Private healthcare [Archive]

Mann

10-05-2010, 07:29 PM

So today I get a letter telling me that our current health care provider does not deem it advantageous to stay in the health care buisness, and is going to no longer offer my company their services. Now I have to find health care for all of our employees. It is not going to be fun.

And they said we would have a "private option". Run them all out of buisness, and the only option is a public option.

Chris

10-05-2010, 07:38 PM

druid

10-05-2010, 11:59 PM

And people didn't see this coming? :wall:

Regulations and Governmental red tape will destroy all private insurance in the coming years. We will all be forced to sign up for Obama-Cara, and it will be sold as "See, private insurance was trying to rape your children! They are thieves, come to us."

I did.

But on the other hand, health care has gotten OUT of hand too.

Example:
I respond to a back-up call and in the process of restraining an inmate with a weapon, I completely screw up my AC joint and rotator cuff. I fill out an OJI report and go to the OJI facility the next day. I get 2 weeks off from work, very few questions asked. I go back and tell them "it still hurts a lot." and what do they do? Send me for 4 weeks of physical therapy. "No" to my question about X-Rays and no MRI....PT. So I go...and can't do squat. The therapist says I should go for X-Rays and an MRI....and I agreed, so they made that a note in my case file.
The doctor finally relents and sends me for an X-Ray. It shows nothing out of the ordinary [but in looking back, they had me standing in front of one to do a whole "upper torso" ray...not one specific to the shoulder...] and he sends me back to therapy. Again, the °°°°ing match for an MRI, so I finally got one. Again, nothing showed. I asked him to "go in and look" and instead, he sent me BACK for another 4 weeks of PT. After these 4 [more] weeks, his PA tries to stab me with a knitting needle full of a cortisone/steroid cocktail. I want my shoulder FIXED...not placated with drugs...
So now I'm °°°°ed and tell him if he doesn't go in and look, I'm going to the AMA and State board of Physicians. He gets mad but agrees. Guess what he finds???
A torn rotator cuff and compression damage to the ball of the shoulder socket. Now mind you, the pictures are of white bone and PURPLE AND BLACK damage that required surgery.

Why in the name of God, did it take 6 months to get to this?

The surgery could have happened MONTHS before it actually did. Instead, I had to endure the bull°°°° that goes along with workman's comp. I was in pain, getting paid to stay at home, the employer had to pay overtime to cover my shifts and for what? The love of a buck....

There are other examples I could cite but I think I made my point. If the private industry down't start wising up, it's going to BE ObamaCare [which I don't want either].

RogueFactor

10-06-2010, 08:27 AM

Tort reform.

abizdafuzz

10-06-2010, 12:54 PM

Tort reform.

:wthumpup:

CatoRockwell

10-06-2010, 02:21 PM

We all know my argument here. Release all healthcare to the free market, everything. We'll see how expensive it is after that. I also agree on Tort reform, but I think it is unnecessary if the contracts to use arbitration or third party courts were upheld in court.

You want my medical services? Then you agree to using 3rd party arbitration, etc... or you could even put into the contract that you agree to a maximum of $$$ for any malpractice. You don't like that doctor or hospitals terms, there are competitors on the free market.

Most issues can be solved by a written agreement between the care provider and the recipient.

Uh oh here comes the :sstorm: I know I know, anarchy anarchy... whatever it isn't anarchy to allow the enforcement of contracts.

hill160881

10-06-2010, 02:21 PM

When a broken arm costs $70,000 to fix in the ER then the whole healthcare system is broken.(this was my arm)

I got an idea, all medical education is free and the doctors can only charge as much as the client they are treating makes. Unless doctors are better than the people they treat.:slap:

Also make the big pharmaceutical industry nonprofit only. Its about saving lives not making money. It should be illegal to grossly profit from the saving of lives.

custar

10-06-2010, 02:30 PM

Tort reform.

That can cover a lot of ground, some good and some bad. What specifically do want to see reformed about tort injury litigation and compensation?

We all know my argument here. Release all healthcare to the free market, everything. We'll see how expensive it is after that. I also agree on Tort reform, but I think it is unnecessary if the contracts to use arbitration or third party courts were upheld in court.

You want my medical services? Then you agree to using 3rd party arbitration, etc... or you could even put into the contract that you agree to a maximum of $$$ for any malpractice. You don't like that doctor or hospitals terms, there are competitors on the free market.

Most issues can be solved by a written agreement between the care provider and the recipient.

Cato, you can already do that. Perhaps not conveniently, but you can accomplish what you desire already.

I got an idea, all medical education is free and the doctors can only charge as much as the client they are treating makes. Unless doctors are better than the people they treat.:slap:

In what period of time? Also, how do you prevent doctors from screening their patients to those who make X dollars per Y or above?

Also make the big pharmaceutical industry nonprofit only. Its about saving lives not making money. It should be illegal to grossly profit from the saving of lives.

Sounds like you are in favor of Obamacare. Also, for the investors in Big Pharmas, it is NOT all about saving lives. It is about a return on investment.

custar

CatoRockwell

10-06-2010, 02:47 PM

Cato, you can already do that. Perhaps not conveniently, but you can accomplish what you desire already.

custar

Yes, but unfortunately, even with these agreements courts will often throw them out and allow the person to still use civil suit. Which is my complaint. If you signed the contract then you should be bound by it and any healthcare provider should have the right to refuse business to anyone.

RogueFactor

10-06-2010, 03:21 PM

That can cover a lot of ground, some good and some bad. What specifically do want to see reformed about tort injury litigation and compensation?
Strictly speaking, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. Thats doesnt cover allot of ground.

This would be one step in the right direction to:1)Begin dealing with meritless/frivolous lawsuits, and 2) Limit jury high damage awards relative to actual damages.

Chris

10-06-2010, 03:49 PM

Let's cut the crap, and stop vilifying the medical industry. Yes, things currently cost more than they should; but there are reasons for that. Most of the problems lie with the Government intervening in private business.

Let's take Medicare/Medicaid as an example. The Government requires that hospitals charge the same rate for each procedure to all payees. The Government then says, that the cost of setting a broken arm is too high, so it will only pay 50% of what they are charged.

The hospital is not able to absorb the extra 50%, so they just charge double what the procedure costs. That way, when the Government applies their 50% discount, the hospital actually receives 100% of the cost of the procedure. In the end, cash customers lose out, because they either are unwilling to negotiate, or dont know that they are able to.

Let's try another example: Im going to bounce back from a broken leg much quicker than my Grandfather; however the Government says that they will only pay for a certain amount of therapy (lets say ten days for arguments sake). As a healthy 30 year old male, I may only need 2 days, but my grandfather may require 15 days. This forces the hospital to keep me in therapy longer than necessary, and also means that my grandfather wont get all of the treatment that he needs.

Another large portion of your costs go to medical malpractice insurance. I don't know the numbers, but it was enough that two family friends quit their practice because of increasing costs. Rising insurance costs aren't relegated to the Medical industry either. My father is in construction, and his professional liability went from a couple of grand/year to over 40k per year in the course of 5 years. The amount of work that he did was relatively static over that period. To make the problem worse, he doesn't actually build anything, strictly office work. Tell me that it makes any sense.

My proposals:

-Get Government out, or at a minimum cut the red tape.
-Tort reform - required to lower insurance costs. Sadly, contracts don't shield you from the need to hire a lawyer because some jackass decides to sue you...even if the lawsuit is frivolous. Maybe institute a loser pays system.
-Go back to a system where the patient pays the doctor, and receives reimbursement from their insurance company. When you're paying the bill, maybe you will question the doctor more about the necessity of that procedure.

Chris

10-06-2010, 03:52 PM

Oh, let's not forget the pharmaceutical companies.

They charge more in the US than other countries in order to subsidize the rest of the world. It's socialism at it's finest...why does the left vilify these companies, they should be swinging from their nuts.

Lets also remember that most of these large companies offer FREE medicine to those in the US who can not afford it, just check out their websites.

Also, since I've been involved in building pharmaceutical research facilities, I can tell you that they are not cheap. The amount of money required to get a drug to FDA trials is astronomical. And the risk that it never gets used is quite high.

custar

10-06-2010, 04:08 PM

Yes, but unfortunately, even with these agreements courts will often throw them out and allow the person to still use civil suit. Which is my complaint. If you signed the contract then you should be bound by it and any healthcare provider should have the right to refuse business to anyone.

Do you have examples of such agreements being thrown out regularly? Sometimes a contract is so onerous it would be considered a contract of adhesion, and in ALMOST ALL contexts contracts of adhesion are not enforced.

Strictly speaking, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. Thats doesnt cover allot of ground.

This would be one step in the right direction to:1)Begin dealing with meritless/frivolous lawsuits, and 2) Limit jury high damage awards relative to actual damages.

Both sides (plaintiffs and defendants) have desires they term "tort reform", so clarification of that very broad term is needed to have meaningful discussion. Thank you for clarifying what you desire in tort reform.

What procedural limits to you proposed on filing claims? There is already a statute of limitations in all courts, federal and state. At least in federal court, there is a requirement of pre-filing discovery to make sure there is some merit in the case. The requirement of supporting expert witnesses is a procedural limitation as is the Daubert standard for expert medical testimony. At least in federal court, there will NOT be four to five years from date of filing to date of trial.

What is the argument for capping non-economic damages? What is an arm worth? Some people may be able to return to their pre-accident job with only one arm, and their economic damages would be relatively little while other people may lose a considerable amount of their ability to generate future income. However, both have clearly lost a great deal of life participation by the loss of their arm. Also, assuming a med/mal context, why should a doctor who is making $500,000.00 or more per year have his/her liability capped based on some arbitrary limit? Most importantly, can you show that tort reform in med/mal contexts lowers what patients pay? Check out Missouri in which tort reform has had little effect on insurance rates and what private-pay patients pay.

Here is an even more inflammatory example (and intentionally so). Forceps are sometimes used in the birthing process to pull out the baby's head. Unfortunately, sometimes ONLY the head is pulled out. What is that worth? Economic damages will be low, but non-economic damages will probably be rather high for the mother and father. How does that change if the delivering doctor had to leave a cocktail party is is hurrying the delivery to get back to the party? Assuming for the sake of this argument that there was negligence involved in both situations, why would the limit for non-economic damages be the same in both situations? What SHOULD be the limits for non-economic damages be in those situations?

I agree with limiting frivolous lawsuits of ALL sorts, but a judge can dismiss a case that lacks the necessary support, usually via a motion for summary judgment. If a case makes it past that point, by definition there is some merit to it (or the judge is a numbskull).

custar

custar

10-06-2010, 04:20 PM

-Tort reform - required to lower insurance costs

By this do you mean tort reform is required in order to lower insurance costs? Does that necessarily translate into lower costs for patients? Texas enacted tort reform in 1995 and 2003, and that reform did reduce med/mal insurance costs to doctors. Did that actually lower costs to patients? In Missouri, tort reform has not been successful in doing much so far from the last statistics I read.

Oh, let's not forget the pharmaceutical companies.

They charge more in the US than other countries in order to subsidize the rest of the world. It's socialism at it's finest...why does the left vilify these companies, they should be swinging from their nuts.

Yep, it is quite galling that a medicine can be sold in Canada for considerably less than in the U.S. in many instances. However, I would argue this is not an effect of socialism. The governments in other countries negotiate the costs of drugs imported from the U.S. If the pharmas are losing money selling those drugs outside the U.S., it makes sense they would just stop selling there. Selling the same drug for more in the U.S. to cover losses in other countries doesn't make sense. Selling a drug in the U.S. for the going rate here and not losing money by selling outside the U.S. would maximize Big Pharma profits (unless there is some economy of scale breakpoint achieved by volume of production which is only possible with extra-U.S. sales).

custar

RogueFactor

10-06-2010, 06:07 PM

What procedural limits to you proposed on filing claims?]
- We should start with reverting back to the contributory negligence rule rather than the comparative negligence standard
- Next would be Discovery rules. Currently this allows for plaintiff attorneys to acquire all internal documents, many with the intention of engaging in a fishing expedition in the hopes that a document or two will be damaging(though not necessarily related to the case) and allow the attorney to coerce a settlement.
- Establishing minimum qualifications for expert witnesses who testify in medical liability cases(Enacted in Arizona, the expert witness rules have helped weed out nonmeritorious lawsuits and contributed to a 20% drop in case filings, as well as an overall 11% decline in liability insurance premiums, since 2005, according to Arizona medical society data)
- Limiting collateral source doctrine/rule
- Limit contingency fees.
- For medical suits, creation of specialized medical courts with medically trained judges.
- Loser pays system

What is the argument for capping non-economic damages?
With regards to the medical industry:
For a few reasons:
-The medical liability system fails to fairly compensate those injured through medical negligence. Injured patients receive only 28 cents on the dollar of all the money paid into the liability system. 60% percent of patient compensation goes to administrative expenses(primarily legal fees)

- Medical liability lawsuits average five years in duration and are costly
- 83% percent of claims do not involve a negligent injury.
- Just 6 percent of lawsuits go to trial
- In only 1 percent of all closed claims is the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- Compensation amounts are unpredictable and inconsistent from case to case and not necessarily related to negligence or adverse events.

With regards to the product liability, the Supreme Court weighed in on this in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZO.html)

And another...State Farm v. Campbell (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1289.ZS.html). "Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a six-member majority, put it bluntly: “This case is neither close nor difficult. It was error to [grant a] $145 million punitive damages award.” The Court said the facts of the case probably justified a punitive award of about $1 million, the same as compensatory damages. The con°duct was not all that reprehensible. Campbell was not physically injured. And comparable civil fines for fraud were only $10,000. As to the ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages— 145 to 1—Kennedy made it clear that the Utah courts had overreached. He did not impose a bright-line test, but he did say that few punitive awards should ever be higher than 10 to 1."

And a few other statistics:

- Since 1930, litigation costs have grown four times faster than the overall economy.
- Federal class actions tripled over the past ten years.
- Class actions in state courts ballooned by more than 1,000 percent.
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that the annu°al cost of the tort system translates into $809 per person—the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages.
- The trial lawyers’ share—roughly $40 billion in 2002—was half again larger than the annual revenues of Microsoft or Intel. In 2002 the estimated aggregate cost of the tort system was $233 billion, according to the actuarial firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. That cost represented 2.23 percent of our gross domestic product. Over the next ten years the total “tort tax” will likely be $3.6 trillion.

Most importantly, can you show that tort reform in med/mal contexts lowers what patients pay? Check out Missouri in which tort reform has had little effect on insurance rates and what private-pay patients pay.

Sure(I have others, but this should cover the macro-idea)...

1) "There has been a noticeable drop in medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians in states that have enacted Tort Reform. Particularly ones that capped non-economic damages such as Texas did in 2003. For example, The Doctors Company, a Physician-owned professional liability insurer, was insuring OB/GYN's at a mature claims-made rate of $131,601[49], which was a 20% increase from the previous year. As of 2008, the most an OB/GYN was paying for a liability insurance policy with The Doctors Company was $64,714"

2) New Study Finds Defensive Medicine Costs $45 Billion Nationally (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS187665+16-Sep-2010+PRN20100916)

I agree with limiting frivolous lawsuits of ALL sorts, but a judge can dismiss a case that lacks the necessary support, usually via a motion for summary judgment. If a case makes it past that point, by definition there is some merit to it (or the judge is a numbskull).

custar
And yet, there is still a cost involved even with cases thrown out that must be paid by someone. In the end, its either the consumer or the taxpayer.

BTW---Is it any surprise that Trial Lawyers are the 2nd largest contributors(only bested by Unions) to the Democratic Party?

druid

10-07-2010, 03:22 AM

Uh oh here comes the :sstorm: I know I know, anarchy anarchy... whatever it isn't anarchy to allow the enforcement of contracts.

...and yet Smart Parts was nailed to the cross for that [partially]........

CatoRockwell

10-07-2010, 01:08 PM

...and yet Smart Parts was nailed to the cross for that [partially]........

Again, I never denied smart parts rights to do what they did, but I and everyone of like mind have the right to use our consumer influence to show our distaste for their methods, and to encourage others to stay away from a company that practices cuthroat business.

Here we go with the argument that using persuasion is a method of force and is the same thing as the government using force...

CatoRockwell

10-07-2010, 01:21 PM

Do you have examples of such agreements being thrown out regularly? Sometimes a contract is so onerous it would be considered a contract of adhesion, and in ALMOST ALL contexts contracts of adhesion are not enforced.

Sorry, I'm not an expert in the medical field, but I've asked several doctor's why they don't and they said A. a judge will often throw such contracts out the door in a malpractice suit and B. That they are legally required to service people even if they refuse such arbitration agreements.

It needs to be left entirely to the free market so they can refuse business to anyone.

Flyingpootang

10-07-2010, 01:48 PM

Sorry, I'm not an expert in the medical field, but I've asked several doctor's why they don't and they said A. a judge will often throw such contracts out the door in a malpractice suit and B. That they are legally required to service people even if they refuse such arbitration agreements.

It needs to be left entirely to the free market so they can refuse business to anyone.

Why? Doctors make so much money they should do work for free. Why should they be rewarded for all their hard work and I be punished for having kids I can't afford and not going to school to better the quality of life for my family? You non democrats are to responsible for me I rather just put my hand out and have someone else foot the bill LOL... Now if I could just force myself to believe this i would fit right in with the other leftest in CA.......

RogueFactor

10-07-2010, 01:49 PM

Now if I could just force myself to believe this i would fit right in with the other leftest in CA.......
One reason why I left...I couldnt force myself to believe it either.

custar

10-07-2010, 06:46 PM

- We should start with reverting back to the contributory negligence rule rather than the comparative negligence standard

I can live with this. Use of either standard is a live-or-die proposition for me. However, contributory negligence does have some inequities. (For those who don't understand the difference) Assume the party filing the suit is 10% to blame for the accident and injury while the defendant is 90% to blame. In contrib, the plaintiff receives nothing (because his negligence contributed to the accident) even though he/she is far less to blame than the defendant. In comparative, the plaintiff recovers 90% of what the jury decides the plaintiff received in total damages.

- Next would be Discovery rules. Currently this allows for plaintiff attorneys to acquire all internal documents, many with the intention of engaging in a fishing expedition in the hopes that a document or two will be damaging(though not necessarily related to the case) and allow the attorney to coerce a settlement.

I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but if a party feels discovery requests are too broad, that party can ask the judge to limit responses to pertinent materials.

- Establishing minimum qualifications for expert witnesses who testify in medical liability cases(Enacted in Arizona, the expert witness rules have helped weed out nonmeritorious lawsuits and contributed to a 20% drop in case filings, as well as an overall 11% decline in liability insurance premiums, since 2005, according to Arizona medical society data)

All federal courts adhere to the Daubert standard which is, I suspect, the basis for Arizona's law. Most states have adopted or are going in that direction. I totally agree with this, I just think we already have it. On a related note, medical and other expert witnesses are no more honest than other folks, they just have pedigrees.

- Limiting collateral source doctrine/rule

I can see this in a post-jury decision. If a plaintiff's health insurance paid for medical treatment, the plaintiff was not out that money and compensation for what the health insurance paid is not needed to "make the plaintiff whole". On the other hand, I don't think the wrongful defendant should be allowed to keep the money either. If I really thought it would reduce insurance costs to us consumers, I would be behind that part of any settlement going to the health insurance carrier.

Just to make you feel a little better about this, in some circumstances (usually involving subrogation), the plaintiff does not keep all the award/settlement; a portion goes to another party.

- Limit contingency fees.

In federal court, contingency fees are effectively limited. On a regular basis, the trial judge in a case involving a sizable settlement or award requires the plaintiff's attorney(s) to justify the fee, reducing it from the contracted amount.

- For medical suits, creation of specialized medical courts with medically trained judges.

This would be expensive, but I see your point. To play the devil's advocate (or to continue playing that role), the pay of such judges would have to be higher than that of other judges. There are only a few ways that kind of knowledge is attained, and none of those ways is cheap.

Incidentally, how do you feel about creating limited-jurisdiction courts or boards to deal very quickly and efficiently with health insurance rescission issues? Rescission of health insurance is one of the points the left has used to push a single-payer (meaning government-run) health insurance system. Such a move would seem to pull that from being a bone of contention.

- Loser pays system

That is a can of worms, but I understand where you are coming from. On a practical level, this would be difficult to enforce. You can't extract blood from a turnip.

With regards to the medical industry:
For a few reasons:
-The medical liability system fails to fairly compensate those injured through medical negligence. Injured patients receive only 28 cents on the dollar of all the money paid into the liability system. 60% percent of patient compensation goes to administrative expenses(primarily legal fees)

- Medical liability lawsuits average five years in duration and are costly
- 83% percent of claims do not involve a negligent injury.
- Just 6 percent of lawsuits go to trial
- In only 1 percent of all closed claims is the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- Compensation amounts are unpredictable and inconsistent from case to case and not necessarily related to negligence or adverse events.

I am not tracking with you on the first point. An inefficient delivery system does not, to me, mean the injured party should receive artificially-limited compensation or that he/she has suffered less of a loss. This is a point for improving the efficiency of the delivery system, not capping damages. As to the duration of med/mal lawsuits, they don't last that long in federal courts, and in state courts, both sides have blame in how long it takes to bring the cases to completion. I can tell you with a GREAT degree of certainty that most plaintiffs' attorneys would love to be trying their case six months after they file it. For the others, those aren't the statistics for Oklahoma. Here a majority of the verdicts are for the doctors, but that is because cases of obvious physician error are settled rather than taken to a jury. We should have a more detailed discussion of the other reasons behind this when we can talk and won't wear out our fingers typing.

With regards to the product liability, the Supreme Court weighed in on this in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZO.html)

And another...State Farm v. Campbell (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1289.ZS.html). "Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a six-member majority, put it bluntly: “This case is neither close nor difficult. It was error to [grant a] $145 million punitive damages award.” The Court said the facts of the case probably justified a punitive award of about $1 million, the same as compensatory damages. The con°duct was not all that reprehensible. Campbell was not physically injured. And comparable civil fines for fraud were only $10,000. As to the ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages— 145 to 1—Kennedy made it clear that the Utah courts had overreached. He did not impose a bright-line test, but he did say that few punitive awards should ever be higher than 10 to 1."

The counterpoint to this is the notorious Ford Pinto litigation. I do agree there are runaway jury awards (and not just for punitive damages) that should be remitted.

And a few other statistics:

- Since 1930, litigation costs have grown four times faster than the overall economy.
- Federal class actions tripled over the past ten years.
- Class actions in state courts ballooned by more than 1,000 percent.
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that the annu°al cost of the tort system translates into $809 per person—the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages.
- The trial lawyers’ share—roughly $40 billion in 2002—was half again larger than the annual revenues of Microsoft or Intel. In 2002 the estimated aggregate cost of the tort system was $233 billion, according to the actuarial firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. That cost represented 2.23 percent of our gross domestic product. Over the next ten years the total “tort tax” will likely be $3.6 trillion.

Class actions are not necessarily bad. The classes must be certified by a judge as meeting certain criteria, primarily to ensure allowing the action to proceed as a class is logical and results in judicial economy. As you pointed out, litigation costs have risen considerably. Those costs would have risen MORE if each litigant in a 100 member class action had to try his/her case separately. A good example is the Dow Corning breast implant litigation.

Sure(I have others, but this should cover the macro-idea)...

1) "There has been a noticeable drop in medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians in states that have enacted Tort Reform. Particularly ones that capped non-economic damages such as Texas did in 2003. For example, The Doctors Company, a Physician-owned professional liability insurer, was insuring OB/GYN's at a mature claims-made rate of $131,601[49], which was a 20% increase from the previous year. As of 2008, the most an OB/GYN was paying for a liability insurance policy with The Doctors Company was $64,714"

Oh, I agree there are some examples that the costs for med/mal insurance rates have dropped after tort reform such as Texas. My challenge was to show that those cost savings reached us consumers.

And yet, there is still a cost involved even with cases thrown out that must be paid by someone. In the end, its either the consumer or the taxpayer.

Such costs are borne by the consumer if the provider is capable of raising prices (elastic demand), by the equity owners (if demand is not elastic and prices cannot be raised to compensate for the increased costs, that is less return on the investors' investment), the workers (lower wages or no raises in non-elastic demand situations), or a combination. By the same token, there is no guarantee that lowered costs will reach us as consumers. If the doctors don't lower their rates when their insurance premiums go down, I argue the doctors were absorbing the increased costs as equity-holders and we as consumers were not paying those costs.

BTW---Is it any surprise that Trial Lawyers are the 2nd largest contributors(only bested by Unions) to the Democratic Party?

No surprise, but doctors traditionally contribute more to Repubs. Both groups are smart and know which side of their bread holds the butter better.

custar

RogueFactor

10-07-2010, 07:35 PM

All federal courts adhere to... In federal court, contingency fees...
I knew this would be a counterpoint. I tried my best in digging through my resources to find info/data on the topic. What I remember(unsubstantiated without the info/data) is that a vast majority of tort law cases subvert in every way possible going to federal court. For the exact reasons youve stated. This is why Federal Tort reform superseding state law is preferred IMO.

I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but if a party feels discovery requests are too broad, that party can ask the judge to limit responses to pertinent materials.
'Pertinent' is subjective. And its a thin line to walk in regards to discovery to what is divulged and what isnt.

If I really thought it would reduce insurance costs to us consumers, I would be behind that part of any settlement going to the health insurance carrier.
Anything that has the potential to reduce costs, IMO, should be highly considered. IMO, trial lawyers are making the lions share.

This would be expensive, but I see your point. To play the devil's advocate (or to continue playing that role), the pay of such judges would have to be higher than that of other judges. There are only a few ways that kind of knowledge is attained, and none of those ways is cheap.
Thats fine. Reducing the amount of lawsuits would allow that. And help in unclogging the pipelines to our judicial system.

Incidentally, how do you feel about creating limited-jurisdiction courts or boards to deal very quickly and efficiently with health insurance rescission issues? Rescission of health insurance is one of the points the left has used to push a single-payer (meaning government-run) health insurance system. Such a move would seem to pull that from being a bone of contention.
I havent looked heavily into it. But my 'off-the-cuff' opinion is, so long as it makes things more efficient(cost and time) and is just/fair/constitutional, then Id be for it.

That is a can of worms, but I understand where you are coming from. On a practical level, this would be difficult to enforce. You can't extract blood from a turnip.
[Equivalent of] Retainer fee to bring this sort of action?

I am not tracking with you on the first point.
If legal fees are the greatest portion that eats up the settlements, something is wrong with the lawyers, not necessarily the efficiency of the system. Put a cap on the settlements, you put a cap on what unscrupulous lawyers will try to extort from insurance companies rather than litigating on contingency.

The counterpoint to this is the notorious Ford Pinto litigation.
Very true, in that particular case I must concede. It is my opinion that in only the most agregious acts of gross negligence such as the Ford Pinto case there should be exceptions to a capped limit.

Oh, I agree there are some examples that the costs for med/mal insurance rates have dropped after tort reform such as Texas. My challenge was to show that those cost savings reached us consumers.
There are too many variables these days to know. Government interference plays a large role in this uncertainty, both the state and federal levels.

By the same token, there is no guarantee that lowered costs will reach us as consumers.
In a highly government regulated environment, Id agree. The cost savings would usually be gobbled up by 'red-tape' costs. In an openly competitive environment, Id disagree as cost savings through competition would trickle down quickly.

No surprise, but doctors traditionally contribute more to Repubs. Both groups are smart and know which side of their bread holds the butter better.
Dont forget the insurance companies too. They are on the same side as the doctors.

---------------------------------------------
This topic is highly ideological and political. Some see tort law as the use of the legal system to 'redistribute wealth'. Its not my belief that corporations/business is inherently evil and the individual is somehow inherently angelic. Add the majority of trial lawyers to the mix, and caps and limits make a ton of sense. If for no other reason than the ultimate payer of all those settlements are the consumer through higher costs of products/services. That just sounds allot like redistribution to me.

PS---I hadnt read this post first, I think Ill be taking you up on your offer next time(or this time if you respond again).

druid

10-08-2010, 01:39 AM

Again, I never denied smart parts rights to do what they did, but I and everyone of like mind have the right to use our consumer influence to show our distaste for their methods, and to encourage others to stay away from a company that practices cuthroat business.

Here we go with the argument that using persuasion is a method of force and is the same thing as the government using force...

nope, I'm not revisiting that particular argument. What I am visiting is your notion that "contracts" are "the end-all way to go."

We all know how contracts end up - in court. Someone breeches it [or not, example: Paintball hopper wars to halt a release] and someone is put out by it.

Nay, contracts are not the way to go because one "Contract with America" did so well as one example...

As to the others....re: Malpractice/suits

Listen, if I go in to have a broken bone repaired, I expect that bone to be repaired...not have a broken bone repaired and my spleen removed because some moron got my chart mixed up with someone else's...or couldn't read the doctor's handwriting.

I also expect that they won't overdose me on drugs, leave medical instruments in my body [scalpels, forceps, etc] and charge me the additional costs because some derelict won't pay.

I know they rely on the nursing staff to save their [the doctor's] °°°°° too. A dear friend is a nurse and she's forever complaining how these doctors are always making mistakes that THEY [the nurses] have to fix. When I said "let him hang for his mistakes" her response was, "we would but we also get in trouble and would lose our licenses too."

They need to be accountable for their actions...even though I am against frivolous lawsuits but - who am I to determine what "frivolous" actually is? I mean, something that seems "stupid" to me may have great meaning for someone else.

My issue is more with culpability.
I'm DOC SRT. That means in the realm of my duties, I'm highly trained and therefore, am responsible if something happens [badly]. It's why we videotape everything. I've been sued 4 times in 13 years, charges of "Excessive use of Force" and all were thrown out.
Why? I had proof that my actions were;
1. Necessary to protect life and limb
2. Within the scope of my training and executed exactly as prescribed by policy.
3. Used in "progression" of failed minor attempts preceding the force used.

My occupation is considered "professional" and therefore, requires professional actions, reactions and training.

In hospital settings, who's culpable when something goes wrong? The Doctor? Yes. The nurse[s] if they miss it? Yes. But accidents are accidents too...no one person is infallible.

The problem is that too many people are greedy, we all know this because we are forever hearing the first time they have "an issue" some °°°°°°° right next to them says "I'd sue them." Then the light bulb goes on over their heads.

CatoRockwell

10-18-2010, 09:56 AM

Well we just got notification that our insurance costs are going up. $%&* you Obama! %&^* you Socialists!

I don't work my butt off 50+ hours a week to provide for you parasites. You ever read Atlas Shrugged? I feel like freaking Hank Rearden. You all feel entitled to something, guess what? I can't wait til this whole system collapses on itself. Maybe we should do what they did in Atlas Shrugged, every one of us producers should just disappear. Leave you parasites to your own devises. We'll see how long you last when everyone feels entitled and no one is willing to manufacture, or own a business, or invent anything.

How's your welfare check going to come in when no one is there to get raped financially on the other end? Every time I see one of you at the grocery store using your welfare checks I want to vomit. Everyone always wants to feel sorry for the parasites, what about those of us that are forced to be a host to the parasites? Does anyone care about us? No, because we're evil, we actually work, we produce. Since when did the American dream go from: In America with hard work and innovation anyone can rise to the top, anyone can improve their situation for their posterity; to everyone is entitled to a piece of the pie?

Well I'm done ranting now. I just want to say to all you freeloaders out there: Enjoy it while it lasts. More and more people are coming around to my way of thinking, and eventually we are going to cut the dead weight loose. Then you'll have to blood suck eachother into oblivion.

Have a nice day :cheers:

RogueFactor

10-18-2010, 10:05 AM

Have a nice day :cheers:

I hear ya buddy.:wthumpup:

Mann

10-18-2010, 10:29 AM

Well we just got notification that our insurance costs are going up. $%&* you Obama! %&^* you Socialists!

Every ones did. From a buisness standpoint it is to the point where it is no longer feasible to offer insurance as a benefit. When you factor an employee's pay in with insurance for older employees the cost is higher than other employees who are "suposto" make more money. I feel for the older generation. It will be hard to keep them employed.

Chris

10-18-2010, 11:47 AM

You ever read Atlas Shrugged? I feel like freaking Hank Rearden.

I started Atlas on my vacation, its amazing how a book written half a century ago is so pertinent. I mean, the 'too big to fail' argument appears to have come directly from Atlas.

Crazy...and Im just getting started on the book.

RogueFactor

10-19-2010, 09:16 AM

Every ones did. From a buisness standpoint it is to the point where it is no longer feasible to offer insurance as a benefit. When you factor an employee's pay in with insurance for older employees the cost is higher than other employees who are "suposto" make more money. I feel for the older generation. It will be hard to keep them employed.

Thats what Obama wants, its the indirect method for the single-payer government run system he wanted originally. When business drops health benefits, the left can impose(by default) their grand scheme.

That isnt going to keep business paying for it though. All successful businesses(those making more than $250k/yr) will be picking up the tab. At a premium too, since we know how efficient the government is with our money.

CatoRockwell

10-19-2010, 09:39 AM

druid

10-19-2010, 02:22 PM

CatoRockwell

10-19-2010, 02:34 PM

Chris

10-19-2010, 05:45 PM

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."

Anyone else think these words sound strangely applicable today?

Absolutely.

The odd part is that most people really are libertarians, they just wrongly believe that the R or the D actually care about individual freedoms, and vote accordingly.

I have found this to be more and more applicable each day.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

druid

10-19-2010, 09:59 PM

So what you're saying is that we should definitely physically do something about it?

Gotcha :wthumpup:

P.S. This is exactly why I believe that when different bodies have fundamental irreconsilable differences in values/philosophy. They should split and go their seperate ways living under their preferred system of government.

Physically like what? Armed rebellion? Yeah, a lot of good THAT'S going to do...not much besides get a whole-lotta' good people killed...bad ones dying I'm cool with...but not the good ones. The problem? The military won't discriminate and neither will their bullets.

And what would this "wake up elected officials!!" armed rebellion do? Put this country right into martial law...and if you think it's not possible, I suggest you read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-executive-order-stokes-martial-law-fears.html

Your "solution" is no solution at all and will simply make matters worse for us all.

CatoRockwell

10-19-2010, 10:29 PM

Physically like what? Armed rebellion? Yeah, a lot of good THAT'S going to do...not much besides get a whole-lotta' good people killed...bad ones dying I'm cool with...but not the good ones. The problem? The military won't discriminate and neither will their bullets.

And what would this "wake up elected officials!!" armed rebellion do? Put this country right into martial law...and if you think it's not possible, I suggest you read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-executive-order-stokes-martial-law-fears.html

Your "solution" is no solution at all and will simply make matters worse for us all.

Your solution would be to die slowly and quietly in the night. At some point it's going to take American's blood to regain their freedoms. The question is how much? The longer we wait the more power that is consolidated and the harder it will be to get our rights back.

druid

10-20-2010, 12:29 AM

Your solution would be to die slowly and quietly in the night. At some point it's going to take American's blood to regain their freedoms. The question is how much? The longer we wait the more power that is consolidated and the harder it will be to get our rights back.

You know...I just saw that your location is UT.

That explains a lot.

What's your local population? http://www.city-data.com/city/Mapleton-Utah.html ---------Population in July 2009: 8,440

I have that amount of kids in my local HIGH school [one of the 3] alone.

According to public sources, your state's estimated 2009 population is 2,784,572. Probably a little on the low side...

Dude. I have that many between my city and Philly combined...

My State has an estimated 2009 population of 12,604,767.....which is VERY likely on the low side.

It's easy to sit an a desert state and talk about rebellion like this. I dare you to live in Philly, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh or even Erie [although Erie has more of "your" types, ready to gun down whatever government they don't like, so you'll probably fit right in] - and see what happens.

It's easy to look out over the dried grass and rolling sand banks and think "gee...I could make this better." Can you now? Well, might I suggest you bring all your ideas and run for any government position right here in PA? I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms of 5 times the amount of people to deal with.... :popcorn:

EDIT: and coming with the differences in our populations, comes a whole different set of mindsets. I can envision very nice people in your area...all friendly, know each other by first names, etc.

That's not it here. People in PA's big cities are hateful, disgusting and manipulative. They are predatory or predators-in-training. Philly boasts a population of about 1.8 million people. That means there are 1.8 million people who WANTED to fill out the census and turn it in. That doesn't count all the illegal activity types who hide in plain sight. If they say there's 1.8M...I dare say there's actually 2.5M. The same can be expected from the other big cities I mentioned.

I suspect you have no idea of what people outside your community are really like. I challenge you to get out and look.

abizdafuzz

10-20-2010, 05:44 AM

You know...I just saw that your location is UT.

That explains a lot.

What's your local population? http://www.city-data.com/city/Mapleton-Utah.html ---------Population in July 2009: 8,440

I have that amount of kids in my local HIGH school [one of the 3] alone.

According to public sources, your state's estimated 2009 population is 2,784,572. Probably a little on the low side...

Dude. I have that many between my city and Philly combined...

My State has an estimated 2009 population of 12,604,767.....which is VERY likely on the low side.

It's easy to sit an a desert state and talk about rebellion like this. I dare you to live in Philly, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh or even Erie [although Erie has more of "your" types, ready to gun down whatever government they don't like, so you'll probably fit right in] - and see what happens.

It's easy to look out over the dried grass and rolling sand banks and think "gee...I could make this better." Can you now? Well, might I suggest you bring all your ideas and run for any government position right here in PA? I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms of 5 times the amount of people to deal with.... :popcorn:

EDIT: and coming with the differences in our populations, comes a whole different set of mindsets. I can envision very nice people in your area...all friendly, know each other by first names, etc.

That's not it here. People in PA's big cities are hateful, disgusting and manipulative. They are predatory or predators-in-training. Philly boasts a population of about 1.8 million people. That means there are 1.8 million people who WANTED to fill out the census and turn it in. That doesn't count all the illegal activity types who hide in plain sight. If they say there's 1.8M...I dare say there's actually 2.5M. The same can be expected from the other big cities I mentioned.

I suspect you have no idea of what people outside your community are really like. I challenge you to get out and look.

These big cities that you speak of are the problem with most of America. They are the breeding grounds for all of this Obama and Dem stuff that serves no purpose other than to keep the people in these cities and make them suffer. I am damn proud to live outside of these crap holes that I would rather not visit any time. It is also these city types that have America construed and out of normal, I believe there are alot more of us that live in rural America that believe you are wrong not the other way around. I see it all the time in Ohio, the big cities are the ones that do things wrong or back-°°°-wards from the rest of the state and they blame us for their own wrong doings. I'm fed up with this and I believe that if there was to be some kind of revolution that the city types would be the first to go and those of us that live normal lives in the country will survive much longer.

Mann

10-20-2010, 06:05 AM

CatoRockwell

10-20-2010, 08:52 AM

Before you make judgement calls about "rural america" I suggest you do the same and come have a look for yourself. Like what's been previously stated, the vast majority of rural americans are libertarians, they just don't know it.

As for me, I have lived back east, Washington DC in fact. Aside from the Revolutionary War and War of Northern Aggression sites, it made me miss home. You're right about the type of people in the big cities. This is exactly why I want to be cut loose from them. They are millstone that is drowning this country.

I'd like to see these parasites in the city put down a real rebellion. Ha! The north Barely did it with the South and that was because they still knew how to work. I'd like to see them do it again.

Furthermore, I recommend you check out how spread out the population is in Utah it isn't like back east. 80% of that population is along the Wasatch front from Payson to Ogden. So it's not as dense as philly but it's dense. Utah County is actually ranked #11 in the country for job creation.

This may not be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the Federal government illegally owns 60%+ of the land in this state.

I don't care if the parasites in your population don't support my beliefs, it's just a testament to me of how true my beliefs are. Of course they wouldn't vote them in. What I am suggesting is that they be responsible for their own actions and are solely responsible for providing for themselves and their family. No one that is entitled is going to like that.

People like the people in Philly are what I am talking about when I quote the declaration of independence. They are the reason our despicable government constantly seizes the labor of myself and other producers like me and sends it across the country to provide for Laquifa who just had her 8th welfare baby.

This relationship we have with the big cities/underbelly of America is not symbiotic, it is parasitical. We get nothing out of the relationship. It's time to cut loose the parasites and let them fend for themselves.

RogueFactor

10-20-2010, 03:50 PM

I must agree with the sentiment towards big cities. And also the sentiment towards a vast majority of rural america. The heartland is a HUGE producer for the rest of the country. Lacking a huge population means nothing in regards to the contributions as the bread-basket they make to the country and the world.

I see where druid is coming from in one respect. If all hell breaks loose, I wouldnt want to be living anywhere near a major parasitical city. Anyone who does will be the first to perish when the parasites consume those around them.

Maniac Mechanic

10-20-2010, 04:04 PM

The military won't discriminate and neither will their bullets.

sooner or later I think it will come to this ,, do you think they will fire upon " law abiding citizens " I think it will be awfully hard for our Servicemen & women to make this decision , especially with the current style of leadership

druid

10-21-2010, 12:33 AM

These big cities that you speak of are the problem with most of America. They are the breeding grounds for all of this Obama and Dem stuff that serves no purpose other than to keep the people in these cities and make them suffer. I am damn proud to live outside of these crap holes that I would rather not visit any time.
I completely agree but here's the problem...where are people to go then? They either live in these cities or they come out to rural America. Either way, these cretins are abound and in droves.
It is also these city types that have America construed and out of normal, I believe there are alot more of us that live in rural America that believe you are wrong not the other way around.
Well, that's one perspective from one rural American [but I'd concede that the sentiment is similar with everyone]. A [possible] perspective from the city-dweller is "keep your cow °°°°-smelling farmland and dusty desert. I like being around people."
Now...that's not MY sentiment because in fact, I'm quite the loner myself.
As far as "out of normal" goes...I can't really disagree with you on that but I can say this...there are "out of normal" rural dwellers as well.
I see it all the time in Ohio, the big cities are the ones that do things wrong or back-°°°-wards from the rest of the state and they blame us for their own wrong doings. I'm fed up with this and I believe that if there was to be some kind of revolution that the city types would be the first to go and those of us that live normal lives in the country will survive much longer.
And that part I completely agree with. Why do you think I selected my occupation? Kudos? Hell no...job security. I am one of my family of 5. I hunt, fish, UL Backpack [well, haven't in years but I did...] and believe in "readiness." NOT to the point where I'm digging myself a bomb shelter though. I have bug-out bags ready at all times and for no other reason other than "civil unrest." My particular town isn't "all" that big...it's about 90K...but if something large and tragic were to happen to Philly...guess where LE [and the red cross and FEMA] are directing them to? Right freaking here. This city I live in can juuuuuuuuuuust barely support what we have...now get <half a million transplants? Hell no...I'm outta' here with my wife and kids...

Before you make judgement calls about "rural america" I suggest you do the same and come have a look for yourself. Like what's been previously stated, the vast majority of rural americans are libertarians, they just don't know it.

I have no doubt...but I also suspect that it's a lack of "people" that helps create that mindset too.

As for me, I have lived back east, Washington DC in fact. Aside from the Revolutionary War and War of Northern Aggression sites, it made me miss home. You're right about the type of people in the big cities. This is exactly why I want to be cut loose from them. They are millstone that is drowning this country.
Again, I don't disagree. The problem is that until you can lawfully [and successfully] control the population [which you can't] - and by that I mean dictate who can have kids and how many IF any - there's nothing that can be done about it. There will be big cities and there will be rural areas. What I'm trying to say is a population of people who live [basically] alone from a ton of neighbors, 'thinks' in a whole different plane of thought than those who live in crowded areas. We tend to think "for the greater good"...where you tend to think "for YOUR good."

I'd like to see these parasites in the city put down a real rebellion. Ha! The north Barely did it with the South and that was because they still knew how to work. I'd like to see them do it again.

I'd like to see it too....but from faaaaaaaar faaaaaar away from it.

Furthermore, I recommend you check out how spread out the population is in Utah it isn't like back east. 80% of that population is along the Wasatch front from Payson to Ogden. So it's not as dense as philly but it's dense. Utah County is actually ranked #11 in the country for job creation.

That still doesn't mean a whole lot when I'm looking at a 5x's higher population over a similarly sized body [state].

This may not be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the Federal government illegally owns 60%+ of the land in this state.

So then I guess it's a GOOD thing the government's there after all? Otherwise...there'd be less jobs.

I don't care if the parasites in your population don't support my beliefs, it's just a testament to me of how true my beliefs are. Of course they wouldn't vote them in. What I am suggesting is that they be responsible for their own actions and are solely responsible for providing for themselves and their family. No one that is entitled is going to like that.

And they do....just some of them do it illegally.

People like the people in Philly are what I am talking about when I quote the declaration of independence. They are the reason our despicable government constantly seizes the labor of myself and other producers like me and sends it across the country to provide for Laquifa who just had her 8th welfare baby.

But it's OK for your church to "donate" to her instead...

This relationship we have with the big cities/underbelly of America is not symbiotic, it is parasitical. We get nothing out of the relationship. It's time to cut loose the parasites and let them fend for themselves.

Spoken like a true separatist.
I guess it's OK to pay farmers NOT to grow foods then too, right? They are just as much the parasite if they take money for NOT doing what they want to [Should] be...right? They collect off the fruits of MY labor, now don't they?
Should we bankrupt them to save you a buck or two?

I must agree with the sentiment towards big cities. And also the sentiment towards a vast majority of rural america. The heartland is a HUGE producer for the rest of the country. Lacking a huge population means nothing in regards to the contributions as the bread-basket they make to the country and the world.

I see where druid is coming from in one respect. If all hell breaks loose, I wouldnt want to be living anywhere near a major parasitical city. Anyone who does will be the first to perish when the parasites consume those around them.

Exactly. Thank you.

sooner or later I think it will come to this ,, do you think they will fire upon " law abiding citizens " I think it will be awfully hard for our Servicemen & women to make this decision , especially with the current style of leadership

They don't have the luxury of choosing whether or not they do and let's not forget...there's no way to distinguish a "law abiding citizen" from any other person, who are all holding a weapon. You and I might be those persons but standing in a crowd of 50 'criminals' - there's no way to determine it. So they will level all 52 people and say "aw crap...oh well" later IF they find out about you and me.

They swore to fight all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Right now they are fighting overseas, insurgents and terrorists who, by all reports, use the human shields of "peaceful towns' to hide in. How often do we hear "this many innocent civilians killed" in "this so and so town" because of the tactics the insurgents use? Or by 'bad information' on the part of the "fighters/leaders?" What makes you think any of those soldiers care? [although I'm sure SOME might...but not the majority] What makes you think they will care who they kill here? So long as they don't see their own families pointing arms at them....why should they?

CatoRockwell

10-21-2010, 08:40 AM

druid

10-21-2010, 06:59 PM

Actually what is killing our agriculture is the fact that the government is subsidizing them. There are many farmers and ranchers out west working to get their neighbors off of subsidation.

But thats a whole different can of worms best left to another thread.

No, not really...because when you complain that Americans are supposed to be free to make their own choices, they chose to subsidize. They are doing exactly what you say they are right to do...but now complain they do it.

Again the difference between charitable donation and government fraud/theft is choice. I choose to donate, no one holds a gun to my head threatening to take away my possessions if I don't give them my money.

Omg...same rhetoric, same argument. There's at least 308Million people in the US. The government you idolize so much [Washington's Presidency era] still taxed the people and set the standard in which this government exists. Since the People elect who they want, they get what they vote for...and ultimately, what they deserve. 308M people need rules to be lead, to provide those things they require. I don't see your [any actually] church donating a new set of roads, pothole filling or paying for street lights at "killer intersections" either. Those are all things people need too and it costs money...money that you put up in taxes. You like those groceries you buy? How many are from locations OUTSIDE your state? How do you think they get there? Major Nelson letting Genie "blink" them into your store?

You really need to get over the fact that nothing in this life is free. Things you don't think you use or need...but they are used and provided for your livelihood. Roads was only one example.

Actually Job creation in this area is largely due to the fact that we encourage entrepenuers better than most areas. Not as good as I'd like to see, but better than most. It has nothing to do with government theft of the best land in the state. If anything the fed is just holding back our agricultural and mining growth.

That's not what you said. You said "This may not be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the Federal government illegally owns 60%+ of the land in this state" [and I said that provides jobs]. Meaning...your local economics are stimulated by the fact that the government owns 60%+ of your area and therefore, provides [or promotes for there to be provided] jobs.

custar

10-23-2010, 01:27 AM

I knew this would be a counterpoint. I tried my best in digging through my resources to find info/data on the topic. What I remember(unsubstantiated without the info/data) is that a vast majority of tort law cases subvert in every way possible going to federal court. For the exact reasons youve stated. This is why Federal Tort reform superseding state law is preferred IMO.

No doubt plaintiffs' attorneys want to maximize the amount they make. Some prefer state court, and others prefer federal court. Ultimately, however, defendants that meet diversity of citizenship or federal question guidelines can remove the cases against them from state courts to federal courts. In those cases, the federal court will apply state tort substantive law but federal procedural law. Beyond that, federal tort law supplantation of state tort law brings up a states' rights argument that could go on forever.

Anything that has the potential to reduce costs, IMO, should be highly considered. IMO, trial lawyers are making the lions share.

Contingent fees are capped (albeit at substantial percentages of 40% or 50%), but in a defense verdict the contingent fee is 0%. That does keep down the number of marginal cases.

Thats fine. Reducing the amount of lawsuits would allow that. And help in unclogging the pipelines to our judicial system.

I agree that would allow some lawsuits to be dismissed or forced to settlement earlier, but it would in a way slow up the process for the overall caseload. More knowledgeable judges means more specialization of those judges, and there just aren't that many attorneys who have in-depth knowledge of some areas of law. Really, it is disillusioning but some very good med/mal trial lawyers (on both sides) don't really know that much about the medical area but know how to sell things to juries. That is largely the pool from which judges are selected, and the best and brightest are making enough it would be hard to attract them even with double the pay of federal judges. This is almost a catch-22.

[Equivalent of] Retainer fee to bring this sort of action?

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. Already, both state and federal courts have provisions to allow plaintiffs to avoid paying the filing fee by obtaining pauper status. Setting a "deposit" would effectively deny access to courts of a large number of low-income but legitimately harmed people. I understand your idea and don't disagree with the intent, mind you; I just see what has worked in the past and what has not.

If legal fees are the greatest portion that eats up the settlements, something is wrong with the lawyers, not necessarily the efficiency of the system. Put a cap on the settlements, you put a cap on what unscrupulous lawyers will try to extort from insurance companies rather than litigating on contingency.

IMHO, a better solution would be to cap fees differently between different elements of recovery. For instance, cap fees lower on the recovery for medical costs (because that is theoretically an actual out-of-pocket loss for an injured plaintiff) with a higher cap on more ephemeral loss elements such as pain and suffering. Set the lowest cap on punitive damages, and fewer attorneys will pursue punies as aggressively.

Very true, in that particular case I must concede. It is my opinion that in only the most agregious acts of gross negligence such as the Ford Pinto case there should be exceptions to a capped limit.

There are already standards in place for judges to decide whether a plaintiff has proven sufficiently egregious conduct on the part of the defendant to allow the issue of punitive damages to go to the jury. Beyond that, setting a specific cap on punitive damages in several states would require amendment to the state constitution. Oklahoma is one of those states.

In a highly government regulated environment, Id agree. The cost savings would usually be gobbled up by 'red-tape' costs. In an openly competitive environment, Id disagree as cost savings through competition would trickle down quickly.

That also depends on which part of the economy is openly competitive. Doctors CAN be as cost-competitive as they want. I don't know of any state that sets a limit on how little physicians can charge for procedures. The problem is that doctors tacitly collude on prices very quietly, and the overwhelming majority of patients either do not know or are not equipped to negotiate fees on an individual level with doctors. The fee schedules for most insurance companies, Medicare, workers' compensation, etc. encourage doctors to set minimum charges they will accept. Doctors are still in short enough supply that if an individual walks in the door and tries to negotiate charges below insurance reimbursement rates, the doctor's office manager will shoo the patient out and bring in the next patient with insurance waiting outside. Patients with insurance do not negotiate charges with doctors.

Dont forget the insurance companies too. They are on the same side as the doctors.

Heck, a lot of malpractice insurers are actually mutual companies owned and operated by the doctors that are insured.

This topic is highly ideological and political. Some see tort law as the use of the legal system to 'redistribute wealth'. Its not my belief that corporations/business is inherently evil and the individual is somehow inherently angelic. Add the majority of trial lawyers to the mix, and caps and limits make a ton of sense. If for no other reason than the ultimate payer of all those settlements are the consumer through higher costs of products/services. That just sounds allot like redistribution to me.

I am all for reform that will reduce the costs to us, the consumers, but will still take care of those injured. I think where your views and mine diverge is not over the principles involved but whether caps will accomplish those ends. I have looked and cannot find any statistics that show that Texas-style caps have reduced costs to consumers. No doubt, Texas' legislation has reduced insurance costs to some Texas doctors, but that doesn't automatically translate into lower consumer costs. In Missouri, the caps haven't effectively lowered the costs of insurance to doctors the last time I checked the statistics.

custar

RogueFactor

10-23-2010, 09:06 PM

I think where your views and mine diverge is not over the principles involved but whether caps will accomplish those ends.
In most respects. It also appears you believe there are standards in place that address the issues I have with our tort system. I believe those standards are too loosely applied/enforced. And this is what the reform I suggest must tighten and address to take out of the hands of judges who want to legislate from the bench.

CatoRockwell

10-23-2010, 10:17 PM

That's not what you said. You said "This may not be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the Federal government illegally owns 60%+ of the land in this state" [and I said that provides jobs]. Meaning...your local economics are stimulated by the fact that the government owns 60%+ of your area and therefore, provides [or promotes for there to be provided] jobs.

Who said I idolized Washington's era of government?

I don't care what people vote for. I don't use people's voting to determine the ultimate good. I don't believe in Democracy. I believe in Individualism. I'm not anti-taxation per se. I am anti compelled obedience.

So... OMG same rhetoric from you. People can't be allowed their freedoms. However, somehow we are supposed to trust those same inherently evil people to govern us. Actually, as you've said every politician is corrupt so why the hell are we relying on these corrupt people to make our ethical decisions?

As to the Federal government owning all our land unconstitutionally mind you, that has no positive effect on our economic growth what does have a positive effect is having lower restrictions and fees on business in our state.

druid

10-24-2010, 02:29 AM

Who said I idolized Washington's era of government?
From the way you speak, I inferred it.
I don't care what people vote for. I don't use people's voting to determine the ultimate good. I don't believe in Democracy. I believe in Individualism. I'm not anti-taxation per se. I am anti compelled obedience.
but they are voting for their individual rights...collectively at the polls. You simply don't like their choices and therefore say "down with all governments!" Everyone else seems to think it does matter...enough so, that the Libertarians will never see an office while I'm alive.
So... OMG same rhetoric from you. People can't be allowed their freedoms.
No, I said that would depend on what "freedoms" that was...and if IF it were something that's going to impinge on ANY one at ANY time, then no...they cannot get stoned, buy hookers or whatever they damned well want because inevitably, SOMEONE is going to have to pick up their mess when [not if...WHEN] it "goes wrong". It's already bad enough now. Release the Krakken and now an entire society gets destroyed...and for what? so people can feel better about themselves while doing it? Screwwwwww that.
However, somehow we are supposed to trust those same inherently evil people to govern us. Actually, as you've said every politician is corrupt so why the hell are we relying on these corrupt people to make our ethical decisions?
Well why not? The House and Senate are your "individual societal leaders" that you so want to put into power of their sub-cultures...
but since it's obvious that the current 485 Senate and H.O.R. leaders are doing such a bang-up job....we should just add a few hundred thousand more to do the same [pitiful] job as what they are doing right now....right?

Can you not understand my perspective here? I look at this as - we already have 485 morons doing exactly what you want hundreds of thousands MORE to do. What in God's good Name, makes you think that increasing the number of morons on a 10:1 or 50:1 ratio is going to make [this mess] any better??? And at the same time, lift [most, if not all] the laws that keep this country in the uniformed chaos it's currently in? This country would completely and irreversibly turn into the largest Gladiator arena of all time. No sir, not for me and apparently not for anyone else in this country [based on the lack of amount of Libertarian "rulers" you want in but not to "rule"...].

As to the Federal government owning all our land unconstitutionally mind you, that has no positive effect on our economic growth what does have a positive effect is having lower restrictions and fees on business in our state.

Oh...so you're saying that it's better for some unknown someone to come in and privately buy up that land from some mysterious 'non-owner-who owned' it to sell it to them...is better than the government doing it?
Like...who sold you your land? I mean...since it originally belonged to NO ONE...except that you bought it from SOMEone....who obviously didn't own it to begin with, to have the RIGHT to sell it to you in the first place...

Ok, try this one on for size...

The government just sold it's 60+% of your state [the land it "owns" and bought from no one in particular]...to Smart Parts.

Smart Parts is now selling it at 150% profit for what they paid for it.

Bet you just wished the government held onto that land...now don't you?

Listen...I'm registered Republican...which is about as close to Libertarian as any party is going to be. We believe in less government intrusion [but NOT elimination], less taxes, privatization and all that crap. Yet we still understand that there is a basic need for a government in general...to 'cover' those things that will not get 'covered' [very well] by private people. You don't particularly care about that. That's fine...but we [repubs] also [generally speaking] also try to push the "privatization" envelope and sometimes [I think] to the overall detriment to the society in general. Such as, the [desired] elimination of Unions as one example. unions are designed to protect the employee from abuses by the employer. Without them, everyone would be working for a pittance and at the mercy of the greedy companies.
That's why we like trickle-down economics...and why we are [generally] against big business. The PROBLEM is that there's not just "republicans" - we have left, right and 'fantasy' wings...just like every other party has. We can't just have a "conservative" party because your 'conservative' isn't going to be my conservative...

I just can't see how a society with no real rule of law can function. I can't see how a society with no taxation can function by "donations" alone. I actually get to mingle with the good [but a LOT of bad] people that our society has to offer and think "what kind of °°°° hole" this place would turn into with no one caring about anything but themselves. Right now it's ONLY 485 °°°°°°°s we have to deal with [plus one "supreme" °°°°°°°]...not 485,000 of them and no "laws" to really speak of.

I don't get it and I doubt you can make me understand your mindset.

RogueFactor

10-24-2010, 07:08 PM

I just can't see how a society with no real rule of law can function...I don't get it and I doubt you can make me understand your mindset.

I understand the mindset. And its not one of anarchy/lawlessness.

We are where we are because we have steered away from the principles he speaks of. We didnt get here by accident. The only constant is that things are changing. So they can either continue to change in the ways they have already(ie YES WE CAN! progressive socialistic BS), or they can begin to go back to the original principles that founded this country and made it great. Thats a simple choice for me.

Pragmatically, those are the only 2 choices. And from the sounds of it this election, there are many that want the freedoms our country was founded upon rather than placating to the criminals, thieves, and lawbreakers(yes, even the ones in government).

druid

10-24-2010, 08:43 PM

I understand the mindset. And its not one of anarchy/lawlessness.

We are where we are because we have steered away from the principles he speaks of. We didnt get here by accident. The only constant is that things are changing. So they can either continue to change in the ways they have already(ie YES WE CAN! progressive socialistic BS),
Which isn't as bad as everyone [here] is making them out to be [except the HIGH amount of taxes we pay]
or they can begin to go back to the original principles that founded this country and made it great. Thats a simple choice for me.
which will never happen because no one want's to give up any kind of power over anyone else.
Pragmatically, those are the only 2 choices. And from the sounds of it this election, there are many that want the freedoms our country was founded upon rather than placating to the criminals, thieves, and lawbreakers(yes, even the ones in government).

except that when they figure out what it's going to TAKE to accomplish that, they will already have given up because "it's just too much to do."