States vs. BigDrug Co's - Tobacco All Over Again

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Uh-Oh...he said Tort reform....::looks around for TL and ducks::: (ps, I think some tort reform would be a good thing)

Only because you don't know what it means. What it means is barring folks from recovery for real injuries in the name of profits for fat cats. See my post above.

On the same note that this was written on, I think it's time for me to hide from Attalus. :ducks: [img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I didn't say full blown reform (yes I actualy do know what tort reform means, other wise I wouldn't have known to duck from you ) But Im sure you agree that there does need to be some kind of halt to ridiculous awards that far outstrip the offense and or the damage caused. Reasonable damages but everyone knows that the big penalties aren't paid for by the big companies..they are just passed along to the consumer. Only the Lawyers really get rich from all these class action suits that require that all toothpick boxes be labeled with "Do not insert into eye" and why gas powered snowblowers have to be labeled "Do not Use on the roof of any structure"

Edit: Not to mention the ridiculous state that medical mal practice insurance is in....you have heard that doctors in WVa have banded together and refuse to perform medical proceedures due to unreasonable mal practice suits.

[ 01-14-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Ummm Elric You know me from Pandemonium, I want to introduce you to Timber Loftis, Timber is a decent reasonable person and a lawyer. You can debate him here without being too...umm aggressive.

Timber Loftis I want to introduce you to Elric M. [img]smile.gif[/img] he is an agressive debator from a place that is rather more...rough in the debating forum...but he is a good guy even though he can be kind of "go for the throat" in a debate. I am hoping this doesnt blow up into too hot a topic.

Pax people.

[Attalus]

Duck from me? Yeah, I know, medical malpractice. Actually, I have been sued three times and won all three. *Knocks on wood.* I always tell patients irate about the prices of the newer drugs, well, we just won't use the newer drugs, we'll use those less-efficient and side-effect heavy drugs that we used before the new, safe, effective drugs came out. Haven't had many takers.

LLAO I knew you had an answer Attalus [img]smile.gif[/img] yeah well they are going to "force" those big bad drug companies who want to see people suffer and die due to high drug prices to give their products away at less than cost. That will learn 'em.

[Timber Loftis]

Elric: I'm not a Republican or a Democrat - and I love to scathe at the Stoopid policies of each equally.

The stickers on the ladders are annoying and a silly byproduct of lawyers reacting to jury verdicts. Rather than fix the ladder (assuming it's "broken" in some way) they place a sticker on it (because you can choose to WARN rather than make something safe) - like McDonald's. While discussing McD's, they don't want to burn you, they want to discourage the Senior crowd from coming in, buying a coffee, and having 3-4 cups. The idea is that you *won't* drink it that hot. It's served at 150+F you know - scalding temperature.

I agree that most businessmen are like you and are simply trying to make ends meet while supporting their workforce. Especially in small companies. But, I have found that 20 men sitting around a Board of Directors table are capable of commiting evils as a group that not one of them would commit as an individual. As I said, tort reform should not stop the HUGE verdicts in the case of EGREGIOUS wrongs. People who tried to do the right thing do NOT get the silly verdicts we are all pissed off at. And, when that .00001% does happen, I think the offending company needs to be slapped silly.

The unfortunate truth is that small companies are like the middle class - hit hard from both directions. Sorry, but that doesn't make me support the notion of limiting recovery for the biggest offenders.

Finally, see my later post regarding WORKABLE tort reform. The system I propose would allow the punishment without allowing the silly windfalls. As an addendum to that system, I should note that the lawyer's fees should only come from the non-punitive portions or should be decreased for that portion of the recovery -- thereby reducing the incentive to sue that we are currently faced with. I agree that I don't want to see the lawyers making such silly gobs of money.

[ 01-14-2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Attalus]

Yes, the situation is not analogous to tobacco, really, since they were, and are, marketing an addictive drug delivery system so unsafe that it results in thousands of deaths per year. Some drug companies, like American Home Products marketed drugs known to have side effects that they intentionally did not publicize, the infamous Pondamin (fenfluramine). They got what was coming to them.

[Timber Loftis]

Attalus, I agree it's not totally analogous. The ABA article compared the two based solely on: (1) amount of $$$$ involved, and (2) state officials vs. industry companies. Other than that, you are correct that there are very distinct differences.

Another law vs evil corporations and mad doctors.


No Help for Slobs
Some things the law can't do.
Aside from the Democrats predictably complaining that President Bush's tax cut proposal is too pro-rich, the big economic news this week is that doctors are on strike and McDonald's isn't making a dime.
It probably doesn't matter much to Gregory Rhymes that the world's largest restaurant company is posting its first-ever quarterly loss. Rhymes, 15, of the Bronx, just wants his money and is taking McDonald's to court, claiming that the beleaguered burger giant made him fat.
Super-sized at 400-plus pounds and standing only 5-foot-6, Rhymes says he ate at McDonald's nearly every day, sometimes several times a day, ever since he started first grade--about 3,300 days straight. “I normally order the Big Mac, fries, ice cream and a shake," Rhymes explained in his affidavit. "I like to Super Size my orders."
Gregory's mother, Ruth Rhymes, thinks it's only fair that her porky kid should now try sinking his teeth into the Golden Arches. "I had no idea that he was destroying his self," she said in papers filed in Manhattan federal court. "I had no idea."
No idea! Little Gregory just ran up to bed one night at a nice 90 pounds and--SHAZAM!!!--the next morning he came waddling down the steps looking like the Goodyear blimp.

Class Action?
Eight other fat kids in New York have piled on, along with their parents, claiming that McDonald's is out to deliberately destroy the well-being of a whole generation of children. Two of Rhymes' hefty co-plaintiffs are the Bradley sisters, Jazlyn, 19, and Shakima, 17, of Brooklyn, weighing in collectively at 485 pounds. Jazlyn told the New York Times that she starts her day with a Super-sized McMuffin and ends it with a Big Mac and apple pie. It's McDonald's fault, in short, that the days don't start in the Bradley house with a good bowl of Total and end with some roasted chicken and broccoli.
A third Bradley sister, Naisia, 13, has joined the suit, saying she often eats twice a day at McDonald's, both before school and during lunch breaks.
Another plump kid who has jumped on board is a Bronx teen who says he ate at McDonald's for every breakfast, lunch and dinner during the three years he was living in a homeless shelter.
The lawyer acting on behalf of these outsized teens is Samuel Hirsch. He says people are too dumb to know what's good for them and that McDonald's has an obligation to make known that their food is unhealthy.
"Nobody thinks that going to McDonald's can be unhealthy because McDonald's promotes their food as healthy," says Hirsch, painting us as a nation of morons. "Young people are not in a position to make a choice after the onslaught of advertising and promotions."
Short of halting all promotions or switching to a menu of broiled salmon, I'm not sure how McDonald's is supposed to fix things. One answer, I suppose, might be to get rid of those drive-through ordering machines and make people come inside to order. Like good bartenders, McDonald's order takers could be trained to keep a sharp eye out for people who look like they've had too much. When someone like Gregory Rhymes rolls in, or one of sizeable Bradley girls, they could be told, nicely, for their own good, "I'm sorry, but I think you've had enough."

Doctors

Just as it's unlikely that Gregory Rhymes cares too much about McDonald's operating in the red, I'd guess that Janice Taylor doesn't much worry about how skyrocketing malpractice premiums are driving doctors out of business.
Taylor, who stabbed her 4-year-old son, Zachary, two dozen times, is suing her obstetricians and psychiatrists for not sufficiently taming her psychosis. Prior to the attack, Taylor took an overdose of medicine and told neighbors that Zachary was the "Anti-Christ." The violence left the boy with two punctured lungs, scalp wounds and a severed jugular vein.

And she might win. A North Carolina man, Wendell Williamson, went on a rampage in North Carolina that killed two people and later pocketed $500,000 after successfully suing his psychiatrist for imperfect treatment.

None of this is meant to suggest that physicians don't make mistakes, like the doctor in Boston who suspended surgery and left his patient on the operating table for 35 minutes while he rushed off to deposit a paycheck before his bank closed, or that physicians shouldn't be held accountable when they practice bad medicine.

What doesn't work, however, is an overly-punitive system that expects a home run each time a doctor steps up to the plate. How many ballplayers would stick with the game if they were being sued for anything other than grand slams? Why would a doctor stick with the nuttiest of patients if he's going to be charged with malpractice when she stabs her son?

Bottom line, bad law isn't going to produce better meals or safer medicine.



Something needs to be done and that is a FACT.

[ 01-14-2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[WillowIX]

I think I´ll stay out of the tort discussion. Some notes only. Prices of medications are too high as stated in here. But medical research companies are not researching to save lives you know. They´re in it for the money. A very good example is AIDS and Africa. AZT was first developed in Germany I think. The drug is now in the hands of an American company. All people know that African nations tend to be poor and that AIDS is on the verge of wiping out the African population. Cheaper copies of AZT was rapidly starting to appear in Africa. And then what happened? Well some American drug companies startes to race for who will be first to stop this. Medicine that is VERY expensive here, suddenly appeared at a tenth of the cost. So the old "it´s sooo expensive to manufacter" reply was suddenly not useful anymore. But they were still losing money and, hey, what´s losing money compared to a couple of 40 million people dying every year.

Note: I believ African nations now have the right to manufacter their own copies of AIDS drugs at a much lower cost.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I think what you are refering to is common sense , Magik. That the law allows people to do the stupidest things and blame someone else is such total shite. Like the woman who sued because she got burned by hot coffee. If you are too stupid to realize the your coffee will be hot , well you almost deserve to get burned. Kind of like the people who ate too much junk and packed on the pounds.They cant have it both ways ya know. Either people are geneticaly predispositioned to be a certain size OR you eat too much and exercise too litte so you gain weight. I dont see how it can be both. Neither is bad , but you dont get paid for a genetic predispositon and no one wants to admit that they eat too much. I can go on and on about the people in the medical section of your post. Last time I checked mental illness had to be contolled and treated, in part, by the patient. Schizophrenia or depresion arent like haveing a broken arm. You cant just bandage them up and make it better. If the woman who stabbed her son didnt have her condition under control then she should have at least made an attempt at makeing her son safe. If she knew that her condition was uncontrolled enough for her to file a law suit , then she knew it was uncontrolled before she stabbed her son. Aside from the check cashing doctor, everything you posted about is the fault of the person trying to sue.The universe at large should not have to pay because people are stupid and do stupid things.

[ 01-14-2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]