»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Pain and Suffering
| The Alley |
|
Pain and Suffering |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
It's too true to be good. The face of Compassionate Conservatism has unveiled itself and now we see that it is -- just like every other face of conservatism. Jeedubya, the former Governor of Texas, the state most prolific in application of the death penalty -- and the Governor who presided over more executions than any other in recent history -- has now declared that the justice system is broken. At least when it comes to money. It still works for evaluation of criminals who may get a lethal injection. But when it involves a malpractice lawsuit the same constitutional trial by a jury of peers and judge doesn't work. No. The compassionate conservative cannot trust the juries. A cap must be placed on pain and suffering damages. This, ostensibly, to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors. We all watched it in awe as, for the first time in recorded history, doctors went on strike in West Virginia over the cost of malpractice insurance premiums. The poor insurance companies point to damages awarded to victims of malpractice and say hey, if you doctors would quit putting the wrong organs in people we wouldn't have to charge you so much. Somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty states now have pain and suffering caps on the books and Jeedubya wants to put a lid on the whole nation. A $250,000 dollar lid. Never mind the fact that even in states that have caps the malpractice insurance premiums continue to go up. This is just more, failed, trickle down theory at work. Why are the conservatives who are so quick to criticize liberals for social engineering equally as quick to do the same thing from the other side of the coin? When will they finally get it that the ultimate Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) was right. The enemy of capitalism and freedom is big business. George has put himself right in the pockets of the insurance companies on this one. The insurance companies that are only second to the Federal Government in property ownership in this country. The insurance companies that gamble, and win, everyday with you that you aren't going to get sick, that you aren't going to have an accident, that you will not die. And they take the pot to the bank. There they have to do something with it. So they buy real estate. They buy stocks. They buy bonds. They buy presidents. The real reason insurance premiums are going up is because the stock markets have taken such a hit that the insurance companies are actually faced with losing value (not the same thing as losing money). I'm not even going to get back into the economy on this one folks. Rather -- I'm going to say -- now that I know that my life is only worth a quarter million dollars -- I'll agree to that cap if doctors and hospitals will agree to never charge me more than I'm worth to treat me for a catastrophic illness. And, if insurance companies will agree to never charge doctors so much for malpractice insurance that they can't afford to be doctors while not charging me more than a quarter million for treatment. Doesn't that sound like a fair deal? At least with domestic policy Jeedubya is drawing the real distinction between himself and Saddam Hussein. We always knew that to Saddam human life is worth nothing. To George it's worth a quarter million dollars. |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
suthern
since 1999-07-29
Posts 20723Louisiana |
If he truly wants to talk insurance reform, he should look at the mess he left behind in Texas. It's taken me two months to find a gynecologist because those who are continuing to practice are booked for months unless you're about to give birth... and I'm a bit old to get to the front of the line with that diagnosis. *G* My old doctor retired... and it really is a loss both to the medical community and his patients because he was one of the old-fashioned types that believed he was treating PATIENTS... not just running a herd through and sending out invoices. And because he didn't try to see 200 women per day, he can't afford his malpractice insurance. Cause yassee... the statute of limitations on suing a OBGYN here in the great lone star state runs until the kid is 20 years old! Kid doesn't get into the college you want? Sue the doc who delivered him! Kid isn't perfect? Sue the doc... ignore the fact that neither parent would know perfect if it bit them on the behind. Heaven knows we don't have to look any farther than the debacle in North Carolina to know that doctors make tragic mistakes... but the lawsuits should be limited to those errors... not every disappointment in life. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
So doesn't it come back down to the people who sue doctors frivolously? I understand legitimate claims but there are a lot of 'sue happy' people out there wanting to get some money for nothing! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Couldn't agree more, devine one. I can't believe a conversation that points to doctors, insurance companies, the President, conservatives....and not a word about the lawyers who have made this whole fiasco possible...Shakespeare had the right idea. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
How many people are frivolously suing? Indeed, I can think of two people I know who have done just that (Not quite, both were hurt). Are they bad people? Are they immigrants? No, not at all. But when one feels that one is being cheated, it is easy to cheat back. Why do they feel cheated? Trivia test: which administration in the last forty years imposed price controls? Trivia test 2: Why did they lift price controls? Do rich people, however defined, cheat? "Everybody is equal under the law. It is against the law for the rich and the poor to sleep under the bridge at night." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
et tu, Brad? Why do people reach for such justifications to such an obvious situation. Administrations? Presidents? Rich sleeping with poor? These have nothing to do with anything. If you want to target presidents then the question is which president has shown the American people that morals are optional because that;s what we have here. We have a country of falling morality spurred on by lawyers out on feeding frenzies. Honesty and integrity are disposable items. The rest of the world laughs at sue-happy Americans. How many lawyers scour the newspapers and police reports every morning to find prospective clients that they can get to file lawsuits? The legal system and the jury system has run amok. The system is set up to allow it to be abused. Congress will not pass a law stating that the loser in a lawsuit has to pay all costs. As one senator said on a tv interview "that would make people afraid to sue." DUH! It SHOULD make people afraid to sue unless they feel that they are right and will win. It's not that way. Lawyers have made a nice living from this. My lawyer could say, "Brad, Mike is suing you for 10,000 for punching him last night" to which you reply "I didn't even see him last night" to which he can say "maybe, but you're going to have to get a lawyer, make depositions, prove where you were, go to court, lose time at work, etc,,etc,,etc...of course, if you want to avoid this, give us 1000 and we won't press charges". You think that hasn't been done, Brad? You think the woman who spilled coffee on herself from MacDonald's decided on her own to sue the restaurant? Hah!! She had a list of lawyers who contacted her, trying to convince her to sue by telling her how much money she could squeeze out of it. Then you come to the jury system, average citizens who don't mind sticking it to a large company regardless of whether they are right or wrong. There was a special on 60 minutes on how Mississippi has now become a major sue area favored by lawyers. Being a state that is financially deprived, juries have a great reputation of awarding huge sums against major companies. The lawyers on the show even laughed about it that MIssissippi was the place to go. There were also quite a few jurors there who seemed to come into a sizable sum of cash right after the cases were concluded. No morality, no integrity...not among the legal system, the suers or the lawyers...that's the crux of the problem...not administrations or whatever inconsequential straws one can grab at. Your friends do that...because it's easy to cheat when one feels he is being cheated? With all due respect.....bull. If they had the right moral fiber they would not be doing it...period. There are, of course, valid lawsuits, which are the ones LR is referring to concerning the setting of limits. What about those limits? There are two payments - actual and punitive. The actual are microscopic in comparison to the punitive and the punitive damages have indeed gone berzerk. What are the punitive damages? They are not for the pain and suffering the victim endured...that's covered under the actual. The punitive damages are meant to "punish" the offenders - teach them a lesson. Have you ever heard of this "punishment" doing any good? Why should this amount go to the victim and lawyer? You punish a tobacco firm by giving a billion to the attorneys who try the case? Sweet deal for them, isn't it? They can stand in front of the jury in their best Hollywoodian pose, scream at the jury to punish that evil company that would do such a horrible thing entreat them to "sock it to them" in a way that will really teach them a lesson and them smile as 30-40% of it finds its way into their pockets. No wonder we have a glut of lawyers in this country. LR is concerned that we are officially only worth a quarter of a million? Hell, in many countries, life is not worth the proverbial plugged nickel..I'd say 250 grand ain't bad. Anyway, my rant is done. Come up with all of the reasons that point in all directions you want....they are all smoke and mirrors. Throw politics into it if you want for good measure. If more people were honest and if more lawyers had integrity the problem would be solved.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Deer, Maybe I better ply you with Nehi before we go into this too deep?  Of all the talking points I laid out you picked one I didn't even put in!!  But since you brought up lawyers lets go ahead. I love lawyer jokes. I have a collection of them I was going to post at my website if I ever got around to it. This one is my favorite:A bunch of geese is a gaggle. A bunch of sheep is a flock. What do you call a bunch of lawyers? Answer: A sleaze. Usage: If you try to file a medical malpractice lawsuit the doctor's insurance company is going to have a whole sleaze of lawyers working on the case against you. ___________________ On the topic of frivolous lawsuits here are some quick facts: About 70% of all malpractice lawsuits end in no settlement for the claimant. They do cost the doctor/insurance company about $30k a pop to defend. So to say they have no impact on the cost of healthcare would be misleading. To say they are THE cause of rising costs of premiums and healthcare is GROSSLY misleading (more on this later). Part of the problem with malpractice lawsuits is (as Brad has pointed out) in almost every case -- including the ones that result in no settlement or dismissal -- the claimant has actual disabilities. The task is to determine if it is outright malpractice or merely an adverse outcome. Before a consumer attorney is going to take your case and wage it against the insurance companies sleaze of lawyers he has to be pretty damn sure that it is a case with merit because he's going to take it on contingency -- meaning he has to invest his time and money in it -- usually not getting any payback for two to three years. Before the case can go to trial the Judge is going to determine if the case has merit or not. If it is clearly frivolous he will dismiss it and the ambulance chaser is out his time and money and you're out -- at a minimum depending on what venue -- court costs. If the case goes to trial a Jury will be impaneled -- probably of 12 depending on venue. The Jury will then hear the merits of the case -- just like in a capital murder case -- and render a verdict. Perhaps it will be an award -- perhaps the defendant will be found not liable at all. If the Judge feels an award is too high based on the merits of the case he can reduce it. If the defendant is still not satisfied he can frivolously appeal. ______________ So, no Sharon it does not come back to frivolous lawsuits. quote: The whole basis for the current debate before the nation is the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) that was passed in California in 1975 that did impose a pain and suffering cap of $250k (which was a lot more money then). The insurance companies would have you believe this (bad) law was the pill that fixed California's medmal premium problem. (Why is it that when Big Tobacco says their products aren't addictive consumer's naturally distrust them -- but when Big Insurance says anything anybody would trust them at all?) In actuality though -- malpractice premiums rose 175% over the subsequent ten years in California and then miraculously started going down in 1988. This (according to the insurance companies) was because the California Supreme Court finally made a ruling on MICRA upholding it in 1985. Aha! You say? No... they continued going up until 1988 -- what happened that very same year? Ralph Nader put together a grass roots campaign to put prop 103 on the books which passed -- what did it do? Created an elected, not appointed, insurance commissioner -Forced insurers to justify their rate increases to the insurance commissioner -Opened up insurance company books so regulators could determine if they needed rate increases -Allowed citizens to challenge proposed rate increases The insurance industry sponsored three alternate propositions that would cancel out Proposition 103. They funded an $80 million campaign to defeat 103. The Proposition 103 people spent less than $3 million in their campaign. The average donation was $10. The insurance companies threatened to leave the state. They didn't. Now -- 15 years later -- everyone wants to copy California -- but they're copying the wrong law! (Because Bush is in the Insurance Industry's pockets... but hey -- Truman had Pendergast -- it's the American way -- it's just payback time for George now -- and time for the rest of us Americans to not let them get away with it.) The following is a letter from a parent of a damaged child under the California Tort system written to the incoming President of the AMA: quote: suthern: you may not be able to convince them you're pregnant -- but if you took toerag along you could tell them you were with child!!! Heh.. Brad: Your trivia question may be a tad broad -- price controls on what??? I distinctly recall Nixon's price freezes and wage freezes -- there have been numerous other regulations put on other industries -- The most recent failed de-regulation you probably wouldn't be aware of is the cable industry -- prices have soared and service has sucked...ever more. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (02-27-2003 12:03 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, yes, contingency... When the lawyer told the prospective client what contingency meant, the lawyer said "That means if we lose I don't get anything and if we win, you don't get anything..." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR writes...."Before the case can go to trial the Judge is going to determine if the case has merit or not. If it is clearly frivolous he will dismiss....." Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son. 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbour's hub caps. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. This year's favourite could easily be Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles. Oh, really????? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
From lawfuel.com: quote: Another instance of "falling morality spurred on by lawyers on feeding frenzies?" (The feeding pun, I assure you, is far too bad to be intentional.) I'm not so sure. Would so many in the civilized world be overweight if not for fast food? Isn't it reasonable and justified to blame McDonald's for making us all fat and unhealthy? No? You don't think it's McDonald's fault? Then how can we blame lawyers for making us greedy and immoral? I don't think McDonald's tricks people into eating their food (which would be fraud), and I doubt many lawyers trick clients into instigating law suits. We make our own choices, persuasion not withstanding, and the responsibility for those choices can't be easily or legitimately laid at the feet of others. Blaming lawyers for frivolous law suits is absolutely no different than blaming McDonald's for obesity. The choice lies with the people. So, too, must the responsibility. On the other hand, should Hirsch ultimately prevail, I think I've got a pretty good case against Hershey's …  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I certainly understand your point, Ron, but MacDonald's dangles a Big Mac under our noses while lawyers on the hunt dangle the promise of millions (minus their cut, of course.)...and that ain't small potatoes - or fries. But, yes, the final decision lies with the individual...you know, the one whose fault it never is |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Do they serve Nehi at McDonalds? I understand your favorite President liked to eat there Deer??? Would it make you feel better if I said Clinton was in the Trial Lawyers Association's pockets? Do you support the Death Penalty? if so -- how can a justice system that is so broken properly administer it? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
How can a justice system that can't administer the death penalty fairly administer ANY penalty fairly? FYI. For most of the twenty years my company wrote applications for small business, over half of our clients were small MGA (Managing General Agent) Insurance houses. And, yea, that certainly includes the years of the Prop 103 fiasco. Unfortunately, LR, I don't think you're digging nearly deep enough. You're just describing that green stuff that floats on the surface of the pond. You're talking about symptoms, not causes. Ask yourself a different question. If you're not happy with insurance rates or claim payments, why should it even matter? What do you do if you don't like the price or performance of stocks? You refuse to buy stocks, right? So, why don't doctors simply refuse to buy malpractice insurance? Why don't you refuse to pay (even if indirectly) for health insurance? Or (more directly, I suspect) for car insurance? Why does people and businesses and even governments seem to feel that insurance is necessary? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron, If I recall correctly the Doctors in California did just that -- they self insured through a Not-For-Profit organization they set up. I think some of them still use it? At any rate -- I didn't call Bush pond scum... lol... Seriously though -- I don't have the time to be an investigative reporter these days -- and tomorrow -- due to this economy -- I have a 16 hour day -- so nite nite! But do tell more about your company and experience in the industry... love to hear it -- this topic is here for discussion -- discuss!! |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Take a minute or two and read John Grisham's latest book "King of Torts". Then we'll talk!! It's pretty scary! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I was attempting to question the specific action taken, not to question that there was a problem. The two people I was referring to both had their lawsuits in the 1980's -- Michael, are you questioning Reagan's ethics?  My point (A side note: am I getting more vague these days? Okay, I do make allusions and 'in jokes' but, c'mon, my first question wasn't rhetorical, I intended it honestly. I don't know what's happening about this stuff these days.) was that most people cheat because they 'feel' cheated (It doesn't make a difference if they were actually cheated, you just have to feel it.). Why is that? Thus, the prevalence of victimization. My second point was an attempt to connect this feeling with what I think is a kind of American obfuscation of a rich/poor divide. Something like ninety percent of Americans claim to be in a middle class but if everybody's the same, it becomes very difficult to differentiate, to understand why, some people are better off than others except to see them as cheating: "Money for nothing and your chicks for free" I think this attitude pervades America and it breeds resentment. I also think this attitude allows governments to pursue policies (in the name of egalitarianism, we all have to be equal right?) that hurt the poor and benefit the rich. I think that's a bad thing. There's a lot more to say but I'm out of time, but that would be my first tentative stab and getting below the pond scum but I'll try to suggest a few more things: 1. American apathy to democracy is the result of believing that it doesn't matter whose in office, their lives won't improve. 2. The judicial system promises to make their lives better quickly and immediately. Thus, they choose the court over politics. 3. American no-nonsense, pragmatic attitudes tend toward final answers, not compromises, the courts give final answers (or lawyers promise these things), democracies are an endless muddle. So, that America is a litigious society isn't so much a loss of morality but of America being America, Americans being Americans. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sharon -- no time for novels but I pulled this quote from a review which is apropo: quote: Where are the leaders who are willing to address the problems our country faces without, again, hurting the people the government is supposed to protect? Brad -- agreed -- will discuss more later. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I disagree. I know I'll never be able to prove my contention, but I strongly believe that if the same laws and legal philosophies were set in place in ANY other culture, the long-term results would be identical. I've said this before: Any freedom will be abused by some. The corollary is that any rule designed to be fair will also be abused. And for exactly the same reasons. The only way to eliminate abuse is by restricting freedom (sound familiar to anyone?) or by making the rules less fair to all. Most of the suggestions in this thread, such as a law that the loser in a suit has to pay all costs, are an attempt to make the rules less fair to everyone (especially the poor). In an imperfect world, Justice seemingly can't exist without injustice. The changes that need to be made, in my opinion, begin at a much lower level. Yea, some of the rules need to be revised. Not many, I think, but some. What we really need to do, though, is start changing people's attitude and expectations. Wish I had more time, but lacking that, I'll marginally expound on my earlier post. Insurance is a shifting of responsibility and just another word for a guarantee. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sure. When I talk about America and Americans I'm not talking about something immutable. What's great though is that you accept the contention. We can talk about America and Americans. One of the biggest problems is that this idea is somehow off limits. It isn't wrong to generalize, it's wrong to generalize wrongly. quote: Yes, thus my first question. But this applies to anomalous cases. If it's an epidemic, we have to change the culture (You say that later of course, you just use the word attitudes and ideas. That is culture, part of it anyway.) Newt Gingrich (anybody remember him?) once made a comparison between the Germans and the Americans. In Germany, if they put speed limits on the autobahn, everybody would obey the speed limit but vote the guy out of office in the next election. Americans would simply ignore the law. quote: People turn to the courts for self-interest, yes, but also because they still believe that the courts are just (they still work). They don't believe that about politics because they think they have no power there. If we need injustice in order to have justice either in the court or in politics, then the injustice should move in the direction of the rich, not the poor. Why? Because those with power should have more responsibility. As long as everybody sees themself as rich or potentially rich, this isn't going to happen. The focus is still on self interest and not, as Jim and I used to bandy about a while ago, enlightened self-interest. quote: There are no guarantees. Instead of insurance companies and courts, we should shift the discussion to where it should have been all along: the political arena. Ah, but you can lose even if you're right in the political arena. Yep. There are no guarantees. Let's stop pretending that there are. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, no Nehi at MacDonald's, LR, and you have no idea who my favorite president is. Also I don't get offended by potshots at any President..that goes with the territory...so there's no need to be overly concerned about my feelings All politicians will crawl in bed with SOME groups (that's how they get blocks of votes) and they will always have to reciprocate in some way. That's our wonderful system at work.Personally, getting off on another tangent, I would like to see the entire jury system scrapped. To me the "jury of one's peers" is useless. With laws being so complex that only lawyers and judges can half-understand them, what chance does Sally Housewife or Joe Six-Pack have? Trials become contests of 'who has the best lawyer'. Normal citizens can't be expected to know the complexities of law, even though they are given a five minute explanation before the trial begins. I believe it would be much more preferable to have a panel of judges decide verdicts. THEY are the ones who know the law...they are the ones that will not be swayed by empassioned pleas, or smoke-screens or obvious lawyer tricks. I can assure you OJ would not be walking around free with that type of system. Of course if you tried to change ot that, the American public would be up in arms, screaming that their rights are being taken away however, in a logical world, that would be the correct system.....unfortunately, logical worlds are very hard to find...even by Jean Luc [This message has been edited by Balladeer (02-28-2003 10:57 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Newt Gingrich was an extremely intelligent politician. I'd vote for him for any political office. The problem is most people only know of Newt by how he was "painted" by the media ~ A frankenstein monster. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron: 'Why don't you refuse to pay (even if indirectly) for health insurance? Or (more directly, I suspect) for car insurance? Why does people and businesses and even governments seem to feel that insurance is necessary?' Why? I don't know... maybe because when my mother didn't have insurance (because she was being systematically denied SSI for 2 years even though she's in the hospital on a monthly or bi-monthly basis) she got a hospital bill for about $45,000. And, y'know, since she doesn't have a mortgage, or utility bills, and since food is free, and since she has that much cash sitting around, she was easily able to pay that bill, right? Fortunately, Medicare coverage is retroactive to the date you first applied. Unfortunately, it only covers 80% of your bills, prescriptions excluded. So... my mother's in the hospital monthly to bi-monthly... and it usually costs a minimum of about $30,000 for the amount of time and the type of care she requires. She spent a weekend in ICU a couple of weeks ago... because her oxygen mask was faulty, and her oxygen sats consequently feel. Even though she recovered when put on a functional mask, they still moved her to ICU, which is significantly more expensive than a regular room. But, hey, you know, she only has to pay 20% of it. Without assuming that you haven't, I have to ask if you've ever had to deal with medical bills when you don't have insurance. It is essentially a full time job for my mother to file her bills, to make calls and arrangements explaining that she simply cannot pay even the 20%... because SSI barely covers regular living expenses as it is. Insurance is not an option in this society. This is capitalism, right? We're not in the habit of giving handouts... but we're also not in the habit of making services essential to life affordable. Balladeer- 'I would like to see the entire jury system scrapped. To me the "jury of one's peers" is useless. With laws being so complex that only lawyers and judges can half-understand them, what chance does Sally Housewife or Joe Six-Pack have? Trials become contests of 'who has the best lawyer'. Normal citizens can't be expected to know the complexities of law, even though they are given a five minute explanation before the trial begins. I believe it would be much more preferable to have a panel of judges decide verdicts.' So, you are quite obviously in favor of representative democracy over direct democracy? Sorry, but I don't buy that 'the common people are too stupid' argument. Because, you know, it's not like the judges are going to be bought out, and it's not like poor and uneducated people are going to be screwed even worse in the judicial system, and well-paid judges are obviously going to relate to the problems of a poor defendant. Puh-lease. While I agree that the current system isn't all silver lining, taking power completely out of the hands of common citizens will only make things worse. You know, kind of like the Electoral college... but that's a whole different can of worms. [This message has been edited by hush (02-28-2003 12:32 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hush, with all due respect you write the "common people are too stupid' in quotes as if it were something I said. I assure you I did not, nor do I believe that. Law is very complex. that's why lawyers go through so much schooling to learn it. To not be an expert at it is not a question of stupidity - it's a question of not having the experience to be familiar with it. If you feel any normal person can do it, please try to sue someone or defend yourself from a charge on your own without employing a lawyer. Trials should be based on knowledge of the law and logic. In the jury system, emotion outweighs logic. Simply look at all of the examples I placed in a previous reply and tell me where the logic is in the result. Show me the logic in the O.J. decision. Personalities come into play - biases come into play...flambouyancy by lawyers come into play...confusing the jury comes into play. There was a ladder-maker on 60 minutes who gets sued over 300 times a year. He has 17 warning stickers on his ladders. The last person to sue him set the ladder on ice, propped it against his barn, climbed it (it slipped on the ice) fell, broke his leg, sued and won. The jury was sympathetic to his injuries and ruled in his favor. Wanna explain the logic or justice in that one? Many countries, including England I believe, use a panel of judges and you do not see the same travesties of justice we experience here. It is not a changing of democracy. People would simply oppose it because it is a change. Sometimes changes are necessary. I would be interested in hearing your logical view, without the cynicism, of why you feel a panel of judges would be inferior to the jury system...if you feel like it. Otherwise...have a nice day  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Did you mean a panel of judges like the panel of three on the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals that decided the Pledge of Allegience was unconstitutional? A panel of judges like that won't commit a travesty of justice? Ya sure? If everyone wants to spend time talking about tort reform that's fine -- this is -- after all -- an entertainment venue. I'm all for interest driven learning. Just for the record though -- I've already stipulated there are frivilous suits. Deer -- you haven't posted any of the follow-ups to the outrageous rulings you mentioned -- like appeals or knock-downs -- which did happen to the poster child for absurd lawsuits -- the McDonalds Coffee incident -- which by the way -- did have some extenuating circumstances. None of this changes the fact that caps haven't and don't work to bring down the costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums. Suthern has offered her own evidence above (G.W's own tort reform in Texes obviously has had no effect). In West Virginia the largest medmal carrier spent somewhere on the order of 88 cents on the dollar defending cases (translation "paying lawyers") but that was a management decision of the company. It's competitors only spent about 30 cents. The major culprit of cost hikes is a bad investment climate. Period. I will agree with one point made though -- the one's with the best lawyers do win -- now who has the money to afford the best lawyers? Big insurance? or you and me? That's why some of the most blatant cases of malpractice -- a portion of the 70% of cases dismissed -- never recieve a penny. I'll get back more into this over the weekend and explore some of the tangents here. Thanks to all for participating. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Balladeer- you're right, I'm sorry to have put words in your mouth. No, it's not a matter of being stupid... however, I do feel it's a matter structuring things in a way that common people can't understand so that it's easier to do your (the lawyer's) job without any of your clients or the jury bogging you down with questions. (It's kind of like the biased Jim Crow laws- literacy tests, voting fees- that kept black people from voting, even though they were constitutionally allowed to.) Do I think that works? No... it really irritates me that 'professionals' try to word things (laws, taxes, medical terminology without sufficient explanation) in a way that makes it difficult for everyday people to understand. That's why we need lawyers and accountants to help us- the system isn't intended to be a thing that just anybody can understand. It needs to be a commodity- because hey, you might end up getting a better return on your taxes even after you pay the person who's doing it for you. You have to spend money to have a chance. I think that having professionals come in to do the thinking that we normal citizens can't do on our own is a) taking even more power out of the hands of average people and b) condoning the way the system is rigged. And the sad thing is, we're so conditioned into this kind of marketing that we don't even feel we need to understand laws anymore... at least not a lot of the people I know. Who has time to study the law and understand what they can and can't do, and what their rights are, when they work 40+ hours a week? Or when they haven't been educated in a way that allows them to understand laws? Of course, upper-middle to upper-class citizens don't have to worry about that; they can afford a good, well-educated lawyer. But the less-educated, poorer people who don't have the time or resources to understand laws are precisely the ones who are going to be most affected. They are the ones who are going to be pushed into plea bargains because the system doesn't want to offer them a fair trial with a decent public defendant- that costs money. My (too idealistic?) solution (or partial solution, I should say) is better education on legal rights in high school. The way it is now, juveniles essentially have no rights in the legal system. There is no such thing as pleading the fifth, there are no Miranda rights. Why would we want to educate our kids on all the rights they're missing out on? It's time to start. Otherwise, we keep pumping out graduates who know little about laws or rights beyond the Bill of Rights. Unless these people go on to actually study law, they are essentially illiterate to the legal system, and excessively dependent on professionals to interpret it and do all the legwork. We need to give high school students the basic knowledge and study skills they need to think on their own. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well there may be a reason why you can't post the follow up to those famous Stella Award cases Deer. They're pure FICTION:http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/onlyinamerica.htm and http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp Of course the McDonalds case is true -- here are the McFacts though: McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years. An excerpt from http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm quote: More to come on juries et al. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-01-2003 07:00 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aw, Rebel, that's beneath you You can't take a decision by a group that had already written themselves into the annals of jurisprudence for stupidity and display them as an example to disprove my point - one out of the thousands that exist out there. Really....Hush, I certainly agree with your last point. I would see many other things taught in high school to prepare juveniles for adult life. Maybe some of them exist now but back in my time it would have been of great benefit to me to have classes on laws, the stock market, money management, marriage and relationships. I knew very little about any of those things and did not have parents to teach them. I could split an infinity and dissect a frog with the best of them but the things I found that I really needed to know were not in the cirriculum. I am in complete agreement with you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rebel, you obviously have much more time to dedicate to this than I do. I comment your drive and thoroughness. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Says who? I want a jury trial to see who won that parry!  quote: If only! I'm logging between 70 and 80 hours a week right now. But when it comes to fundamental liberty, democracy, and human rights -- you bet I got drive!  Thanks. I only had time to do a search on those cases just this evening -- not back last month when you posted them.. heh... but I can understand why anyone might think they're real. The fact that probably most of us would think they could be speaks volumes. Hush -- Juries will have to wait until tomorrow -- until then -- just rest assured that you're spot on when it comes to linking trial by jury to democracy.... remember -- it was one of the fundamental charges leveled against George (um King not Pres) that he was denying the colonists the right to trial by jury in the Declaration of Independence. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-01-2003 09:27 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't know, I think Michael's point is at least worth discussing. Other countries have tribunals (though, they have absurd rulings as well.). Is the jury an anachronism? Most people I know (not that I know many people anymore) saw jury duty as something to be avoided, it was a point of pride for some to get out of it. If this is widespread, then it might be argued that we can't have a jury of one's peers in any true sense of the word. Perhaps, the privilege of jury duty should be scrapped, not because it gets us closer to the truth or anything like that, but because people no longer think it worthwhile to participate in any of the three branches of government. Perhaps they are content to give up on all three -- perhaps the move from democracy to meritocracy is something people actually want. I'm still for democracy but I think it is a point worth discussing -- is America shifting to the professionalization of all factors of public life? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And discuss we shall Brad, discuss we shall. Deer said: quote: This is the kind of cynicism that is rampant across the country when it comes to the American (in)Justice system. Let's just take one idea from here and explore it -- but first -- let's clarify actual vs. punitive damages -- pain and suffering is not quantified in actual damages -- actual damages are limited to lost wages, medical bills, property damaged, future care. Pain and suffering and punitive damages are considered to be non-economic because they are not so easily quantifiable. But Deer asks a good question " Why should this amount go to the victim and lawyer?", or better, why compensate non-economic damages with money? Money isn't going to bring a severed limb back, a dead person back, a lost lover back, a child's sight -- why money? The Willie Nelson of law, Gerry Spence, said it best when he said (paraphrased), "What is a corporation? Does it have flesh and blood? Does it have eyes? Does it have a beating heart? NO! A Corporation is money. That's all that it is. A bunch of money. You can only punish it by taking away its money." Americans have been loving to hate corporations since the very inception of the colonies. The East India Company chartered by the Crown in 1600, dominated the American Continent with an iron fist. It had it's own army, and waged it's own private little wars. It was a direct affront to the Magna Carta in it's operation throughout the globe denying British subjects abroad the rights enjoyed by the citizens back in Jolly old. It did this because it removed the King from the parliamentary process and gave him direct control by fiat. It wasn't alone. The Hudson Bay company was busy harassing the Native American population to protect the Colonists while the East India Company terrorized them. The soldiers were brutal. They were virtually lawless. The judges, puppets of the crown, protected them from prosecution. Without juries, ostensibly a stipulation of the Magna Carta and the best practice back in the mother country, this went on for a century before the Declaration of Independence was written. It was this kind of oppression that forged the thought processes of the founding fathers. Though they recognized the corporate formation as a tool of capitalism they also knew firsthand of its utility in enslaving the people to a government -- they much favored the simple rights of man. Even though a jury trial isn't specific to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights makes it darn hard for the courts to operate without it. The Big Corporate America knows what a threat to their existence the jury has been from the very beginning. That's why they've always been at odds with the jury system. That's why they're trying to get rid of it now. One of the amusing parts to all of this is, as an Entreprenuer, I used to get bombarded by information from BIG groups like the NFIB (emphasis on the FIB) that tried to convince me that my destiny as a small business man was linked to the success of major corporations -- that the laws that favored big business favored business. I wasn't duped. This is kind of like trying to convince an antelope who's in the same zoo as the Bengal Tiger, that their common enemy is the Zoo-keeper and the bars. Ironically now -- there is some appearance that they may finally be right. After all -- who can withstand a large judgement better? A big company? Or a small one? The current tort climate is just masked to look that way. Hush said: quote: This isn't a cynical statement (Electoral College reference aside). In a simple paragraph, while thinking she's not been given the proper tools in high school to do so, she's managed to hit on the major theme that's outlined our Republic from the very beginning, namely, -- is it a safe bet to put the government in the hands of the people? If so -- how do we prevent the Representative Republic from becoming just another form of Tyranny? Why is it better to trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? Alex de Tocqueville in the early 19th century observed, "Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it how to rule well." True -- there are plenty of countries that have no Jury system at all. Iraq, North Korea, The former Soviet Union -- the list goes on. Tribunals are also used by the American Military. Why? Because in the Military you can't have a jury of peers (ie Privates) telling Generals what to do. The Jury system is the only direct vestige of citizen involvement in the government. This is why Brad is absolutely right when he says lawsuits are just Americans being Americans. Do we really want to give that over to Lawyers and Judges (who used to be lawyers)? People are quick to point out the failings of the system like the O.J. Simpson trial, or huge jury awards in civil cases -- but -- there is no other way to punish a corporation. If it is negligent -- by what other means is there than to pinch it until it hurts? What people aren't so quick to remember though is that for Andrea Yates, for Timothy McVeigh, for John Walker Lindh -- the system worked just fine. Thank you Tell me why I'm wrong [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-02-2003 03:19 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron said: quote: I know that you can't prove it Ron because it's wrong.... because you can't put the same laws and philosophies in another culture. It would have to have the same evolution as this culture -- which wouldn't make it another culture. In the eastern mind, for instance, there was never a notion of individuality or "rights" endowed by a creator. Plopping our ideas down there and expecting it to work the same just wouldn't work. Am I wrong Brad? I think there are two characteristics that distinguish the American -- and this might be a good topic for Philosophy -- one was captured well in a Soprano's episode (and yes -- I'll allow fiction -- sometime's it tells us more truth than facts do) when Tony's Russian girlfriend told him that Americans expect to be Happy -- nobody else on the planet expects that. I think the reason Americans expect to be happy goes back to the conversation way back when we got into Bloom -- Americans, for the most part, believe that God loves them. That's an extremely empowering notion. So -- maybe your statement Ron -- that we need to change expectations and attitudes is closer to the mark. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-02-2003 02:12 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
AH, Rebel, even when I disagree with you I want to agree simply based on your eloquency and presentation I do not deny that the only way to punish corporations in in the wallet. I do not agree, however, that the victim and lawyer be entitled to that punishment payoff. I would rather see it go to charities or institutions or something more deserving....will never happen but I'd prefer seeing that. Yes, I confess I have a problem with lawyers and their fees. I doubt that any profession rapes the common man more than they....and it is sad that people throw up their hands and accept it rather than complaining. In your earlier entry with the letter from Kathy Olsen, she complains bitterly about the salary cap and yet simply states that, out of a 1.9 million dollar decision, the lawyer and legal fees were just shy of one million...she simply states it as fact with no complaint, as if that's life. I confess I have a complaint with the majority of the entire court system. It has gotten away from justice. As Al Pacino so correctly stated in "....And Justice For All", 'they (the prosecution) wants to win and we want to win. Trials are not about justice...they are to see who can win.' In our misguided effort to be fair to everyone, the search for truth and the punishment of the guilty has taken a back seat. Take laws like Miranda, for example. I agree that people need to understand their rights but, should Miranda be abused or not used correctly, should the perpetrator walk? If a suspect wasn't read his rights, does that mean the crime didn't happen? The murdered victim didn't really die?...tell that to the survivors. Should there be punishment for not following Miranda? Yes..punish the officer or department that abused it. SUspend them, fire them or do whatever it takes but don't erase the crime because of it. It appears to me defense attorneys are bound by law to defend their clients, no matter what, according to the law. Even if they know the man is guilty they must do what they can to have him declared innocent, by the obligation of the law. I must confess that one of my "must watch" TV programs is "The Practice". Yes, I know it is a tv show but they have a long list of legal experts involved in the scripts and I believe they state the framework of the lawyer's responsibilities and actions accurately, along with the legal decisions rendered by the judges. That is one reason why it has won so many awards. There are times I scream at the screen, I get so incensed. Shouldn't trials have a primary responsibility to convict the guilty? Then why are there so many laws protecting the criminal? Why should lawyers fight so hard to keep incriminating evidence away from the juries if such evidence will show their clients to be guilty? Isn't finding the guilty party the object? Unfortunately, no. Yes, I agree that the police cannot be given unlimited powers and I believe in individual rights but some of the roadblocks that are put up go way too far. Having been in law enforcement for eleven years, I could give you more examples than you could believe. Police and even lawyers have to follow guidelines that everyone with half a brain know are illogical and unreasonable, yet they are protected because the judiciary cannot have individuals deciding what rules to follow and which ones to ignore so they protect the bad laws along with the good. "It's the law" is their final argument, as if by saying that, no other explanation is necessary. The laws have gotten so complex actual justice has suffered greatly. The stock answer to remarks like mine is "Well, it's the best system going" or something like that. Is it? There are many criminals who laugh at the justice system and they have reason to. They know before they commit the crime how many years they would get for it and how many actual years they would serve. They know the legal loopholes as well as the lawyers. If our legal system is such a deterrent why are the jails overloaded to the point that criminals are given early release to make room for others? Why do many have rap sheets longer than a roll of Bounty in Rosie's hands? We have gone so far out of our way to show fairness that the criminals are the ones who really benefit...and laugh at the system while doing it. I'll stop now. This has basically turned into a rant, I know. I'm saying nothing productive or even new, nor much that could be considered academically stimulating. Let's just all throw up our hands at the same time and say "That's the way it is" and forget about it. Oh, and as far as the countries using the panel system, it is a little different when referring to civil cases. The United States and parts of Canada are the only countries in the world that use juries in civil cases. Oh, and with regards to your other point, Rebel, what;s the difference between Andrea Yates, Mc Veigh, John Walker Lindh.....and OJ? I think that answer is fairly obvious. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I liked the rant. I hated this part: quote: I think this is one of those attitudes that has to change. Here is a page for international incarceration rates. America is number one followed by South Africa: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1&p=national+incarceration+rates If this is accurate, or even close to being accurate, it seems clear that we need some type of judicial reform. But here's the problem. If Michael's personal experience is true and widespread and I see no reason to question it, the problem is cultural, not judicial. Hush's point and Michael's point point to Local Rebel's point. Americans expect to be happy (I would have said equal, but happy is probably the better word), but know they're not (the reference to OJ), this creates the conditions we see -- at least in part. I'm going to have to work this out a lot more, going in about five different directions right now, so I can't quite answer your question Local Rebel except to say that no, if you plopped the system in Japan tomorrow, the Japanese would not react to it the same way Americans do. Koreans, on the other hand, . . . A couple of quick points, Americans probably talk more than any other culture and yet say so little when it comes to something important, something serious. Could it be that we confuse serious conversation with the conversion tactics of a religious zealot and don't want to be seen as that type of person? I'm reading Menand's "Metaphysical Club" right now and it's striking to see how similar the tactics used today in politics are pretty much the same as a hundred and fifty years ago. Or to put it another way, it just drives me nuts when someone invokes the first ammendment to defend the use of profanity. Sorry for rambling. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I got sued around 20 years ago. Strange situation. A neighbor I barely knew invited me to a tupperware party and convinced me to have one later, so she could get points towards their gifts. During the return party I had, I made sure everyone knew I had a large dog, an Afghan. Almost the whole town knew I had her, as she was a beautiful and unusual dog, well groomed and we walked her. She was chained to the back porch and could only go out about 10 ft to do her "business". We had just painted the front porch and had a rope preventing anyone from coming on it. My neighbor from a few blocks away came to pay me the money she owed me for the items that were to be delivered the next day. I had called her to remind her. She didn't return the call but came anyway later the next day and couldn't come to the front porch, saw paint cans sitting on the side porch and decided it must be wet, too and then came to my back door while her husband sat in front in the car. At my back door, you couldn't miss such a large dog, but she must have been blind, walking towards Ginger until she got frightened when the dog stood up and began growling.( I only heard from inside...She must have taken a swipe at her because when I went out to check why the dog was whimpering I saw the woman on the ground, and called the ambulance and got her husband.) She had a slight tear of skin on the top of her hand, which they called a bite. She went to the hospital and the first call I received was from her husband asking for my home owners policy and telling me he was calling a lawyer. They led me to believe she was dying...always saying to any question "it don't look good". I, being very sensitive, almost had a nervous breakdown over the whole situation, feeling guilty over something beyond my control... which dragged out over a year. She had a broken rib that splintered later, into her spleen. But she was sent home a few days later, being told she just had bruised ribs, but shouldn't have been walking around. I visited and brought her meals once she was home. I was picked on by her daughter when I was substituting at the high school..I was told by others that the husband was upset that I never visited her while she was in the hospital(my lawyer for the insurance company told me not to speak to them while they were sueing- no contact- he said) I was made to feel guilty because she didn't see the dog and what made it worse was it was Memorial Day weekend and I had redwood furniture out on the lawn, and as she backed away from the dog she fell over a chair. They made it seem like I was at fault because I had lawn furniture on my lawn. And they played up the fact it was in the way as she backed away from the dog..but I said that it wasn't anywhere near her..I don't place lawn furniture near "dog crap" They sued for a million plus and wanted a jury trial. The lawyers for the insurance company hardly ever kept in touch and the papers they would send with mistakes were always whited out and some times not even signed. I had anxiety attacks once it hit the local paper and the sheriff came to the door serving the lawsuit. If I ran into her in town at the bank and I asked how she was doing, she would berate me in front of others and say she was fine until this happened. Her husband stopped by making overtures to me and telling me how they were claiming that they couldn't have sexual relations. I couldn't leave the house due to the mental anguish her family was causing me. I put a fence up immediately around the dog. I was told in PA that pools and dogs are considered nuisances and if they were the cause of any accident, the victim would win automatically even if they climbed my fence or if I had signs posted. My dog was declared "vicious" and I had to prove she had her shots and I had to wait to see if they were going to force me to put her to sleep for the bite on her hand. I was in such a state that I was having anxiety attacks because I didn't want to lose my home over something I had no control over. I was told to get myself another lawyer to cover the part of the lawsuit that the insurance couldn't cover. They were asking for $45,000..and my insurance company was dickering with them at $10,000 intervals. I was insured up to $100,000. I ran into someone who worked for insurance companies as a lawyer and he told me to write 3 copies: one to the victims lawyer, one to mine and one to the insurance company telling them that I insist they pay her the 45,000 which my insurance affords and if it goes over that amount in a jury trial(the woman had a 3rd grade education and was pale and frail looking when healthy)and they won, which they would in PA..that the insurance company will be sued and held accountable for any amount over the asking amount...because they could have settled it for less. When I went for depositions, they asked me nothing and I stood up and yelled at them for making me take off work to come and listen to a bunch of lies( the woman was now wearing a neckbrace..and just got it the week before and her lawyer was the first one in our area to advertise on TV) anyway I stood up and told my lawyer that if I ever needed a lawyer again I would get the other one sitting across the table that was suing me..at least he knew what he was doing. In that letter I had notarized, I also told them that if I have a nervous breakown over this that I would side in court with the victim and cost the company more. In 2 days I got a registered letter and a phone call telling me they settled what they could have anytime during that year, for the $45,000 and then I quit that insurance company and went elsewhere. I was also told when asking about if someone now were to fall on my sidewalk and there was nothing there to trip over but their own feet, would I lose the suit..they said insurance companies pay out because it's cheaper to pay then to go to court. I had to get a million dollar umbrella policy in order to feel secure...that was 20 years ago...it wouldn't cover anything today. People are sue happy, she had been warned about my dog and if she had opened her eyes she would have seen the dog was chained and not gone closer to her. also I was told that because she owed me money I was to provide her safety on my property until it was paid. This person was legitimately hurt. It was a freak accident..but they had sued 4 times before to others over all kinds of dumb actions on their part, but nothing of their past matters... the only thing I can say is they got "blood money" as they term it here, and a month later her husband had a heart attack and died, her son was in a car accident and broke his neck and their daughter "had to get married" at 15. The day she received her money in the post office, I happened to be there picking up my mail, she turned and she said to me, "Nice day isn't it, Renee". My health has never been the same since. I trust no one. I don't know who you blame...but insurance is there to protect you, not make your life worse...and when that depostion was over and the two lawyers shook hands and laughed and said that wasn't so bad, was it...my dislike for lawyers began. Sorry, for spilling my guts..but I wanted to give just one example of a lawsuit that didn't have to go as far as it did. By the way, I was told another reason why lawsuits are dragged out before settling is because the longer they wait, the money comes from investments and stocks and really very rarely is a loss to the insurance companies. (I am talking single small claims not catastrophic ones like huricanes etc.) [This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-03-2003 11:56 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WOW! That is some ordeal! Thanks for sharing that...I'm sure there are many such similar stories out there, too. It's too bad  I'll never look at Tupperware the same again!!! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
What do lawyers and the Insurance Companies have in common? |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Oh Michael I could tell you of another lawsuit against my husband and his company being sued for $750,000 for a $1200.00 fountain..that sunk because the builders before him with the pool and the ones who prepared the soil, buried junk, branches, trash etc... deep into the ground and in the 5 years after, the house and everything on the property began to sink. I could have died when I saw the papers stuck in a bookshelf while cleaning the kitchen one day. He could have been asked to rebuild the fountain..but no..this wealthy man(owner of the Psychic Network on TV that used Dionne Warwick for the advertising) decided to sue everyone who worked on his property, for $750.000 each. My husband said he didn't want to worry me,(my father had just died) but the papers were 9 months old. Needless to say, this added to the stress of our marriage and I had to take over and contact the company's insurance lawyers who weren't sure they would cover us since they weren't notified in time to prepare. I had to force my husband to go to the lawyers several times..he was the only one who was in attendance and besides paying out over $10,000 when it was over, to the homeowner, just for my husbands work, the lawyer probably made about $20,000. Every other person named in the lawsuit paid out between $35,000 to $300,000..so I guess we were lucky. I wasn't allowed to ask questions or to help my husband..when I rewrote the questions in common words so my husband could answer the deposition papers, I was accused of trying to make him lie on them. When I called to find out when the suit was over and where my husband was, (of course off celebrating for 5 hrs in a bar, down the street) I was told by the Lawyer he couldn't tell me a thing, as it was not me who was named in the lawsuit. I was made to feel as if I was invisible, yet if it wasn't for my intervention, and if I had not contacted the insurance company we would have lost our home and everything. Instead I lost my sanity(temporarily), and my respect for lawyers. Opeth, I don't have an answer...what do they have in common other than receiving money...and both wanting to be on the winning side. Balladeer(Michael)..I have never invited another person on my property again...never bought any more tupperware or any house party items since [This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-03-2003 03:11 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nakedthoughts, Now, can someone please explain to me why America is so great? Statistically and anecdotally, we have examples of what? Tell me why I should raise my daughter in a country where people don't trust each other and nobody buys tupperware? |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
my first laugh of the day.... I am an exception to the rule, in more than one way, Brad. And who needs tupperware when you can buy rubbermaid ~~*~~ I can't complain about my life or anything else in it...these two things were not under my control...any other messes in my life, I have contributed to. The sad thing is, and I don't mean about America...but the sad thing is being good, doing the right thing, doesn't necessarily win out in the end. Crime does pay for many in our court system. Right now (its been on the radio)a man I think in New York is going to be taken to court for killing an intruder in his home who may have killed his family if he wasn't home to protect them. The District Attorney is adamant about putting him in jail. He had a registered gun in another state and was in the process of registering it at the time of the shooting. When you have to wait for someone to enter your home and commit a murder or rape or a kidnapping, before you can protect your own...the system has broken down. In order for him to register the gun, he had to pay an attorney approximately $600.00 to do it by law. I am getting off the track here, but there are those who are abusing our laws and they are the defenders as well as the prosecutors. It is who you know and if you have the money to pay for it that gets you the results you want. The average and poor person has an unequal chance of coming away with the verdict in their favor. Like I said in a response elsewhere,under one of my poems, I spent most of my life except the last 3-4 years living an idealistic dream...was always contented with life and those around me ( not wealthy in money but wealthy in friends and family.) Now my eyes are open, my heart is closed and I have to live realistically. I believe we still have the greatest and fairest country in the world...although I am not sure about Canada...and wouldn't deny Canadians thinking the same. But I do get upset when you are trying to do what is right and still end up losing, though at least in this country you can have your say..and I did. I told each of those lawyers off...and forced them to settle the lawsuits or I would have lost my home. If victims can get large awards...they will. If there are caps on the lawsuits that are especially frivolous, that is fine with me. But if people sue for amounts well above what their actual losses are(including lawyers fees) then I think that is wrong. I don't think suing someone should change a lifestyle of the victim into being rich if he wasn't before. Pay the bills accumulated. Pay for the the immediate and short term needs...but to pay in an amount to make it so a person doesn't have to work ever again (unless maimed for life) is ridiculous. People sue for every and any reason, forcing us to have insurance just so we can hold onto the basest of lives. enough said...thanks for allowing me to do so. M I usually don't get into the discussions, I read and learn and enjoy them. [This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-03-2003 09:37 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's a fair question, Brad. I would say it boils down your perspective and your alternatives. First of all, it is not fair or realistic to generalize."...in a country where people don't trust each other" is a generalization....and inaccurate. There are many weak points to the American way of life, as there are to every civilization on earth. To portray them as the standard is not fair. Yes, there are unscrupulous lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. Are they rampant....enough to disrupt one's way of life or make one cringe in fear? Hardly. How many people do you know who have gone through them? I know perhaps five. What percentage of the population has gone through them out of the 290 million inhabitants of the U.S.? 3%? 5%? There are cases of police brutality. How many? 2%? How many people do you think are actually afraid to leave their houses? I don't know any. Do you? Yes, it would be wonderful if there were no frivolous lawsuits, no court system whose inadequacies allow criminals to go free.....but there is no country on earth completely free of bad points. In this case, we acknowledge that good and bad exists in America. The question then is which outweighs the other? If you can only see the bad points that affect a microscopic persentage of the population and ignore the good ones, then you would be right not to live here. You would be happier in Utopia, wherever that is. From where I stand the good outweighs the bad by a very large margin but then I don't generalize. You began a thread months ago along similar lines by speaking of "..what all people do" and "...how all people act", etc and I simply discontinued my participation because an argument of such momentous generalizations has to be totally inaccurate. Should you judge America by whatever bad points you see and then magnify them to the point where you portray them as the rule and not the exception is not only unfair to the American way of life it is an indication of what you WANT to see. To me it sounds like you do not WANT to raise your family in the US and you are creating justifications with your generalizations....and that is, of course, your right. Perhaps there ARE better places to live. I have lived in five other countries and visited many more and I haven't found any I would trade for but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I've never been to Austrailia or New Zealand or Iceland. They may be wonderful places to live. Titia paints a beautiful picture of the Netherlands...that may be a great place to live also. Canada, from what I know, is also a wonderful place. If you were to investigate these places to live, would you be looking for the good points or the bad points - or both? Should you find bad points would you portray them as the norm the way you do for the US? Perhaps -perhaps not. I hope I am not displaying a derrogatory attitude here because that is not my intention. I believe you are very sincere in your uncertainties about returning and I respect your views. Are there bad people in America? Unscrupulous? Criminal? Dumb laws? Crooked politicians and corporate heads....? Injustices in the legal system? Oh yes. There are bad people because they have the freedom to be bad! It's a by-product of freedom that cannot be separated. The rights that make good people free are the same rights that allow bad people to be bad. There are few criminals in dictatorships. No one takes advantage of one's rights in a country where no one has rights to begin with. 9/11 was possible partly because of our laws which allow freedom for all and our country's willingness to open its borders to all seeking, or pretending to seek, a better way of life. With the good comes the bad...I happen to believe the good far outweighs the bad here. As far as the tupperware....there you have a valid point! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Thanks for responding, my question wasn't rhetorical. Why did you laugh (assuming you laughed at the way I phrased the question?) When you say America is still the greatest and fairest country in the world, you offer no evidence that it is so. Why is that? I want to be clear, I'm not questioning your love of America, I'm not questioning that you should love the country (everybody does that), I am questioning the confusion between love of one's country and making claims that just aren't backed up anecdotally (your story, Michael's story) and statistically (take a look at the graph in my link). Everybody is an individual, they say. Or an exception as you say. But the current administration doesn't act like that (they put the cap on the suits, didn't they?). Are we all arguing against straw men? You say your life ain't so bad, but my life ain't so bad and I live in South Korea. Does that mean that America and South Korea are roughly equivalent? If you laugh, I want to know why. If you get angry, I want to know why? If you get that funny feeling in your stomach, that somehow I'm going over the limits, that this isn't something that we can talk about or should talk about, I want to know why? Why is this off limits? I just don't see how we can fix these things without first talking about them. It does us no good to think we can't fix them or we shouldn't try. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Michael, Thanks again. I am not trying to take an anti-American stance, but I do think you can generalize about America and Americans. My proof is that the administration does the same thing (and everybody who is non-American does it anyway). I'm not trying to say that America is worse than other countries just that it isn't necessarily better at things that, I think, a lot of Americans care about (incarceration, infant mortality etc.). Hmmmm, I'll give the honor of worst country in the world to Swaziland. A few months ago, my wife asked me a question. I was going into a tirade about the problems here (like any true American, I complain about everything), and she asked me why America is better. I couldn't really come up with a good answer except that we can change things more easily in America. Then I come on here and hear the exact opposite. That there ain't nothing we can do about it. ------------------------ On the other hand, you may have a point that I unconsciously don't want to return. I speak Korean but I can still turn it off when I want to. I can't turn off English. I like being able to turn things off. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
nakdthoughts- Actually, I'm pretty sure the intruder in the case you're talking about didn't die. In fact, I was watching something the other night... and if the homeowner who defended himself with a gun is sent to jail, he will, in fact, be sent to the same jail that the intruder is in right now. But... here's an interesting situation. Let's say this guy's case goes to trial. Balladeer, how do you feel about it? Do you think this guy actually being threatened with jail time is ridiculous, perhaps even frivolous since it's only over the matter that the gun was unregistered? Who's going to give him a fairer trial, his peers who likely make a comparable salary to his- or a panel of well-paid judges who might not understand why forking over 600(?) dollars to try to get a guhn registered is such a big deal? Or who might not understand that his wife won't be able to pay all the bills if his income is removed? I'm not saying that judges would be incapable of understanding this... but I do think that average people, people who understand (by the very nature of jury duty) what it's like to be forcibly kept from everyday activities because of a situation they didn't create might be a little more empathetic. [This message has been edited by hush (03-04-2003 12:57 AM).] |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Brad, I thought the tupperware remark was funny..both from Balladeer's remark and yours. Not buying it doesn't mean anything, but my opinion on going to and having home parties. If I don't have them, then I can't be sued by anyone coming onto my property invited. Sorry if you were serious about that. I never said I wasn't an individual, I said I myself am an exception. I am very idealistic..always have been, where as mostof my friends are realistic and don't always see the good without the bad. I lived my life only seeing good, always believing the good in people. There is nothing wrong with that nor with those who can see the other side of life. Don't take everything I say literal or anyone else for that matter. And I believe Balladeer actually gave a great response...if it wasn't for our freedoms, we wouldn't even have the freedom to make bad choices or mistakes in our lives. I was giving a few situations as examples. They are the few and far between in our society. I would still never choose to live anywhere else on earth. Hush, I was just giving the New York event as an example. I haven't been following it through. It was on talk radio, while I was driving and they were trying to get support for the man, raise funds for him. I don't recall if the intruder was killed or just hurt. You can't say that jurists can't be swayed, or that certain evidence if collected wrong won't be heard. I don't call it frivolous on this one, but I think it is a waste of taxpayers money for him to be tried as if he committed the crime instead of the intruder. And it is because of the unregistered gun, which takes a while to process but was registered in another state he had moved from( If I have the correct information) The man was doing everything right legally. It would be different if he had bought a gun or stole one or wasn't having it registered. I am not sure what a jury will decide or even if it will go to trial but I do think there will be a backlash on this one and plenty of support for him. I am not sure either, if juries are told to consider he will be going to jail if found guilty and that his family will have no income. I haven't been to any trials so I don't know if that comes into play. I have watched some court tv and I can't recall ever having lawyers using that in their summations as to what will his family do. And Brad, that doesn't mean America is a bad place to raise a child. (There is very little crime if any here where I live, in small town America. You can walk the streets at night without fear. I can even leave my doors unlocked and go for a walk.) It just shows you that some lawyers etc...like to make headlines and this case will IF it goes to trial. There are many unfair awards, where the guilty goes free or receives compensation. But there are far more that don't. As Balladeer said, we aren't perfect here. But we are closer to it than any other place Why else would so many try to cross our borders? [This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-04-2003 04:04 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The Insurance companies need to earn a profit, not only for the principle owners, but for all stock-holders. Lawyers need to earn a profit for themselves and their clients. For them, it is all about money, which includes political and economic power. About doctors, malpractice insurance, lawsuits involving doctors...and the crisis that faces America's health care system: Logically, what factor or factors can be controlled in order to approach this issue in a feasible manner, thereby ending or at least minimizing this crisis? Loyalties must be put aside. Emotions must not dictate the reasonings of decisions. Most importantly, it is the general populace who need quality health care and their needs must not be forgotten. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
hey O. I am in the general populace now... can't afford Health Insurance...each medicine I need is about $70.00 a month almost as if they choose a number for any medicine, they all are around that amount when paying cash. I pay up front and am charged more than the insurance companies pay. I learned that once when I had insurance but would pay upfront because my company took so long to pay the Dr. and he would complain. When I got reimbursed by the company they only paid me what they thought the medicine should cost. So all along I was paying the Dr. more than he would have gotten from the insurance company. I told him so and when I lost my insurance, and I couldn't see him because of lack of funds he then told me he would give me a break in fees. Drs and insurance companies, get what they can...they do not think of the best interests and health of their patients anymore. Anyway..that's my story and I stand by it. I am finished on this topic..it just works me up making me need to refill another prescription that I can't afford. M |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Hush, thank you for asking for my opinion of that case. To be truthful I haven't followed it but, from what I have read here, I'll try to give my opinion. First, let me say that the "jury of one's peers" is balderdash. How many movie star-millionaire-athletes were on the O.J. jury? How many Talibans or whatever kind of freedom fighters were on the John Walker Lindh jury? The 'jury of one's peers' scenario only seems appropriate then the defendant is a blue collar worker with 3.6 children and 1.7 cars in his garage. Second, your comments present a very revealing point...which should we look for in a trial - the letter of the law or compassion? Your leaning toward juries indicates to me that you feel that compassion and understanding should be more important.....and, if so, I don't fault you for feeling that way. But that's exactly how the justice system gets so screwed up, don't you see? God, I wish I had the eloquence of a Brad or LR but I don't so please bear with me as I muddle my way through this because this is very important. The law is the law. Court cases need to be based on determining whether or not the law has been broken.....period. Excuses are not allowed. Whether the family would have a hard time financially if he were to go to jail is not allowed. Did he break the law knowingly is the only question that matters. Yes, there are bad laws. Many people call marijuana a bad law...many call mercy killings a bad law. If a law is bad enough people need to raise enough hell to get the law changed. Until that happens, however, whether they agree with a law or not, they know that by committing an act the are indeed breaking the law. They have the right to break it anyway and endure whatever consequences result from their actions....but they should expect those consequences. Excuses have no place in a court of law. Giving a not guilty verdict based on feeling sorry for the defendant has no place in a court of law....yet that's what juries do. That's also what you are advocating here. When you declare someone innocent for breaking a known law when you know they had indeed broken it, you are damaging the legal system. Do you think the meatheads on the OJ jury found him innocent because of the evidence? Of course not...and they probably gave no thought to the fact that they were damaging the legal system by their actions. Let me give you a very small example. There was a condo association here that allowed no children, not uncommon for South Florida. When a new tenant moved in they were given a document to sign that, should they acquire children by any means (birth, adoption,etc) they would have to leave. Everyone who lived there signed that statement. One couple, in their 40's, had a child. They fought it in court, refusing to move. They got the papers on their side, footage of their loving home, the cute little newborn held in mamma's arms, the whole bit. They claimed the restriction was unfair. They got a sympathetic jury to side with them. They won. What's the bottom line? THEY BROKE THE LAW. They willingly signed the paper to move in - without complaint - and then, when it went against them, they refused to honor their agreement. They injured our legal system. Their jury of sympathetic, caring and understanding jurors injured our legal system. In answer to the question "Did you break the law?" there should be no "Yes, but...." answer. Yes. Case closed. Then it is in the hands of the judges. That's why sentences give so much leeway. A sentence can be "1-15 years" for example. That is how the judges take into consideration the extenuating circumstances. You may berate the judges in any way you want but I have found the majority to be fair, honest and even compassionate people. Now, getting back to the case you mentioned, let me ask these questions... Was he aware of the law? Yes Was he aware that until he registered it he was in violation of the law? Yes By using it did he break the law? Yes. Case closed. Now we can theorize that he knew the law and simply didn't either consider it important enough to take care of immediately or that he didn't have the money necessary to register it....or a variety of thoughts. They change nothing. If someone had told him he would need 600 bucks in 24 hours to save his daughter's life, I can assure you he would have come up with 600 bucks. This was simply not a priority to him. I can buy that. I may have done the same thing. The point is that he had to do it KNOWING he was in violation of the law and, if it were discovered, he would have to pay the consequences. He took that chance in much the same way people drive without insurance even though having it is a state law. He also may have reasoned that, if threatened, he would use the gun to protect him family regardless if he were breaking the law or not. No problem there. He considered the safety of his family more important than breaking this seemingly insignificant law. I would have done the same. But, basically, what you are asking is...this man broke the law. Should he be found guilty? There can be no other answer than - yes. When we find people innocent for breaking the law our system of justice is in shambles. He possessed an unregistered gun. Possession of an unregistered gun is against the law. He broke the law. I would find him guilty of possession of an unregistered weapon and fine him, which I'm sure would be an appropriate sentence. It is certainly not an offense punishable by imprisonment unless he is a repeat offender. Funny how the law works, isn't it? The fact that he killed someone in his home who posed a threat to his family is justifiable and within the law but the fact that he used basically an illegal means to do it is not...but the only charge he should face is possessing that illegal means. ANyway, that's how I see it.. Take that, Judge Judy!!!!!!!  |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Just one comment Michael. From what I heard by the commentator on the radio and the man himself, he had a registered gun, BUT he had moved to a new state where the only way it gets registered to be legal is through paying an attorney $600.00 and he did that. Problem is the registration takes 6 weeks or so. So he actually did everything he needed to do. The illegal thing was using the gun to protect his family from the intruder in his home, before the papers were processed and the registration sent to him. It was in the process, so yes technically he is guilty but it is like when you go to the bank...and you deposit money on a Friday. You don't have the cash in your hand and yet it isn't in the bank ...so you can't write a check on it locally or they will cash it faster than it is processed into your account(and you would bounce the check if you don't have enough to cover it before the deposit) This happened to me once when I was young and stupid..so from then on I would cash the check in the bank..then go back and deposit it ..cash deposits are instant...doesn't that seem dumb to have to do? They trusted me enough to give me the cash and yet the check had to clear several days later...oh well...the point being..this man's gun registration was in limbo...he paid for and signed the papers..they just hadn't processed it yet. Anyway, I do believe even if found guilty of some law the judge will probably go easy on him...maybe just a fine...only thing is once he's guilty of that, the intruder will probably sue him for the gunshot wound and costs to him...that's where the system falls apart too. When someone is in the process of a crime and gets hurt...I don't think he should be able to sue anyone..he took a chance. Hope you are having a good day..I have been shoveling "leftover snow"..a good release. By the way, I think I will go look this story up on line and see what the actual report was. M [This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-04-2003 04:22 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aha...well, I think that would certainly change things. At least he could present the arguement that he had complied with the law by paying the dues and felt that, once his monies had been accepted, he would be entitled to have his weapon legally. It may not be correct and may not fly but there is a certain reasonability to that argument that could not be ignored. Then it would be up to the judge to give him the benefit of the doubt or not... Doing ok here..playing golf and sweating under this brutal sun. Happy shoveling!! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think many of the horror stories that we hear about, as has happened to Maureen (I'm sorry you had to go through all that, Maureen, I'd have lost it for sure), could be eliminated if the people filing the law suits had to pay up-front for their lawyer and all of this "only pay me if you win" nonsense were done away with. I think too many opportunists with an eye for easy money chomp at the bit, spurred on by equally greedy litigation lawyers. The problem escalates beyond reality when you throw in equally unreasonable and greedy insurance companies and/or big business. I think all personal injury lawsuits should be handled either by a panel of judges, as Balladeer suggested, or through arbitration. And the person who brought the suit should definitely have to pay for their lawyer's services, win or lose, and should have to pay for court costs too if they lose. I think this would cut down on the volume of frivolous lawsuits if there were an associated cost, or the risk of cost. Then discussion about caps would, for the most part I think, become irrelevant. As for Tupperware, there is no better product on the market! And now in this computer age you can shop, with no fear of personal liability lawsuits from whacky neighbors, from the safety of your own computer!  Check out the great Spring Specials going on now at my site!  http://my.tupperware.com/DeniseSnyder [This message has been edited by Denise (03-04-2003 10:51 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No time for an appropriate response so I'll just encourage everyone to keep up the spirited discussion. I'm reading! Thanks everyone |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Denise, you are funny, another laugh to start this day...I owned almost every piece of tupperware that was created back then. I have nothing against it..only those parties where you become liable for anyone on your property. Thanks for the link, I will check it out. ~smiling M (Poor tupperware..I didn't mean to give it a bad wrap or is that rap...one of those cliches I rarely use) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Parody quote: Moral: When Lawyers are Outlawed only Outlaws will have Lawyers. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-05-2003 01:18 PM).] |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Food for thought *s M |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Balladeer- I see what you're saying... and yeah, I guess the leniency should be in the sentencing. But with this guy... it's like nkdthoughts said- his registration was in limbo... he did what he had to do, so was he in violation of the law? I think it's a valid question, and a situation in which the statement "It wasn't my fault" may actually be accurately applied. 'Giving a not guilty verdict based on feeling sorry for the defendant has no place in a court of law....yet that's what juries do. That's also what you are advocating here.' What I meant was that circumstances should be taken into consideration... things like what, who, when, where, why, and how. Is assisted suicide murder? Is not having the paperwork for the registration you filed for in violation of the law? In the example you mentioned, the circumstance of the couple having signed paperwork is a very important element- it shows that they were willfully in violation of the contract. But was this policy made clear to them? Was it swindled over in the fine print that, granted, people should read but never do? Have exceptions been made before? I think those elements are important... You seem to have a very literal approach to the law- which isn't a bad thing- but it raises other questions. Do you support police officers having discretion on whether to warn, ticket, arrest? Do you trust that that discretion won't be abused? 'Was he aware of the law? Yes Was he aware that until he registered it he was in violation of the law? Yes By using it did he break the law? Yes. Case closed.' No... it's not that simple. The situation is a little muddier, and I don't think it's usually that simple to determine. This guy (to my knowledge) was offered a plea bargain- you plead giulty, you only get a year? I don't know how accurate this is, or if I could be remembering it wrong (I heard it in passing a week or so ago)... Another thing to consider... and I don't know the answer to this... but are juries privy to what the sentence will be? I mean, if I knew this guy was going to get a slap on the wrist, as a first time-offender who I feel didn't really do anything wrong, I might be more willing to vote guilty than if he was going to jail for six months. Just some things to think about, I guess... I'm not saying I have the answers. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hush...yes, I agree that there are other considerations in this case. I was not aware that the man had indeed applied for the registration and was waiting for it. That, I would think, gives him more of an advantage. He can show that he WAS following the law and he could also claim that he wasn't aware he was not permitted to have the weapon while simply waiting for the paperwork to reach him. We have many similar examples, like car registration, for example, where the applicant is permitted to use the vehicle while waiting for the finalization of the paperwork, as long as the proper paperwork had been filled out and the fees paid. I would guess the court would certainly take all of this into consideration. Does the jury know beforehand what sentence the judge will pass? Absolutely not. They have the right to suggest an appropriate punishment and the judge has the right to follow their recommendation or supercede it with his own. The level of punishment is not supposed to influence a guilty/not guilty verdict. There is either guilt or not. Yes, it is that simple almost all of the time. The lawyers are the ones who attempt to muddy the waters and cloud that fact in their attempt to defend their customer. "I mean, if I knew this guy was going to get a slap on the wrist, as a first time-offender who I feel didn't really do anything wrong, I might be more willing to vote guilty than if he was going to jail for six months." With all due respect, people who think like that are the worst examples of what is wrong with the jury system. You are saying you would be willing to find a man you felt did nothing wrong guilty....that is an inexcusable philosophy. Your vote of guilty should be based on your belief of his guilt, or lack of same, only. You don't have all of the answers?? Me, neither...I don't even have all of the questions! Thanks for the conversation..[This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-05-2003 06:54 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maureen, Glad that I brought a little laughter your way! L.R., Very creative parody! Have you ever considered becoming a script writer? I think TV could use someone with your imagination! Perhaps if lawyers were not getting the customers that they needed maybe, in time, they would consider lowering their rates to something verging on "affordable" for the average person and then maybe the average person could actually afford to hire one if they felt they had been personally injured by someone and wanted to bring suit. The way things are now, such as in Maureen's case, all the expense falls on the "accused" while the lawyers and insurance companies and/or big business continue to drive up astronomical bills. I agree that caps are not the way to go. The system needs to be totally revamped from the bottom up, to my way of thinking. There has to be a way to make the system more equitable for everyone involved. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Balladeer- '"I mean, if I knew this guy was going to get a slap on the wrist, as a first time-offender who I feel didn't really do anything wrong, I might be more willing to vote guilty than if he was going to jail for six months." With all due respect, people who think like that are the worst examples of what is wrong with the jury system. You are saying you would be willing to find a man you felt did nothing wrong guilty....that is an inexcusable philosophy. Your vote of guilty should be based on your belief of his guilt, or lack of same, only.' Balladeer- I said I didn't think he did anything wrong, not that he didn't break the law. I also don't see anything wrong with someone using drugs discreetly in a way that doesn't affect others... I don't see anything wrong with myself kicking back a couple of drinks even though I'm only 19. Just because I don't see aything wrong with it doesn't mean it's not against the law. You know that case about that woman who ran her husband over with her car because she caught him cheating on him? There is a great deal of empathy from some women in this country... they can understand why she'd do it. Hey, maybe the even think she was doing the right thing by killing him. Should they vote not guilty because their personal convictions are in opposition to the law? 'The level of punishment is not supposed to influence a guilty/not guilty verdict. There is either guilt or not.' But what if this person could be sentenced to death? Do you want to be on that jury? I know I don't... but the idea of a panel of 'professional' judges unsettles me more. So, what I'm getting is that from your point of view, the person is either factually guilty or not. Most people tend to be more influenced by emotional pleas than factual evidence. Therefore, it would be more effective to have a panel of professionals who a) can more easily see facts and discriminate between evidence and opinion and b) are less likely to be swayed by emotional swaggering on the part of lawyers. I see your point, I really do... and in a perfect world, I might even concede to it... but I have major reservations about letting 'professionals' do all the wheeling and dealing in court... how easy is it to execute a political prisoner under that system? Essentially, it could become vigilanteism on the part of the government and their paid employees... I guess I have this funny problem with idealism, and this yearning to feel like my opinion matters in the world... and I feel that when direct power is taken out of the hands of citizens, we lose something of the concept of democracy... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"....but the idea of a panel of 'professional' judges unsettles me more. " "I have major reservations about letting 'professionals' do all the wheeling and dealing in court... " "Essentially, it could become vigilanteism on the part of the government and their paid employees... " hush, it appears that your problem is a lack of faith in the government and the legal system to do the right things......and I can't fault you for that. There have certainly been enough shoddy dealings by both to warrant that feeling. I see nothing wrong, however, with letting "professionals" do the work. It is, after all, a profession. No, we do not have an ideal world....but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying for one. If we simply say "Well, it's a screwed up system that ain't gonna work so whaddayagonnado?", then nothing will ever change. We cannot lose our drive for idealism - or even perfection - even though we will never see it. I do not believe judges would start executing political prisoners or run amok from a panel. They have that power now. They can overturn any jury verdict they want...but they don't. As far as you wanting your voice heard (which is a very real wish for all of us), the average person will only be called to jury duty once or twice in a lifetime and even then mostly on unimportant items...not much of a platform for having your voice heard. There are many other ways. I appreciate your responses and yes I do know where you are coming from and I understand and respect your feelings on the matter. This is how we learn from each other and see viewpoints from another's eyes. I would hope that any cynicism you feel will lessen over time. Personally, I fight it every day and sometimes it gets the best of me, too......bummer, ain't it? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Opeth, you said: quote: If you have a hole card to play -- it's time to show. _________________ Deer said; quote: From the Miranda Ruling; 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning. 4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you free of charge if you wish. It takes 11 seconds to say this to a suspect. Is there any good reason for a police officer to ever NOT read a suspect his rights? But even in the event he doesn't, that doesn't mean the case gets thrown out. That's Television Justice. In the real world Miranda works like this: http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/columns/lazarus.06.07/ This article was written before the vastly CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court upheld Miranda again in June 2000 so some of the information is a little dated.. but it is accurate in the actual workings... this germane excerpt for those who don't click: quote: Here we have an example again of a panel of judges making what you consider to be 'bad' law Micheal in Miranda. But, we see in application that it isn't necessarily the bugaboo that we might be led to believe that it is. Interestingly enough -- in the actual Miranda case -- Miranda was found guilty again in his second trial of theft and rape after the Supreme Court made it's famous ruling supressing his original confession -- the evidence convicted him. When he was later stabbed to death his murderer walked -- because he hadn't been read his rights. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-09-2003 12:21 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um.... Television Denise? Thanks.. (i think?)  Glad you got a smile Maureen.... But in the words of Rushbo Limbo... It's only funny if it's true. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad said: quote: Deer said: quote: The numbers of eligible voters who actually vote is down to about half and continues to shrink. Does this call into question the efficacy of voting? Or it's place in the system? Indeed it is the lack of voting that is the problem. It is the lack of willingness to participate in juries that is the problem. Similarly, between plea-bargaining, state level tort reform laws, and arbitration, jury trials are already shrinking to record low levels... Federal criminal cases ending in jury trials are down to around 4% now from about 10% in 1988. Federal civil cases with juries are down to about 1.5% from about 5.4% in 1962. With that small percentage of trials actually occurring it seems hardly appropriate to blame juries for the problems of the justice system. Let's take a look at the OJ Simpson case though -- what was different about it? I'm not sure what obvious difference you refer to Michael but the one that comes to my mind is that after he was acquitted by a criminal court jury -- it was a CIVIL court jury that found him guilty and awarded Nicole's family $33.5 million. Under tort reform that would be reduced to $250k. Is that what you think OJ should have to pay? In the criminal trial would we expect a different outcome if the jury had been stacked with Magic Johnsons, Shaquile Oneals, Dennis Rodmans? Both the prosecution and defense has the full opportunity to voir dire the panel. Would you seriously want your fate to be decided by a panel of Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg? If you get tort reform and get rid of juries that's what you might wind up with -- and no chance to venue shop either. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Deer said: quote: Brad said: quote: So I want to know -- if the Justice system can't convict criminals why are there so many in prison that we have to early release to put more in? Part of the overcrowding is caused by laws tying judges hands like mandatory sentencing for drug violations or three strikes and your out -- while well intentioned these measures have done nothing to reduce crime and have just caused overcrowding in prisons and often unjust outcomes for minor violations. Brad is also partially right -- it is cultural and this is the link on that page that I looked at http://www.visualstatistics.net/Publications/Intern ational%20Incarceration%20Rates/Internatioal%20Incarceration%20rates.htm Which shows incarceration rates compared to intact families and disparity in incomes by nations showing a direct correlation. So maybe lawyers, doctors, CEO's, athletes, insurance companies, hospitals, corporations, shouldn't be allowed to make so much money -- maybe we should cap salaries too....  But if consumer attorneys have their pay capped by tort reform -- won't all the good attorneys wind up working for the insurance companies where there will be no salary caps? Your point Michael about criminals knowing the sentencing guidelines before they commit the crime is exactly the point. If companies know that people are only worth $250k -- many times it will be more cost effective to merely take the risk of a lawsuit rather than to do the right thing. For the last 20 years my primary engineering function has been the introduction of new products to the market place... this is from the design phase all the way to the production rollout. In the process of designing, and even before, there is a costing process and a business model established for the products -- one of the things we'd look at is quality levels necessary for different parts of the product and the processes that would be required to produce that particular feature at that quality level. We'd use a very tedious process called Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to determine in very finite detail each components risks and each processes risks. I can tell you -- if the model only calls for a $250k liability per occurrence -- product safety and quality is going to go down... BIG TIME. That's about all the catching up I have time for right now... Maureen -- there is one other point though -- another reason insurance companies refuse to settle or pay claims is that the longer they delay the greater the possibility that the claimant will just plain die and they'll get out of it completely. This tactic increases with the age of the claimant -- such as my father who when 70 was rear ended by a propane truck -- the police said it was the truck drivers fault -- everybody knew it -- but the insurance company forced him to file suit and dragged it out for 4 years. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-09-2003 01:34 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR says... Let's take a look at the OJ Simpson case though -- what was different about it? I'm not sure what obvious difference you refer to Michael but the one that comes to my mind is that after he was acquitted by a criminal court jury -- it was a CIVIL court jury that found him guilty and awarded Nicole's family $33.5 million. Under tort reform that would be reduced to $250k. Is that what you think OJ should have to pay? ** You don't know what I'm referring to? I'm refering to the fact that the jury found him innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him. Actually it was obvious that their minds had been made up very early and most of the court case was just extranneous palaver. To have 12 people take 4 hours to discuss and put together 9 months of testimony and opinion which they had not been allowed to discuss this during the trial is ludicrous. As a black friend I know here explained, "Blacks have been screwed by the justice system for years. This was a small payback." I believe him.** In the criminal trial would we expect a different outcome if the jury had been stacked with Magic Johnsons, Shaquile Oneals, Dennis Rodmans? Both the prosecution and defense has the full opportunity to voir dire the panel. ** I have no idea where that came from. My point was only that "jury of one's peers" is a misnomer. Yes, by the way, I think the verdict would have been different. ** Would you seriously want your fate to be decided by a panel of Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg? If you get tort reform and get rid of juries that's what you might wind up with -- and no chance to venue shop either. ** Last time I looked Clinton and Reno were not judges...not would I expect them to be in the future. ** SOunds to me like you have a reasonable distrust in judges to the point you feel they would willingly act in an unprofessionial and biased manner. That's fine. You're entitled to believe that way....as I am to believe the opposite. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It's not as much that I expect judges to do the wrong thing as it is that they are human beings who, by necessity, bring their biases into the courtroom. Hence the battleground in the Senate over nominations. Some judges ARE easily purchased though. I've known some very good ones and some very bad ones. That's the problem -- no consistency. My faith is in the Constitution and the American People -- my cynicism is leveled at political process and 'leaders' both of which are very corruptible. Your cynicism and faith are the opposite. But as the the song says... Aint that America? You and me baby? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Are you hiding behind an entitlement? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's right, Brad. Now, if I could just find a gal with a nice endowment [This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-09-2003 09:46 PM).] |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
LR, I may be wrong or not have heard or read enough about the reform bills, but in PA they are losing DRs enough that they are seriously trying to find a solution. I thought the cap was meant for medical and health lawsuits...not all other kinds. I know that there are many awards that are too high for the actions that were caused. Maybe if they had a list of what illnesses or mistakes or health problems were caused and had caps for individual lawsuits, I don't know how to word it exactly. But if for instance a DR left a piece of gauze or something in a body during an operation... and later it had to be removed and the patient and client was awarded an amount between A -D, A being the smallest that a jury could award and D being the largest..so at least there would be some way to gage? the value. I know it wouldn't be as simplistic as that, but juries have no idea where to start or end their thinking. When I was sued for the dogbite or the fall the woman had, the lawsuit said it was for $1,000,000 +, and she wanted a jury trial. Nowhere was her stupidity or lack of intelligence taken into consideration upon walking right into the area where a tied up dog was. I could understand her needing her medical bills paid for and pain and suffering...but the original amount is ridiculous, when she was actually asking for $45,000 (or her lawyer wanted that amount for them) but if it would go to the jury trial all bets were off on the 45,000 and any amount above that, infinitum, could be decided. It never got that far because I raised a "stink" to my insurance company....but how many people know how to fight for their own rights when they are being taken advantage of? Not many and I could have lost my home over it, if I didn't know the ins and outs of the company insurance agents, as told to me by that friend. How many know they can sue their own homeowners insurance company for the amounts that are above the award asked for...when insurance companies play their game( rather lawyers play their games to see who comes out the winner) I had paid homeowners insurance for over 20 years with absolutely no claims by me or anyone else. These policies are for the unexpected with the insurance companies betting that nothing happens. (same as life insurance...they work on the premise you will live..while you get the policy because you are worried about if you were to die suddenly...but it is yours to claim on and shouldn't cause hardship or worry like many insurance companies put their clients through) Just a thought that I wanted to get across while reading some of the last responses to this thread. I know I can't relate to much of the discussion, only to what has occurred in my own life...and believe me, I was a very naive person, still am unless I decide to explore events and mishappenings in my own life and that of my family. M |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Having award guidelines like sentencing guidelines is a good idea Maureen and it's what many judges (even conservative ones) are calling for. Tort reform, as it is being discussed, is focusing on malpractice suits -- but in many states and for the Federal reforms they want to apply the award caps across the system. In Texas it was a 750k cap that applied to everything. But, once again -- I hate to say this -- but, Doctors are dumb when it comes to finances (or most of them are). They know thier field -- but they've always been prime targets for scam artists with "Dumb doctor deals" as they are known... they're being scammed by the insurance companies. Award caps haven't worked in the past -- and won't work in the future. There's no guarantee by the insurance companies that they will lower their premiums in the tort reform package. There is also no mechanism to put better controls on doctors. What's even more sticky is how the Federal Gov is goin to get into the State Court system -- it's been taboo for over two centuries and certainly G.W. the Governor would have objected -- but now that he's President he doesn't seem to mind to tell everybody what to do... go figure. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad said: quote: Things change -- I wonder how much more didactic I can get?  quote: Wild huh? I was actually thinking of Machiavelli though... The Prince would be applicable to the times. What's wrong with this picture? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
KISS. Lawyers do not make money for the masses, only for themselves and their personal clients. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not only for themselves, but for hundreds of thousands of investing Americans. Think about it. [This message has been edited by Opeth (03-12-2003 08:32 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Judge Judy logic again? Lawyers are tools. The insurance companies have lawyers. Plaintiffs have lawyers. To that end they provide access to justice for the masses. The masses do not own stock in insurance companies. But, the masses do pay premiums. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Judge Judy logic again?" ~ Your snide remark only makes me laugh. "Lawyers are tools." ~ You need to get back into the shallow water before you get in too deep. "The insurance companies have lawyers. Plaintiffs have lawyers." ~ I'd prefer Judge Judy logic over your illogical out-of-context above statement. "To that end they provide access to justice for the masses." ~ Justice: a whole new issue. KISS "The masses do not own stock in insurance companies. But, the masses do pay premiums." ~ The masses, who have IRA accounts...nevermind, I don't feel like 'splainin it to ya. Find out for yourself, if you want to. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
~ Your snide remark only makes me laugh. I hope it was as good a belly laugh as you gave us -- but I'm starting to understand why she seems like a mental giant. ~ You need to get back into the shallow water before you get in too deep. Quite unnecessary -- one there is more than enough. "The insurance companies have lawyers. Plaintiffs have lawyers." ~ I'd prefer Judge Judy logic over your illogical out-of-context above statement. In case you missed the subject of the thread that is the context. "To that end they provide access to justice for the masses." ~ Justice: a whole new issue. KISS Once again -- justice is the subject of the thread. ~ The masses, who have IRA accounts...nevermind, I don't feel like 'splainin it to ya. Find out for yourself, if you want to Yes -- the devil is in the details -- I would have expected you to run away... Oh well.... |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
You are too clever for me. Uncle. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Such a life of pain. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Such a life of pain." In my best Moe (from The Simpsons) voice, "Whaaaaa?" Maybe you need to get out more often. I have very little to no pain in my life and enjoy life immensely. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well, learn something new everyday. I was unaware the milatary was accepting junior high students. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I was unaware the milatary was accepting junior high students." ~ Well then, now that you know the military does accept Junior High students, there is nothing to stop you in enlisting, right now...today! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Nice try. If you're big -- you don't have to be mean... My money is on Brad. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Nice try." ~ Nice try about what? Again, you are much too clever. "If you're big -- you don't have to be mean..." ~ Nah, I am gentle with my bigness. "My money is on Brad." ~ Do I at least get odds? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Too clever for one as sophisticated as you? Never... Of course you know what I meant.. since I actually graduated junior high the first go around I'm much too old for the military now. If you'll excuse me now -- I have to go out again. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Rebel -- I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but I'm coming back because it has definitely caught my attention now. ...jo |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Forgive me LR I am very sleepy. Actualy I think Every one before going in to surgery should sighn a form saying they know of the consequences, and any unusual consequence, like giant sizzor in stomache, the patient can sue. Also hospitals should Ban 24-hour and on shifts and make them no more then twelve or thirteen hours. I think this is a case where changes must be made. in england they have a law, wear you must pay the amount you sue for if they side with the defendent. This meens the guy that blames mc donalds for him self being fat would have to pay 1 million dollars to mc donalds. Just a thought. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
First, I want to commend Local Rebel for his McDonald's case research. Secondly, Balladeer, I noticed you live in Florida. Well, I don't know how things are in Florida, but here in Texas, most of those outrageous, big verdicts get appealed or the trial court judge reduces the award. You know, judges have that perrogative. Judges are like gods. They can do anything they want. Here in Texas, it is fairly well known that the Judges are very conservative (in other words....it appears they favor special interest groups who probably helped get them in office....not always the case, every now and then there are a few good men/women, but that is the definite rumor among trial attorneys). So, what you usuallly read about or hear about on the news is something at the trial court level....Too often, we do not hear the end of the story.....So people (in general) are biased thinking there are huge verdicts all the time. It just doesn't happen as prevalently as you might think. It does happen occasionally. I can give you an example of a $6M dollar verdict which was confirmed after a three year appeal process costing the Plaintiff's attorney well over $200K to play it out (with the strong possibility of not being affirmed by the Supreme Court). Now with that case, a poor Lubbock woman's husband split his brain open when he fell off a scaffold because there was no proper fall protection equipment. The company that was in charge had been cited by OSHA on more than one occasion for poor safety practices. The widow of this man went to work after his death to try to support her family. Since she was not well educationed, the only types of jobs she could find was caring for elderly, emptying bedpans, etc. Now that woman had a daughter and a son to raise on her own. The award of $6M, after deducting attorneys fees, costs of the appeal, expenses of the cases, and then calculating pre-judgment and post-judgment interest because it took the case about 10 years to get through the courts, ended up being a pretty good sum. But, tell me, how much is a man's life worth? How much could he have helpled raise his children? What will that little boy, who was four years old, grow up to be without a dad and his mother emptying bed pans for $5/hr.? Isn't there a reason why pain and suffering should be awarded. Can it be denied that this family did not suffer? What about a case when a child is misdelivered and brain damage occurs in the infant.....do you think that the parents of a brain damaged baby will not sustain pain and suffering for the rest of their lives? Or what about, a 14-year-old girl who is injured and has horrendous scars on her legs and face just in time for puberty....does she not suffer? There is no price that can be put on some folk's suffering. That is why I think a $250,000 cap (like here in Texas on Med Mal cases in particular; and $100K cap on municipalities and the such) is hard to swallow for a lot of people. A jury here could award $1M for pain and suffering.....but it would be reduced by the Judge after the trial(and the jurors would not know that in many cases). Pain and suffering are legitimate elements of damage; that is not disputed. Putting a cap on those is an effort only to help the special interests' bottom line. The only way you can punish a corporation and get it to take safety seriously (just one example) is through it's pocket books and what some corporations do to save a buck can kill people. I'm not talking about the tatoo guy--that's a stupid lawsuit. I'm talking about legitimate cases (which the ones that make to trial are). The only real disputes by that time is just how bad is the injury or that there is some argument over responsibility. When it is obvious it is a frivolous lawsuit, Judges have the right and take it to dismiss the case and sanction the attorney for filing it. I think the attorneys who advertise on TV, etc., really hurt the other advocates by doing what they do. They are like fast food joints, it's kind of true. There should be enforced rules against this type of advertising. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
If a government is corrupt, so to, shall be it's people the trickle down effect, affects everyone...whatever decisions those who deem themselves above us make, affects the entire nation...everyone is connected...and someone pulls the plug on these theives...it will continue to grow and contaminate this country...I see it all over, it isn't about left or right anymore...and if you cannot admit that, that each party is just as corrupt as the other, nothing will ever change, and they have us right where they want us....division instead of teamwork. You know the pointing fingers has really insulted the intelligence of this country...and this country has bought it...that's what is even more scary to me. My Goodness, when will people stop fearing to wake up...does anyone here have any idea of the power and wealth through deceipt? Everyone complains, yet everyone patronizes this behavior by buying it? Our society is as much to blame, more concerned with material possessions then the possession of moral conduct, great care and respect for others. And if that happened, again...it would soon trickle out...but they keep us occupied with deterrants...and no one is seeing this...or is it me thats wrong??????? Geeze Louise...common sense tells you that when people work together as a team, miracles are accomplished....but when people fight each other and point fingers nothing gets done. Greed, greed, greed, and if there were more judges throwing some of these law suits out of court, if there were more people who understood, no amount of money is going to bring back your loss, and the insurance companies???? Well, don't get me started on them. Big corporations....run this country...money and the powerful and rich, run this country...and the dollar bill will always buy decission...I suppose? Talk about morals, look at some of the thriving T.V. programs, that speaks volumns about our society today...about any intellectual or independent thought process? Now that scares me...really scares me...we've lost common sense, intellect, we've become angry people, looking for all the gossip...pointing fingers...in a trickle down effect...which affects us all. I believe there are some people who are merrited in their law suits...but, by far, not nearly the hords, there are those few exceptional cases, always...but this????? What is going on today is not brothers working together, but brother against brother, all for the gain of material???? Morals, values, respect and intellectual conversation and education are dying words in this coutry today, and with their decline, also declines society. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Because of checks and balences our government is stable. Because of the media, politicians are scared honest. Just a thought Juju |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
