100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Clearly Constitutional | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
artlo
on
Sat 02/05/11 07:07 AM
|
|
Just cleaning up some loose ends. About Tort reform.
Everybody can probably agree that compensatory damages should not be capped (I hope). The controversy revolves around pin-and-suffering and punitive damages. Personally, I am luke-warm on pain-and-suffering. It's too subjective and individualized for me to have a rational judgment about, The issue of Punitive damages, however, is quite clear to me. The purpose of punitive damages is to get the wrong-doer to stop doing what he is doing. The famous McDonalds hot coffee case is a good example. I wasn't present at the trial and neither were any of you. So, just to catch us all up to speed,here's a nice little, easy-to-read summary of the events in the trial McDonalds had a long history of ignoring what the jury felt was good, justifiable complaints about their defective and dangerous product. How much punitive damages are needed to persuade McDonalds that they are hurting people? The fact seems to be that tort reform proponents do not want businesses and other professionals to be punished for wrong-doing. Doing away with meaningful punitive damages leaves only compensatory damages, which can be dismissed as "the cost of doing business". I prefer that the courts at least attempt to address the difference between right and wrong beyond just worrying about economic impact. As to "clogging up the courts", it is my understanding that the vast, vast, vast majority of civil cases in the courts are businesses suing other businesses (I can't prove this, and you can't prove that it's not the case), This would explain why corporate law is such a lucrative specialty. It's nice that corporations should have an avenue for redress of their complaints. People should have equal opportunity. So, why, you ask, should these huge judgments be awarded to the plaintiffs? Why should they not face the risk of having to pay their legal fees if thy lose? It's a seductive question. My opinion is this. The awards should serve as an incentive for people to bring lawsuits that should be brought. McDonalds passes my test for a lawsuit that needed to be brought. (The plaintiff wasn't even originally asking for punitive damages. McDonalds brought on the escalation of damages, themselves). So, in my opinion, the controversy over tort reform is really an argument between economic impact and right-and-wrong for individual people. I vote for people. BTW, it is also my understanding that the main contributers to Tort Reform efforts are businesses (probably the American Chamber of Commerce), not doctors. I have heard that there is a website where you can find out who is contributing to what, but I don't know what it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just cleaning up some loose ends. About Tort reform. Everybody can probably agree that compensatory damages should not be capped (I hope). The controversy revolves around pin-and-suffering and punitive damages. Personally, I am luke-warm on pain-and-suffering. It's too subjective and individualized for me to have a rational judgment about, The issue of Punitive damages, however, is quite clear to me. The purpose of punitive damages is to get the wrong-doer to stop doing what he is doing. The famous McDonalds hot coffee case is a good example. I wasn't present at the trial and neither were any of you. So, just to catch us all up to speed,here's a nice little, easy-to-read summary of the events in the trial McDonalds had a long history of ignoring what the jury felt was good, justifiable complaints about their defective and dangerous product. How much punitive damages are needed to persuade McDonalds that they are hurting people? The fact seems to be that tort reform proponents do not want businesses and other professionals to be punished for wrong-doing. Doing away with meaningful punitive damages leaves only compensatory damages, which can be dismissed as "the cost of doing business". I prefer that the courts at least attempt to address the difference between right and wrong beyond just worrying about economic impact. As to "clogging up the courts", it is my understanding that the vast, vast, vast majority of civil cases in the courts are businesses suing other businesses (I can't prove this, and you can't prove that it's not the case), This would explain why corporate law is such a lucrative specialty. It's nice that corporations should have an avenue for redress of their complaints. People should have equal opportunity. So, why, you ask, should these huge judgments be awarded to the plaintiffs? Why should they not face the risk of having to pay their legal fees if thy lose? It's a seductive question. My opinion is this. The awards should serve as an incentive for people to bring lawsuits that should be brought. McDonalds passes my test for a lawsuit that needed to be brought. (The plaintiff wasn't even originally asking for punitive damages. McDonalds brought on the escalation of damages, themselves). So, in my opinion, the controversy over tort reform is really an argument between economic impact and right-and-wrong for people. I vote for people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malpractice insurence only ads 2% to the cost of medical care. That's correct. But, full disclosure, a couple of my best fiends are doctors. I don't want to hurt them. My own dad was a doctor who wanted to work part-time rather than retire. Malpractice insurance was too onerous for him. There IS a problem with the tort system, but I don't think it's the general concept. You might have noticed that all these controversies keep coming back to insurance companies. Personally, I think the entire Insurance industry needs some serious examination. I'm too lazy and not smart enough to take on the task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sweetestgirl11
on
Sat 02/05/11 08:46 AM
|
|
The Government does not mandate that anybody buy a house, but you have to buy one if you want to get a mortgage deduction on your income tax. That's an exact analogy. False analogy. You can choose not to buy a house. (and the tax system sucks anyway)... You will not be able to 'CHOOSE' not to buy health insurance. You can choose not to buy a house. You can choose not to purchase health insurance. In both instances you will be required to pay a higher tax! Analogy is correct! the analogy is not correct. Since this healthcare socialism is unprecedented, it will be difficult to find anything truly analogous. The fact that it is so unpopular in a democratic (supposedly) nation, should be enough to kill it. We are not mandated to purchase a home, we will be mandated to purchase insurance. With a home purchase you have a lot of brevity in choosing your purchase price and what you buy etc. Not so with a govt controlled health plan. If you don't purchase a home you stay in the same tax bracket you are in. The change in your tax bracket is incidental. Whereas it is a punishment with mandatory healthcare- basically blood money, extortion - BUY or PAY. I have yet to be completely convinced that we are not going to be buying AND paying for this "project" that I assume will be run as well as welfare has been...nothing more needs to be said ummmm except that it is also taxation w/o representation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing more needs to be said A little presumptuous, don't you think? I think there is quite a bit more to be said. ummmm except that it is also taxation w/o representation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing more needs to be said A little presumptuous, don't you think? I think there is quite a bit more to be said. ummmm except that it is also taxation w/o representation Afforadable 'Obamacare' was passed only by using the budget rules and attaching it to a budgetary ammendment process called 'reconcillation'... Yep... Taxation without representation. It is not a 'budget' item but a piece of leglislation... Attaching it to budget rules ammounts to 'holding the budget hostage' to get passage and that is a form of legislative 'violence' or 'intimidation'. Yep... Taxation with PROPER representation. (and over objection of constituents). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Federalist Papers were written FOR the laymen....They were arguments written and published in newspapers by a small group of founding fathers to explain the intent of the Constitution, and to voice disagreement against what certain other founding fathers were trying to enact. I'm gong to illegally cite a statemnet that I read elsewhere.Don't attach too much importance to the Federalist Papers (sorry, Federalist Society!). They are not an authoritative disposition on the meaning of the Constitution but rather a political polemic aimed at the voters of New York. They were written for that audience, not for future Constitutional scholars. Consequently, the authors were not always candid about their true expectations. I don't know if this is true. I may just have to research it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sweetestgirl11
on
Sat 02/05/11 10:27 AM
|
|
nothing more needs to be said A little presumptuous, don't you think? I think there is quite a bit more to be said. ummmm except that it is also taxation w/o representation u politcos get ur knickers twisted so easily  - I mean nothing more for ME to say - cause I dont want it - I didn't vote for it, and I wouldnt vote for anyone who supported it y'all can talk about it all night long if ya want but as bonnie raitt says in her song, "I can think of better things for ur lefts & rights to do  " have a good one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It actually is not even my cuttoff for vote.
I intend to not vote for anyone who even supported the bailouts that came before this crappy law... and at least on of them that were in the mix when I voted no longer holds office... few more and I will have done what I can. (unless I move to another state and start voting against the ones in that state). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at least you vote, my friend. I suffer from acute alienation and haven't voted in years. not even sure I'm registered in Franklin County - namaste gotta go to the grocery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I make a record of that? Please do and i also predicted the landslide in 2010! Kennedy will vote right on this issue and the court has not forgot the 2009 state of the union address! Obama will get smacked down by the court! He is a lame duck and Egypt proves it! He can't continue to govern from the far left without being such! By time this decision is done, about the end of 2011 the court will know his fate and all political capitol will have been spent! He is Jimmy Carter 2! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is a lame duck and Egypt proves it! Ahh! we finally hear from the right wing about a political opinion about Egypt. Please expand on this. I would be really interested in knowing how this argument plays out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is a lame duck and Egypt proves it! Ahh! we finally hear from the right wing about a political opinion about Egypt. Please expand on this. I would be really interested in knowing how this argument plays out. Where do i start? If you expect me to argue for democracy in Egypt because I demand it here you are wrong! Cause i am not ashamed to admit my idealology ends at the border! I care about my country and whatever you beleive about Egypt a powder keg it is! How do we as a country benefit most? That's my argument period! I will side with the current regime because we know what we got and it's not bad under the circumstances. A pseudo democracy which is an actual theocracy is not the solution for the Egyptians and especially not Americans! So Obama stating he is behind a change is so ignorant it actually makes me consider what is his true agenda? Is he an American first? Is our president fighting for what is best for our country or is he merely an idealist and refusing to look at history? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK then! That's a bona fide opinion. Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My opinion is quite simple.
Leave Egypt to solve Egypts problems... Let the chips fall where they may... It is not our place to dictate policy to a foriegn nation or its people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So in other words let Israel have at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So in other words let Israel have at them. Man are you negitave... would take care of any further problems in the middle east wouln't it... We would have no choice but to drill for our own oil... and at the same time pursue all those 'green' things you spout... We would not need troops in Afganistan... (would be a wastland anyway along with most of europe and aisa)... Life would become very harsh indeed. Do you really think Israel is that stupid. Perhaps Iran is but Israel is more pragmatic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you drunk?
Your post makes no sense. If we let the Gov of Egypt fall into the wrong hands or Chaos Israel will attack. The only thing which has kept the peace for 30 years is a peace treaty signed and honored by the current gov of Egypt. If Egypt falls into radical hands, if there is not a peaceful and organized transition of power in Egypt, Israel will attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway this is getting way off topic. I believe there is another thread for talking about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
■Civil rights: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 compelled business owners to engage in transactions they considered undesirable—hiring and otherwise doing business with African Americans. Another 20th century example. Requireing BUSINESSES to do something is within the purvue of the Federal Government per the commerce clause (and they did not require them to PURCHASE any thing, just to engage in fair practice)... Requiring ALL CITIZENS to purchase something is not within the authority of the Federal Government.  You can't fool me dude, I are to tupid. |
|
|
|
|
