "the people" if they understood what was going on.
The politicians, of course, are not interested in this sort of tort reform because they are well supported by the very industry they would seek to contain. (You, Bill, ascribe all sorts of nefarious motive to some businesses but fail to acknowledge the motives of others.) The amount of frivolous medicine being practiced in these frivolous lawsuits is mammoth and growing every day.
I hate to pop your bubbles and continue to point out your misunderstandings, but you keep teeing them up. (Sarchasm alert ... I really do not hate it at all. That was a dig. My bad.)
> > Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer > > Pelosi's > > plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by > > imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
> I was actually going to post on that too, but I held my tongue. It > astonishes me that the Republicans can be so brazen in their > misrepresentations and scare tactics.
> If you are like most people, you heard about this through a headline > link on the Drudge Report. It linked to this page owned by the > Committee on Way and Means Republicans:
> The headline reads "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"
> Did Pelosi say that? No > Does the bill say that? No > Is this patently dishonest politics and scare tactics of the very > worst sort? Yes
> I could not support any party that was that blatantly dishonest. If > they are going to be that dishonest on this issue, what else are they > willing to lie to you about?
> The potential jail sentence is for people who refuse to pay the ~2.5% > income *tax* imposed on people who refuse to obtain medical coverage. > It's no different than refusing to pay any other income tax. You can > go to jail for that eventually too.
Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have about had it up to here with that shit.
> As far as the "Pelosi Plan" goes, I think it sucks. I don't see how it > is going to do anything to reduce the upward spiraling cost of medical > care in the US in any significant way. In fact, it could make it > worse. It adds yet another layer of beaurocracy to a sector of the > economy that is already overburdened with beaurocracy (medicare, > medicaid, VA, CHIP, private insurers, HMOs, etc.). The only way to > save > health care in the US is to take the 30%+ profit and administrative > costs out of the equation. The Pelosi bill doesn't do that, largely > because it is not a politically tenable position. IMO a single payer > system is the only way to go for national healthcare, but it doesn't > look like the US will ever achieve that because mainstream Americans > are > too easily swindled to vote against their own interests.
No Bill many of us don't give shit about getting our place at the trough. Maybe the rest of the fucking hogs should try it.
> Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be > 15,000 dollar premiums you mean?
That's another lie. How can you possibly support a party that is constantly and shamelessly lying to you?
>What has happened to personal
> freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now > you > want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something > they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if > they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have > about had it up to here with that shit.
As long as you live in a society that is not going to let you let you die even if you have no insurance, then anyone who does not have hundreds of thousands of dollars handy to cover the worst case scenarios, yet refuses to buy insurance, is simply a freeloader. Almost everyone who does have that kind of money laying around is not going to be stupid enough to not buy insurance. You are sticking up for freeloaders.
> No Bill many of us don't give shit about getting our place at the > trough. Maybe the rest of the fucking hogs should try it.
Then why are you defending freeloaders who refuse to buy insurance?
> > Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer > > Pelosi's > > plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by > > imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
> I was actually going to post on that too, but I held my tongue. It > astonishes me that the Republicans can be so brazen in their > misrepresentations and scare tactics.
> If you are like most people, you heard about this through a headline > link on the Drudge Report. It linked to this page owned by the > Committee on Way and Means Republicans:
> The headline reads "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"
> Did Pelosi say that? No > Does the bill say that? No > Is this patently dishonest politics and scare tactics of the very > worst sort? Yes
> I could not support any party that was that blatantly dishonest. If > they are going to be that dishonest on this issue, what else are they > willing to lie to you about?
> The potential jail sentence is for people who refuse to pay the ~2.5% > income *tax* imposed on people who refuse to obtain medical coverage. > It's no different than refusing to pay any other income tax. You can > go to jail for that eventually too.
Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have about had it up to here with that shit. *** Yeah! Fuck paying taxes too! And to hell with registering for the draft! Fuck, why obey police officers either! Damn straight!
(The above is hyperbole to show why Alim is a retard, and is not to be taken seriously)
> I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who > is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and > funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny?
i dont know who is who either. its hard to believe the real pickle would be acting like such a child. but whoever it is, he is succeeding in making a fool out of both pickles.
> > I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who > > is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and > > funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny?
> i dont know who is who either. its hard to believe the real pickle would > be acting like such a child. but whoever it is, he is succeeding in making > a fool out of both pickles.
Believe me, this one is FAKE pickle. No one intelligent enough to be an attorney would be posting insipid commentary like what you see here. Some clever RGP member is engaging in ill intentioned imposturing and I think it's despicable.
_____________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
> Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be > 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal > freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you > want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something > they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if > they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have > about had it up to here with that shit.
Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't ever have medical emergencies.
Opie-GManager Rec.Gambling.Poker Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
> Regular folks use the word frivolous for > political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the aisle. > If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with > your political opinions.
DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking BillB to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one using the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's pointing out the tort reform advocates who do.
Opie-GManager Rec.Gambling.Poker Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
> DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking > BillB > to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one > using > the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's > pointing > out the tort reform advocates who do.
He's trying to cover up the fact that, despite the fact he plays a lawyer on the internet, he had absolutely no idea what the term "frivolous lawsuit" actually means. He actually said half his cases are "frivolous lawsuits". There is not a real lawyer on this planet who would make such an absurd claim. It takes his idiocy to new heights, which is really saying something.
He exacerbates his embarrassment here by asserting that lay persons believe someone advancing a claim for injuries sustained in a minor car crash is engaged in a frivolous lawsuit. Does anybody really think that? I don't think so. Even if lay persons are not familiar with the precise legal definition of the term, I think most people have a general understanding of what the word "frivolous" means, even if he doesn't. What he was trying to describe was fraud, not frivolity.
I'd further note that even if you use his ignorant definition of the term, the Republican tort reform package does little or nothing to address those kinds of fraudulent claims, which is what I was saying all along. Medical liability tort reform is primarily about reducing large awards to victims of egregious medical negligence. That's where the lion's share of direct "cost savings" come into play, if you can call reducing national health care expenditures by one half of one percent real cost savings. The right-wing law makers and policy makers you hear in the media pimping medical tort reform by saying it will reduce "frivolous lawsuits" know full well that nothing could be further from the truth. They are liars, plain and simple, preying on the ignorant.
>> Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be >> 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal >> freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you >> want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something >> they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if >> they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have >> about had it up to here with that shit.
> Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't ever have > medical emergencies.
>> Regular folks use the word frivolous for >> political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the >> aisle. >> If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with >> your political opinions.
> DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking BillB > to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one using > the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's pointing > out the tort reform advocates who do.
And yet he is using "his" definition, not theirs. You are correct that he is not using the term to push his political angle, he is using his definition of the term as their definition and he is in error.
He is in error about a lot of things. He seems to think that "tort reform" is limited to med-mal cases. He seems to think that there is nothing "broken" in the tort system in the USA. Included in that thought, he thinks that the most egregious cases of medical malpractice result in someone not getting enough money. He ignores the fact that in "almost" ... note the qualifier ... all tort suits, including med-mal suits ... it is the lawyer that is usually the "winner." Do you really think that the quadriplegic who gets a thirty million dollar verdict and all of his medical paid for life (and the attorneys that represent him get about fifteen million dollars out of that amount) "feels" any better? And compare this quad to the quad that is a quad because of a "bad result" from the same operation and the doctors did everything exactly according to the book ... same wheelchair ... this quad gets nothing by what his insurance will pay. And add in the fact that there are a thousand of the later for every one of the former.
Who would not be in favor of a reformation of a system of compensation of people who get horribly "bad results" from their medical care WITHOUT any lawyers and without any fight and without any need to find out whether there was "negligence" at all ... the few (who have attorneys like John Edwards) might get a lot less and the many (many more than just many) will get something and all will get their medicals paid for life. Unfortunately, the political power in with Attorney Edwards PAC and THEY would get nothing out of the "tort reform" ... not only in the med-mal practice that makes a few lawyers multi-millionaires, but also in all aspects of "tort" which makes many other lawyers multi-millionaires.
All these lawyers LOSE if there is "tort reform" ... a vanishingly few deserving plaintiffs miss out on winning the lottery; however, millions of others get reasonable compensation without a lawsuit ... even those who were just victims of an "accident" ... a bad result ... noone negligent at all ... they still get compensated. The only losers are the lawyers and those who feed at the litigation trough.
Those lawyers (perhaps like BillB) who are the losers are the only losers in this sort of "tort reform."
[And if you, Opie, do not believe that regular folks use the term "frivolous" and a synonym for "stupid" or "unjustified" or "ridiculous" ... then you are just as disingenuous as BillB.]
NOTE: I make my living defending folks that have been sued by plaintiffs. At this stage of my career, almost 100% are the result of an automobile accident. I settle almost 100% of the cases. I would say that at least 30% of the time, the claimant was not hurt at all in the accident and another 20% of the time, the claimant is going to the doctor long after he "recovered" from his injuries. These lawsuits fit the term "frivolous" or "unjustified" or "crazy" of "how did this system get into this state" ... or even fraud ... but improvable fraud (if you do not think that lawyers do not know "fraud" when they see it but know that it is improvable in the correct "tort system" ... then you have no experience in the system).
We need tort reform. I have suggested a reasonable model (workers compensation) for medical cases but no one wants to talk about the real issues here (and that is understandable, because few have any understanding of the problems) and those that chose to mention the subject at all have political inclinations that make them unable or unwilling to carry on a legitimate conversation.
BillB believes the government can spend the money that individuals earn in a better manner than those individuals can. It is as simple as that. Individuals are not to be trusted with the fruits of their own labor ... FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. It is as simple as that.
I agree that there is a role for government to interfere in the freedom of individuals in the society those individuals have chosen to live. I also believe that our Constitution was written to prevent "too much" interference by the federal government. The safeguards contained in that document have been eroded one by one ... the current executive and legislature are engaged in the most dramatic power grab since WWII.
>> Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't >> ever have >> medical emergencies.
> so what? is this my or your problem if they do?
If it's a serious emergency, and you are a person of average means, it is likely to become everyone's problem. Not that many people have the cash laying around to pay for cancer treatment or emergency heart surgery.
|
