Yes, they are trying to make money. They are also trying to scare people into supporting so-called "tort reform" by presenting half-truths and exaggerations.
yeah too many lawyer friends........I was going to go, but my extremely YDD mother protested as she would not have me dishonor her name.
That's a very interesting article. I thought it was going to be another one of those "federalize malpractice claims and cap awards" arguments, but he really does have a different approach. I need to give it some more thought before I comment further, rather than shoot from the hip about the parts I disagree with.
See nobody can accuse you of being close minded. Ron Paul is amazing to me. It does not mean he is right all the time but he is consistent. I look forward to hearing your thoughts after it digests.
All you need to do is find someone who uses liquid carbon dioxide or nitrogen as a coolant in order to suffer the same injuries, oh and a long history of similar complaints with no action to make a correction on the company's part.
Now see that sounds painful......:mrgreen: I was going more for the mental anguish and not injuries.:lol: All joking aside the link that KDsGrandma provided http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx was very insightful to the understanding Liebeck vs McDonald's. It appears she was being very reasonable and the corporate greed is the reason for the lawsuit going to court. Now can someone explain why the warning label was put on? I like many probably have always believed the lawsuit was because she did not know that the coffee was hot.
That misunderstanding is not uncommon as that seems to have been the "sound bite" presentation. The temperature was well above a safe limit and much hotter than most would assume from other instances of "hot" coffee.
You two have spent 4 hours on a Wednesday morning debating the probability of getting struck by a car vs' meteorite and tort reform. What kind of work do you two do and can I get an application?? As for your debate, I suggest you meet somewhere and fist fight.
Actually we have debated within that period, but I know what you mean. Currently own my own companies, I do not know about my esteemed opponent. One or two of them may be for sale at the right price, if you are interested Nah, that would not prove anything other than the "redneck potential" we have ....:lol: :lol:
what's an application.......I have no clue what they are but I'll pay $1.00 :mrgreen: Why....I thought it was quite fun and not confrontational.
grasped it before I wrote mine. Just reiterating that it was fun and nothing near that would cause that level of aggression........ Guess my offer of a $1.00 was low ball enough not to warrant a rebuke.:-D
Actually, I was discussing the offer with my accountant.... you were serious right? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Darn, I was going to max out the lines of credit for you, but now it would just be a waste of time on my part .... :lol: :lol: :lol:
(Reminder: this is on the tort reform issue that I promised to get back to.) First, I think Ron Paul's idea of "negative outcomes insurance" sounds very promising. It looks like it would compensate for actual harm, without having to prove fault and without adding a lot of non-monetary damages. It also looks like it would reign in costs of litigation and administration. He makes good points about insurance companies and HMO administrators injecting themselves into the doctor-patient relationship. I would go further than he does, and say that is a frequent cause of patients receiving inadequate care - the bean-counters watching their bottom line, instead of letting the doctor and patient agree on the appropriate level of care. I disagree with some of his background issues, and I see that as a difference in perspective. He is looking at the problem strictly from a doctor's perspective, while I am looking at it from the other side. He sees a great many non-meritorious cases filed, and I think he overstates that by a vast amount. I do not doubt that some cases are filed that should not be, and I'm sure - actually, I know for a fact - that years ago, insurance companies tended to settle some of those cases, just to avoid the expense of going to court. But for, oh, probably the last 20 years or so, insurance companies generally tend to fight those cases, even if they could have settled them for less than it costs to fight, to discourage similar non-meritorious cases from being filed in the future. I see that the polar opposite is also true - that many cases of harm caused by medical mistakes never result in a malpractice claim at all. Medical providers and insurers generally tend to blame the high cost of malpractice insurance on litigation; consumers and their legal representatives tend to blame it on fluctuations in investment return and on imprudent pricing decisions by insurers. This analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation indicates that it is not either/or, but a combination of those factors. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, that's a pdf document; otherwise, I would be cutting and pasting large portions of it here. Another cause of the malpractice insurance crisis, that is not addressed by Dr. Paul, is that medical errors really do happen, and really do result in serious injury to patients. From mistakes in medication to amputation of the wrong limb or removal of the wrong kidney, thousands of errors each year in hospitals throughout the country do real harm to real patients. This is a problem that needs to be addressed in each and every medical facility, by putting systems of checks and safeguards in place and making sure every employee follows those systems. To summarize, I think a two-pronged approach to the problem makes sense. First, a system such as the one Dr. Paul proposes, that would allow patients to acquire "negative outcomes" insurance, and second, a system of checks and safeguards in all medical facilities.
Given the insurance would cover payments due to the outcome, the number of cases would by definition increase over the number of malpractice suits today. Unless there was some limit per result as in the loss of a limb, etc., the costs per incident for the insurance could very easily exceed the cost of the current malpractice insurance the doctors pay, but would not cover the poorest segment of the population due to the cost of the coverage. If one cannot afford the medical treatment they surely cannot cover the cost of the additional insurance. Thus, we see the removal of a segment of the population excluded from compensation due to the inability to buy the insurance. Unless they are also allowed to sue for malpractice they are denied due process. If they are allowed to sue for malpractice the doctors will then still be required to buy that malpractice insurance they currently purchase. The effect would not then seem to be a reduction of malpractice claims which are truly believed to be malpractice in addition to the increase in cost for those who can afford to but the extra insurance. That is just my take on the situation.
