Forums | MacLife

What the smurf?? I had no idea they enjoyed such protection.

Hell yes, strip it from them. Take their clothes and leave them bleeding in an ally while we're at it.

Democrats and the White House reacted angrily, attacking the study as flawed and politically motivated.

Good. I WANT my President to be angry about how this has been twisted by the right.

I really hope this means the Dems have found their balls.

JakeTheTall wrote:

It'll be enlightening to see how long the Democrats stick with this position.

Yeah seriously. Its not really surprising that they talk some stuff from time to time, but it usually follows this pattern:

D: Liberalism!
R: What? Are you crazy?
D: Oh, right, I mean Go America!
R: I'll be watching you.

Farmerkev wrote:

So what happens if these new rules means malpractice insurance is not profitable enough and they simply quit providing it?

I guess all the Doctor's will have to quit and WE WILL ALL JUST DIE! 

Or there will have to be some sort of tort reform redefining what constitutes malpractice.

The lack of malpractice insurance might wind up being better off for the industry anyways.  Hospitals will put lawyers on retainer to cover their doctors, attracting more doctors out of private care and back into the public system where they're needed.

Then we can declare war on the pharmaceuticals for artificially hiking the prices of medications.

And then we can corral up the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and put them on trial for all of the childhood promises they made which were never fulfilled.

Last edited by Jokotai (2009-10-21 10:06 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So what happens if these new rules means malpractice insurance is not profitable enough and they simply quit providing it?

I guess all the Doctor's will have to quit and WE WILL ALL JUST DIE! 

I was thinking more along the lines of since the fed will socialize it will they also put strict limits on damage awards and eliminate pain and suffering awards.

The simplest solution is to implement statutory awards that largely take punitive damages out of the picture.

Simple negligence : $
Gross negligence: 2x $
Criminal negligence: 5x $

where $ represents the actual losses - not this silly pain and suffering crap.

Farmerkev wrote:

So what happens if these new rules means malpractice insurance is not profitable enough and they simply quit providing it?

They won't because it's profitable, removing anti-trust excemptions will not change that.

radarman wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I guess all the Doctor's will have to quit and WE WILL ALL JUST DIE! 

I was thinking more along the lines of since the fed will socialize it will they also put strict limits on damage awards and eliminate pain and suffering awards.

The simplest solution is to implement statutory awards that largely take punitive damages out of the picture.

Simple negligence : $
Gross negligence: 2x $
Criminal negligence: 5x $

where $ represents the actual losses - not this silly pain and suffering crap.

You know, if they did that like myself and many others have called on for years, health care suddenly becomes a lot more affordable w/o the proposed .gov interference.

I don't think loser should pay court costs unless it can be demonstrated they were trying to run a scam.
I don't like the idea of someone being afraid to sue a big corp because big corp can afford better fancier lawyers and they are afraid they'll not only lose, but be poorer for their attempt at justice.

However, some of the judgments that have been granted are just insane, which both increase the cost of doing business and become attractive to people looking for a payday thus increasing the number of lawsuits.

sturner wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I really hope this means the Dems have found their balls.

Yes, and they asked me if they can have them back. I'm keeping them in a pickle jar in my closet right now.

Better accede. Some found 'em, some didn't. They need all they can get u- er, muster.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite promises by President Barack Obama, more than 70 million Americans who have health insurance through their jobs could be open to higher costs or denials of some coverage under a leading overhaul plan making its way through Congress.

That's because large employers that directly assume the cost and risk of health coverage for their workers — including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Xerox — wouldn't be subject to the same rules and restrictions that would be imposed on health insurers in the measure approved this month by the Senate Finance Committee.

Large companies that offer their workers such coverage are lobbying hard to keep the status quo and be shielded from costly new regulations and requirements in the final health measure currently being negotiated behind closed doors by Obama's top aides and leading Democrats.

Not all Democrats want to go along.

"I want to make very clear that we cannot promise the American people that the insurance reforms they have been hearing so much about will benefit everyone, when the reality is that this bill leaves out" up to 55 percent, or 73 million people covered by such arrangements, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., when the Finance panel met recently to debate the measure. He tried unsuccessfully to change the legislation to require those plans to obey all rules applying to insurers.

Many workers not protected
..

First, we kill all the lobbyists.

‘Self-insured’ businesses resist new health rules

Last edited by Bat (2009-10-22 3:27 am)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

As I understand it, the punitive damages are what make the lawsuits so crazy. Plus lawyers can file a lawsuit and not pay a dime (outside their own time) if they lose. The former needs to be capped, the latter stopped. Loser pays court costs.

No.

resedit wrote:

I don't think loser should pay court costs unless it can be demonstrated they were trying to run a scam.
I don't like the idea of someone being afraid to sue a big corp because big corp can afford better fancier lawyers and they are afraid they'll not only lose, but be poorer for their attempt at justice.

Also, something has to be done about punitive damages, but lowering them so they're no longer punitive isn't the answer. They exist partially because having to pay a fine and/or real damages every so often isn't always an incentive to stop doing careless things that hurt someone.