Another reason why our Government is losing it

[RyanH 14]

Last week the senate passed a bill limiting the lawsuits on malpractice and auto accidents to $250k. For paltry and frivilous lawsuits, this is fine, but if you are dismembered or disabled, you can't even collect an amount equal to what your income would have been for the rest of your life had you remained in working condition.

Enter Government absurdity #2, and a complete contradiction...flash a deflated boob or expose a cheek on the telly, and BAM!!! $500k fine.

Which situation causes a greater loss?

Nuckin futs, I tell you what.

---And I keep putting an upper case G in Government because it has become a self-gratifying entity and has completely lost the reason for its existance. Give me a libertarian any day over a republican't or a democrap/democRAT..oh how I yearn for another Thomas Jefferson.

I'm done ranting. I just know that many people here, after running their own business and seeing how things really work, have a higher degree of common sense than anyone else I know...thought you'd be interested in those in whom we place our trust.

[Jon 533]

Ryan your totally wrong about the government losing it, they lost it long before you were born, all you're seeing now is the leftovers!

:lgjump: :lgbonk: :lgsideway :rant:

PS: I do agree big business is the government.

Do you remember when they broke up MA Bell since it was to big? well not they have a few bigger ones. Verizon/MCI just became bigger and MCI sucks big time. Today alone I have had 3 yes THREE junk calls from them but since we have distinctive ring we don't answer when the little box tells us who it is. We don't have them nor want them.

[Pams Pressure & Clean 64]

Give me a libertarian any day over a republican't or a democrap/democRAT..oh how I yearn for another Thomas Jefferson.

PREACH IT BROTHER !! PREACH ON !!!!

[PressurePros 248]

Ryan, please corect me if I'm wrong but I believe the 250k cap is on "non-economic" losses. Eg: A woman takes a certain medication and it causes her child to be born with birth defects. Supposedly this child would be taken care of medically, but the mother could only collect a limited amount on her emotional suffering.

One of the ramifications of this..

The pharmaceutical giants (whom have wayyyyy to much control over our government) get innoculated against class action lawsuits to an extent. Very bad... Now XYZ Pharma can slam, bam, thank you ma'am a new "wonder drug" through FDA, advertise it like crazy, and make billions. Then when the time comes that this new wonder drug is found to be liable for all kinds of suffering, they only have to give back a relatively small percentage of the profits. Sounds like a win situation in terms of profit.

Every day we are hearing about relatively benign drugs that have a list of side effects that sound worse than what we are trying to cure. Then ironically when a natural sleep aid like L-Trytophan is shown to work safely and effectively, the government pulls it off the shelf for decades because some small batch in Timbuktu was contaminated. Then I turn on the TV and every tenth commercial is for Zoloft, Nexxium, Altacor, or some other chemical panacea. Why are they advertising to me????? Aren't the doctors the ones whom went to medical school to determine what medication, if any, that I may need? "Yeah Doc, from what I have seen on TV I'm pretty certain I need the 'little purple pill' " If I was a doctor and a patient said something like that to me I'd probably respond with a rectal exam from hell.

Sorry Ryan, didn't mean to go off on a tangent here. The are many negative outcomes hiding under the guise of tort reform. Its a very tough and complex issue. It's going to benefit big corporate America, and as usual the individual is going to end up taking one for the team.

[RyanH 14]

Ken,

True, the cap is not absolute and does pretty much encompass just the economic loss. I have some conflicting issues whereas those losses are concerned...all operations are elective unless you are brought in on your deathbed and it's an emergency, in which case dead is dead anyway and atleast an operation may give you a higher chance. My real problem is lawsuits serve a dual purpose: one is to try to give something to the person or family who lost something due to negligence. The other is to act as a malpractice determinant. Basically, if you are operating you'd better make damn sure that you don't forget to plug in a crucial piece of medical equipment, use sterile, instruments, not to forget and leave a sponge or suture kit inside someone's abdomen, etc. It was a way to say "Hey, you effed up and we want to make sure it doesn't happen to someone else." Insurance companies needed to make sure that the doctors they represented were reputable...that's how they keep from losing money and it forces them to be a little more accountable and do better research on a doctor. The complaint was that insurance was getting to be sky high and doctors were leaving the profession. I disagree with the silly lawsuits, but dammit, if you go in to have bone in your right knee replaced and you wake up and they amputated the left leg, then I think retribution and assurance that it won't happen again is warranted. If that means losing a medical license, then so be it. I'm all for "survival of the fittest" and if you aren't responsible enough to assume the level of responsibility a doctor requires, then go to work for the crime lab doing forensic autopsies where you won't have a chance of doing any more damage! I'm just afraid that with this bill the restrictions are going to relax and we are going to see a higher percentage of incidents because the fear of a massive suit is no longer there. Another idea...if the insurance companies are going to be saving massive amounts of money now, are they going to reduce their costs to bring the doctors back? The idea is to keep more docs from leaving...do you think docs will then pass that savings onto the patients since insurance costs were the "reason" for elevated expenses to begin with? I doubt it. I'm a fan of corporate america and I have no problem with big business...I just don't like them dictating consumer rights.

And similar argument with medical drugs. Voluntary to take them and if they adversely affect you, well, it was your choice to take them. But if the manfs know that there is a serious threat to certain people and downplay that threat, or a doctor doesn't properly prescribe it, then the liability should fall on them. If your ability to make an informed decision is clouded by misrepresentation, then the liability falls on them.

whew!

[Bob Gates 14]

The solution is simple....Put a "Cap" on what lawyers can make and everything else will fall into it's proper place....Think about it....

B.G.

[Pams Pressure & Clean 64]

I wish I could take credit, but the best idea I have heard is actually very simple...

It would eliminate frivolous lawsuits virtually from the face of the planet, punish the beejeezus out of bad guys, and wouldn't cost a dime to implement.

LOSER PAYS...It's all the tort reform we really need.

Cujo

[Jon 533]

In a nutshell if i am right it means no more class action lawsuits. Big business wins this one since you cannot sue them as a group.

Also it was taken out of state courts and put into federal courts which are harder to win in.

Now this bit Bob said about lawyers, yes he has a very good point but here's the problem, most if not all politicians were lawyers.

I personally don't trust lawyers much, dentist are about equal with them.

Gad, as a landlord you have certain rights and laws to follow, as a tenant they also have certain rights and laws to follow.

If a tenant refuses to sign a rental agreement or lease you can refuse to rent to them. If there are major problems you are required to fix them in a timely manner.

If the tenant damages your property you can sue them in small claims court for the amount of damage plus what it cost to repair the damage as long as you hired a licensed contractor to do the work. Hire a non licensed handy man or do it yourself then your limited to cost of material only, no labor.

The tenant must inform you in writing about repairs needed and you have 30 days for most repairs to be made. Exceptions are made if it is life threating such as gas leaks, broken and exposed electrical wires or toilet that won't stop running or won't flush due to clogged lines. Now there is one exception to that toilet being clogged too, if the tenant flushes diapers or other things down it that are not suppose to be flushed you can charge the tenant plus you can give him the 3 day notice to quit and vacant the property. He broke his agreement by damaging the toilet, grounds to evict him or her.

At least here in California that is how the law works.