States vs. BigDrug Co's - Tobacco All Over Again - Page 3

ElricMorlockin · 01-14-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted 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.

Heya Magik I thought I recognized the name, good to see ya man!

Thanks for the intro's much appreciated!
Timber! Dont listen to Magik, its an "evil" rumor! I have only gone to the throat on three people to date! [img]graemlins/fight.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Timber Loftis · 01-16-2003, 12:36 PM

Yet more CRAP from Bush on Tort Reform - targeted at Medical Malpractice.

TL's Intro:
Now, check back up a few posts to MY suggested Tort Reform model, and tell me if it doesn't make more sense than this tripe - which is limiting how much money we can hit a wrongdoer for. Simple: rather than allow the wrongdoer to get away with murder (pun), we should still allow juries to hit him hard - but then NOT give all the unfair windfall to the plaintiff. Shit, we could simply use the excess to reduce the general tax burden.

Anywho, check it out:

1/16/03 NYTimes:
Bush Renews Effort to Limit Medical Liability
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:59 a.m. ET

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) -- President Bush is pushing once again for his solution to high malpractice insurance costs: a nationwide limit on the amount injured patients can win from doctors.

In the 18th trip he has made to politically important Pennsylvania since his inauguration, Bush was poised to call on Congress to deliver on medical malpractice reform.

The president, in remarks at the University of Scranton in northeastern Pennsylvania, planned to argue Thursday that lawsuits are behind soaring health care costs and doctor shortages and that limiting jury awards in medical malpractice suits is the way to solve the problem.

Bush also was to meet with doctors and officials at Scranton's Mercy Hospital.

``We are in a medical liability crisis,'' White House deputy press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Any proposal for tort reform -- a Republican priority -- cranks up fierce lobbying. Democrats, backed by trial lawyers, were aggressively promoting their views more than a day ahead. Interest groups planned protests. And Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov.-elect Ed Rendell scheduled a news conference shortly after Bush's appearance.

During last year's campaign season, Bush frequently raised the issue as one he could solve if voters handed him a completely Republican-controlled Congress, which they did.

Bush could also wield the issue in any 2004 run against Sen. John Edwards, a hopeful for the Democratic presidential nomination and a lawyer who made millions trying personal injury lawsuits before he was elected to the Senate. Bush made his last major speech on the matter in Edwards' home state of North Carolina.

Physicians, especially in high-risk specialties, complain that skyrocketing insurance rates are driving them to close or scale back their practices. That leaves patients confronting doctor shortages or rising health care costs in many communities.

In New Jersey, doctors are planning a partial work stoppage next month to protest soaring malpractice premiums. Surgeons at several West Virginia hospitals walked off the job in protest Jan. 1, but most have returned as a reform bill moves through the state legislature.

In Pennsylvania, scores of hospitals earlier this month narrowly dodged a mass walkout by doctors protesting high insurance costs, which more than doubled last year to as high as $200,000 for some physicians.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said at least seven insurance companies have stopped offering medical liability insurance in Pennsylvania in the last four years because of soaring premiums.

Dozens of doctors in Scranton were among those threatening to strike. The 200-bed Mercy Hospital that Bush was visiting cut back on scheduled operations for January in anticipation of the walkout.

Rendell proposed a one-year insurance-rate break to ease the situation.

In arguing for a nationwide cap, Bush argues that states' failure to adopt liability limits on their own is damaging the nation's health care system and costing the federal government billions in higher health costs.

Bush-backed legislation was approved in the House last year but was never brought for a vote in the then-Democratic-led Senate.

That measure would not cap damages for actual financial losses such as wages and medical expenses. But it would have superseded state laws -- such as Pennsylvania's ban on capping malpractice awards -- to limit noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering to $250,000, and punitive damages to twice actual losses, up to a cap of $250,000. Patients' ability to file lawsuits over old cases would be limited and lawyers' fees curtailed.

Democrats retort that large jury awards are not the issue. They say the insurance industry is to blame for increasing premiums beyond many doctors' reach. They also believe Americans' ability to hold physicians legally accountable is crucial to quality health care.

``These proposed changes in law would deprive seriously injured patients of fair compensation and do nothing to guarantee that doctors could obtain malpractice insurance at a fair price,'' said a letter sent to Bush Wednesday by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and three other Democratic senators -- including Edwards. ``At every stage of the legal process, the administration's plan systematically rewrites the rules of civil law to tip the balance against patients.''

homer · 01-16-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

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."

This may be a little [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] but I think this is a hilarious statement. [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

homer · 01-16-2003, 01:28 PM

I realize that there are doctor’s who will read this and may find it insulting, I apologize if this is so.

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:

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.[/QB]

In response to this I have only this to say: I believe that when someone becomes a doctor they have to take a particular oath. Somewhere in that oath, I believe it says something about, “doing no harm.” By refusing to treat someone, regardless of the reason, these doctors are, in effect, causing harm.

I know it is a little idealistic to believe that every doctor entered the profession because they wanted to help others, as opposed to just making a lot of money.

01-16-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by homer:
I realize that there are doctor’s who will read this and may find it insulting, I apologize if this is so.

quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:

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.

In response to this I have only this to say: I believe that when someone becomes a doctor they have to take a particular oath. Somewhere in that oath, I believe it says something about, “doing no harm.” By refusing to treat someone, regardless of the reason, these doctors are, in effect, causing harm.

I know it is a little idealistic to believe that every doctor entered the profession because they wanted to help others, as opposed to just making a lot of money.[/QB][/QUOTE]Which would do more harm? All doctors loosing the legal ability to practice at all? or some doctors protesting to get things fixed? A doctor is not expected (or should not be) to be perfect, and medicine is not a perfect science, a doctor also needs to know that if he is reasonably copetent and does his best that he is not risking, his families well being. The abuses of medical malpractice lawyers is to the point where it will be impossible for doctors to continue to be doctors.

Timber.... Might the republican proposition be a extreme one so as to be able to come down from there to a more fair position during the negotiations with the Dems? It would make sense to me....but hey polticians don't really make sense now do they?

Timber Loftis · 01-16-2003, 03:40 PM

MagiK - I think your point on the extreme political posturing is right on. I still think it will come down to a "How much do we limit recovery" issue rather than something more sensible - such as I have proposed.

Again, a wrongdoer should be punished. Not only should a surgeon/ srugical team which sews up a bandage inside someone pay for doing that wrong (especially since they collected so much money while doing the wrong), but moreover Egregious actions and repeated and/or willful wrongdoing should be punished with really f-ing high punitive damage awards to ensure the wrong will NOT occur again - or at least provide incentive thereto. The problem is that the PLAINTIFF gets the windfall. Again, simply shuffle punitive damage awards to the general social funds rather than plaintiffs (and of course don't let atty's take a % thereof) and - BINGO - you've made people culpable for their wrongs without encouraging silly litigation.

BTW, did you know that in EACH AND EVERY STATE such awards are already very limited by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations (time-bar to your claim) is shorter for MedMal in almost every state than any other type of personal injury action. When studying for the Bar Exam the folks explaining the reasoning behind this (as it was yet more for us to memorize) said it was quite simple: strong lobbying.

Oh, and also, damages for Emotional Distress are limited in MedMal as well in most states.

In short, I'm saying Dr's have already been busy for years ensuring that they ante up less for their wrongs than other tortfeasors. And, the whole while it's been the same poor-mouth song-and-dance.

Again, I'm not attacking Dr's - but I do insist on a level playing field for all.

ElricMorlockin · 01-21-2003, 11:09 AM

WOW! Talking about a busy forum! A couple days and this one was buried like an Alabama tick! [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

OK TL, here is my biggest complaint about this whole mess (other than what I have outlined before). The legal profession is on the "cutting edge" of pressuring for legislation, which equals regulation, on just about every industry under the sun except their own. In fact yet another class action lawsuit was one against the distributors of CD's yesterday for price fixing etc.
IF the legal profession can "champion" the cause for "price fixing" in every other industry, why not their own? If its good for the goose it should be good for the gander right?

Timber Loftis · 01-21-2003, 01:01 PM

I assure you, Elric that most all congressmen would love to stick it lawyers when the can - especially since it plays so well to constituents. And, if any US or State's attorney in the country could show a bunch of big law companies got together in Oligopoly-style and price-fixed the market they would LOVE to.

But, at present legal fees are set by the free market. And, with over 500 firms nationwide representing the bulk of the work, there is no collusion that goes on with the 4-5 biggest record labels. Legal work is rarely national, always at least somewhat local, always dog-eat-dog, and I don't really ever see one firm or one group of firms being able to price-fix.

Plus, what you don't realize is that there are VERY strict rules in EVERY state governing attorney conduct. Our whole history is an open book, and an overt lie can cost us our license. Hell, basic incometence can cost us our license. The only profession in the country that is as tightly-controlled is that of Doctors and some other health professionals. And, I think we can all agree that while the law is very important, health and safety is higher ranking on the list.

All that said, maybe now you understand why a lawyer costs so much. In this day and age you need $5K at stake to really bother with a lawyer. Not because lawyers cost so much, but because the worth of any lesser amount is not worth society's investment of court/judge/lawyer/clerk resources. These market forces have created an attorney's fee structure that ranges from $90/hr (rural areas such as VT) to $175/hr (about my current rate at a good firm doing litigation or hihg-end environmental work) to $300+ an hour (for really well connected 20yr attorneys). This money is taken seriously. There are EXTREME constraints on my time. If I work for 1 hr on something, the client won't pay if it's not worth a good deal more than my $175. And, when the client doesn't pay, I have little recourse other than to quit working for them.

Plus, I'm worth it. Hell, look at all I've taught you in under 10 minutes.

01-21-2003, 01:05 PM

Well Timber I don't know, all Ican say is that you taughtme that not all lawyers are scum [img]smile.gif[/img] So when it comes time to kill all the lawyers, I'll stand up for ya

Timber Loftis · 01-21-2003, 01:11 PM

Might I retain you as back-up counsel MagiK???

01-16-2003, 12:36 PM	#22
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Yet more CRAP from Bush on Tort Reform - targeted at Medical Malpractice. TL's Intro: Now, check back up a few posts to MY suggested Tort Reform model, and tell me if it doesn't make more sense than this tripe - which is limiting how much money we can hit a wrongdoer for. Simple: rather than allow the wrongdoer to get away with murder (pun), we should still allow juries to hit him hard - but then NOT give all the unfair windfall to the plaintiff. Shit, we could simply use the excess to reduce the general tax burden. Anywho, check it out: 1/16/03 NYTimes: Bush Renews Effort to Limit Medical Liability By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 10:59 a.m. ET SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) -- President Bush is pushing once again for his solution to high malpractice insurance costs: a nationwide limit on the amount injured patients can win from doctors. In the 18th trip he has made to politically important Pennsylvania since his inauguration, Bush was poised to call on Congress to deliver on medical malpractice reform. The president, in remarks at the University of Scranton in northeastern Pennsylvania, planned to argue Thursday that lawsuits are behind soaring health care costs and doctor shortages and that limiting jury awards in medical malpractice suits is the way to solve the problem. Bush also was to meet with doctors and officials at Scranton's Mercy Hospital. ``We are in a medical liability crisis,'' White House deputy press secretary Scott McClellan said. Any proposal for tort reform -- a Republican priority -- cranks up fierce lobbying. Democrats, backed by trial lawyers, were aggressively promoting their views more than a day ahead. Interest groups planned protests. And Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov.-elect Ed Rendell scheduled a news conference shortly after Bush's appearance. During last year's campaign season, Bush frequently raised the issue as one he could solve if voters handed him a completely Republican-controlled Congress, which they did. Bush could also wield the issue in any 2004 run against Sen. John Edwards, a hopeful for the Democratic presidential nomination and a lawyer who made millions trying personal injury lawsuits before he was elected to the Senate. Bush made his last major speech on the matter in Edwards' home state of North Carolina. Physicians, especially in high-risk specialties, complain that skyrocketing insurance rates are driving them to close or scale back their practices. That leaves patients confronting doctor shortages or rising health care costs in many communities. In New Jersey, doctors are planning a partial work stoppage next month to protest soaring malpractice premiums. Surgeons at several West Virginia hospitals walked off the job in protest Jan. 1, but most have returned as a reform bill moves through the state legislature. In Pennsylvania, scores of hospitals earlier this month narrowly dodged a mass walkout by doctors protesting high insurance costs, which more than doubled last year to as high as $200,000 for some physicians. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said at least seven insurance companies have stopped offering medical liability insurance in Pennsylvania in the last four years because of soaring premiums. Dozens of doctors in Scranton were among those threatening to strike. The 200-bed Mercy Hospital that Bush was visiting cut back on scheduled operations for January in anticipation of the walkout. Rendell proposed a one-year insurance-rate break to ease the situation. In arguing for a nationwide cap, Bush argues that states' failure to adopt liability limits on their own is damaging the nation's health care system and costing the federal government billions in higher health costs. Bush-backed legislation was approved in the House last year but was never brought for a vote in the then-Democratic-led Senate. That measure would not cap damages for actual financial losses such as wages and medical expenses. But it would have superseded state laws -- such as Pennsylvania's ban on capping malpractice awards -- to limit noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering to $250,000, and punitive damages to twice actual losses, up to a cap of $250,000. Patients' ability to file lawsuits over old cases would be limited and lawyers' fees curtailed. Democrats retort that large jury awards are not the issue. They say the insurance industry is to blame for increasing premiums beyond many doctors' reach. They also believe Americans' ability to hold physicians legally accountable is crucial to quality health care. ``These proposed changes in law would deprive seriously injured patients of fair compensation and do nothing to guarantee that doctors could obtain malpractice insurance at a fair price,'' said a letter sent to Bush Wednesday by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and three other Democratic senators -- including Edwards. ``At every stage of the legal process, the administration's plan systematically rewrites the rules of civil law to tip the balance against patients.'' __________________

01-16-2003, 03:40 PM	#26
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	MagiK - I think your point on the extreme political posturing is right on. I still think it will come down to a "How much do we limit recovery" issue rather than something more sensible - such as I have proposed. Again, a wrongdoer should be punished. Not only should a surgeon/ srugical team which sews up a bandage inside someone pay for doing that wrong (especially since they collected so much money while doing the wrong), but moreover Egregious actions and repeated and/or willful wrongdoing should be punished with really f-ing high punitive damage awards to ensure the wrong will NOT occur again - or at least provide incentive thereto. The problem is that the PLAINTIFF gets the windfall. Again, simply shuffle punitive damage awards to the general social funds rather than plaintiffs (and of course don't let atty's take a % thereof) and - BINGO - you've made people culpable for their wrongs without encouraging silly litigation. BTW, did you know that in EACH AND EVERY STATE such awards are already very limited by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations (time-bar to your claim) is shorter for MedMal in almost every state than any other type of personal injury action. When studying for the Bar Exam the folks explaining the reasoning behind this (as it was yet more for us to memorize) said it was quite simple: strong lobbying. Oh, and also, damages for Emotional Distress are limited in MedMal as well in most states. In short, I'm saying Dr's have already been busy for years ensuring that they ante up less for their wrongs than other tortfeasors. And, the whole while it's been the same poor-mouth song-and-dance. Again, I'm not attacking Dr's - but I do insist on a level playing field for all. __________________

01-21-2003, 01:01 PM	#28
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	I assure you, Elric that most all congressmen would love to stick it lawyers when the can - especially since it plays so well to constituents. And, if any US or State's attorney in the country could show a bunch of big law companies got together in Oligopoly-style and price-fixed the market they would LOVE to. But, at present legal fees are set by the free market. And, with over 500 firms nationwide representing the bulk of the work, there is no collusion that goes on with the 4-5 biggest record labels. Legal work is rarely national, always at least somewhat local, always dog-eat-dog, and I don't really ever see one firm or one group of firms being able to price-fix. Plus, what you don't realize is that there are VERY strict rules in EVERY state governing attorney conduct. Our whole history is an open book, and an overt lie can cost us our license. Hell, basic incometence can cost us our license. The only profession in the country that is as tightly-controlled is that of Doctors and some other health professionals. And, I think we can all agree that while the law is very important, health and safety is higher ranking on the list. All that said, maybe now you understand why a lawyer costs so much. In this day and age you need $5K at stake to really bother with a lawyer. Not because lawyers cost so much, but because the worth of any lesser amount is not worth society's investment of court/judge/lawyer/clerk resources. These market forces have created an attorney's fee structure that ranges from $90/hr (rural areas such as VT) to $175/hr (about my current rate at a good firm doing litigation or hihg-end environmental work) to $300+ an hour (for really well connected 20yr attorneys). This money is taken seriously. There are EXTREME constraints on my time. If I work for 1 hr on something, the client won't pay if it's not worth a good deal more than my $175. And, when the client doesn't pay, I have little recourse other than to quit working for them. Plus, I'm worth it. Hell, look at all I've taught you in under 10 minutes. __________________

01-21-2003, 01:11 PM	#30
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Might I retain you as back-up counsel MagiK??? __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Man spits tobacco juice on Jane Fonda	VulcanRider	General Discussion	34	04-30-2005 08:59 PM
$400bn tobacco trial of the century	wellard	General Discussion	10	09-22-2004 07:20 AM
Who's responsible for tobacco-related deaths?	Cerek the Barbaric	General Discussion	30	01-25-2004 03:42 AM
Want to use tobacco in public in NY?	Arvon	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	05-21-2003 06:44 PM
US Co's pay millions for Improving Chinese Rockets	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	6	03-06-2003 04:19 PM

01-21-2003, 11:09 AM	#27
ElricMorlockin The Magister Join Date: January 2, 2003 Location: USA Age: 55 Posts: 100	WOW! Talking about a busy forum! A couple days and this one was buried like an Alabama tick! [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] OK TL, here is my biggest complaint about this whole mess (other than what I have outlined before). The legal profession is on the "cutting edge" of pressuring for legislation, which equals regulation, on just about every industry under the sun except their own. In fact yet another class action lawsuit was one against the distributors of CD's yesterday for price fixing etc. IF the legal profession can "champion" the cause for "price fixing" in every other industry, why not their own? If its good for the goose it should be good for the gander right?

01-21-2003, 01:05 PM	#29
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Well Timber I don't know, all Ican say is that you taughtme that not all lawyers are scum [img]smile.gif[/img] So when it comes time to kill all the lawyers, I'll stand up for ya

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)