KSG_Standard Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The progressives (or whatever term you want to choose) in America do not want tort reform. Tort reform would eliminate or cut back on the letiginous society we have developed. The trial lawyers want to be able to sue for any reason at any time and they support the liberal/progressive/democrat politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The progressives (or whatever term you want to choose) in America do not want tort reform. Tort reform would eliminate or cut back on the letiginous society we have developed. The trial lawyers want to be able to sue for any reason at any time and they support the liberal/progressive/democrat politicians. Besides, the family practice and internal med physicians I do billing for charge around 80 dollars for an office visit/consultation. If there are tests or supplies used, those carry additional charges. Everyone *****es about these prices. But NOBODY *****es that the average lawyer charges 150 to 300 dollars per hour. TORT lawyers take around 40% or more of whatever they get "for the people." So, a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company gets 100 million for the people who have been harmed by a bad drug on the market. The lawyers take the LIONS share. The people may get a few hundred dollars a piece. Where's the Tort Reform to ensure that ALL people, poor or rich, can afford decent legal advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Dead on James. Why is it we are the only two people in the world who know this? Okay, maybe more, but this REALLY needs to change and I don't see it happening any time soon. Who do you fight lawyers with? Where's Attila the Hun when we need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Robot Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The progressives (or whatever term you want to choose) in America do not want tort reform. Tort reform would eliminate or cut back on the letiginous society we have developed. The trial lawyers want to be able to sue for any reason at any time and they support the liberal/progressive/democrat politicians. Interesting watching this debate from Oz. Our legal system is immitating yours and tort results are becoming more outrageous every day - we even have local governments shutting down sporting clubs and cancelling family days because they cant get liability insurance and are afraid of being sued. We had a staff party a few years ago, and one manager wanted every one who attended to sign a Disclaimer!! However, in Australia the people who defend this sort of legal action are not progressives or democrats. In fact they call themselves "Civil Libertarians". A lot of them are pretty non-political and seem to be more interested in blindly defending the scum and the vexatious litigants in our society - for PROFIT!! When it comes to tort law, I find that left and right wing tort lawyers are quietly having a chardonnay together while they plot the next financial windfall!! And Oh - I wouldnt be too quick to go to the defence of drug companies. They dont do drug research out of the goodness of their hearts and they have been known to 'bury' research results that show that their drugs have serious side effects and cause a lot of harm to people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 We (The US of A) are the reason for todays problems' date=' allowing our leadership to print more money than gold in Fort Knox, [b']we continue to lower taxes [/b]and the GVT gets further in the red. I STRONGLY disagree with you on this single issue. Lower taxes are a thing of the past now! I live within my means, only borrowing for a mortgage. I don't even own a credit card, my wife has only one. Our government needs to cut, slash, destroy, OBLITERATE spending now. Look at what we spend money on compared to 100 years ago. Very little of it can be defended. Everybody wants to live like they're rich here, even the poor, and few live within their means. Since when does anybody have the "right" to healthcare? Since when does anybody have the "right" to even retire and stop working at some arbitrary point in their life? Never saw that in the Bible, Constitution, or any other country in the world until we decided it must be. Cultures much older and stable than ours cared for their elderly themselves when they could not work - or weren't needed. If your kids kick you out at the old folks home and you have no money or ability to feed yourself, CHARITY should be picking up the tab. That's right - PRIVATELY FUNDED AND OPERATED CHARITY. Let the Liberals put THEIR f-ing money in it.... Government should pay war veterans for injuries legitimately sustained in service of the nation. (You hear me Kerry?) Government should pay for interstate infrastructure, and the defense of the nation. THAT'S IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Guitarest, I agree with much of what you said regarding shared responsibility for our current predicament. But lower taxes is NOT a part of the problem. Historically, every time the US has lowered tax rates, the revenue into the federal government has increased. The problem is that the government continues to grow, whether or not revenues are high or low. Lower taxes ALWAYS means more money in the pockets of consumers, so you get more spending on consumer goods, housing, cars and you get more people starting businesses and more hiring in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Maybe the fair tax would be a good idea... Get rid of the IRS and have a general tax on everything we buy.... I always thought that was a great idea, down size the government and eliminate all that paper work.... I'm just not sure what percentage the fair tax would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Dave, great OP. Well thought and logically stated. No flames, brother... I respect your intellect. In the USA we have "The Constitution". It pretty well defines what our Government is supposed to do and in some cases, not do. When they wrote this, they thought the States should maintain a certain level of autonomous control as well, in order to prevent an all-powerful central government... like the one they had just fought for independance from. So many things not specified within the US Constitution were anticipated to be handled by the States, or private citizenry. I don't think they felt healthcare was a federal issue, so it is probably not in there. In fact, I'll wager there is MUCH that our government is into that, really, isn't something that is outlined specifically within the Constitution. We keep letting them do it, too. ok... everyone repeat after me..... "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Does Spain allow assisted suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Does Spain allow assisted suicide? Why, are you up for one? I am sure KSG would volunteer to help you out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Does Spain allow assisted suicide? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The progressives (or whatever term you want to choose) in America do not want tort reform. Tort reform would eliminate or cut back on the letiginous society we have developed. The trial lawyers want to be able to sue for any reason at any time and they support the liberal/progressive/democrat politicians. My biggest issue with you is that your posts are full stereotypes. Everything to you is black and white and you paint with a very broad brush. Personally, I think it is disgusting what trial lawyers have done to corporate America. They have helped cripple the economy. The asbestos suits are a great example. The trial lawyers first went after the the big companies that produced products made from asbestos. When that well dried up, they went down the supply food chain--going after smaller and smaller business who either helped produce the products or touched them along the way. Most of those businesses are now gone. I am all for tort reform and I hope that it addressed sooner than later. I am embarrassed that the democratic party is so willing to take money from the plaintiffs' bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Guitarest, I agree with sharing the responsibility. But when it comes to Mcare you are only partially correct. Mcare decided what doctors can charge. Now, they can charge more, but that just means they are going to have to write off more. A doctor can not charge you more than what Mcare (the GOV) allows. If you do, you go to jail! Now, every year Mcare publishes a revised payment plan, called a "fee schedule." This dictates to the doctors what they can and can not charge. Almost every single insurance company grabs this schedule and falls in line with Mcare. If Mcare reduces a payment by 10% to a doctor for a certain procedure, so do they. If your daughter was charged a bigger fee than normal for a procedure, I'd question that doctor about it. Because it may not be legal or was done in error. Doctors are not out to screw people. BTW, when MCARE offers down its word from on high, they also add to that what the "patient portion" is. Meaning, if they are only going to pay 500.00 for the procedure your daughter got, Mcare says that you owe about 20% of the 500.00 in most cases, not the 1000.00 or so that you were charged. So your out of pocket would be 100.00. If a doctor charges you more out of pocket, it may be in error and can be easily fixed. Also, talk to any doctor and they will tell you that MCare may pay "most" claims on time (15 days after submission) but a great deal require a big struggle to collect. There is a lot of jumping through hoops when it comes to doctors getting paid "correctly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I am all for tort reform and I hope that it addressed sooner than later. I am embarrassed that the democratic party is so willing to take money from the plaintiffs' bar. Bluemoon, you and I finally agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Maybe the fair tax would be a good idea... Get rid of the IRS and have a general tax on everything we buy.... I always thought that was a great idea' date=' down size the government and eliminate all that paper work.... I'm just not sure what percentage the fair tax would be. [/quote']Bravo!!! It was about 23% when proposed by Linder and Boortz. That was before the "stimulus" was created to "help" us. Still, the percentage wouldn't need to move more than a few tenths. A much smaller IRS would still be in business, as bean counters. Beautiful, elegant in its simplicity. You want transparency in government spending? There it is Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matiac Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Ok' date=' I need to make a comment but before I do I want to clarify that I am an American, I love America and will always think of the good old USA as my home and I will defend it to the end. Some people may want to flame me any way after this post but here goes... Socialism... is just a word. Many most of you have never experienced it or know how it actually works. When I moved to Spain in 1993 there was a Socialist government in power and the President was Felipe González. He had been in power many years, I think 12 or so.... Guess what, things here were pretty much the same as in the USA. I couldn't tell the difference, people worked, took vacations, went out and partied (lots of that), worked hard and played hard. The people who worked harder or maybe were smarter or more clever had more and enjoyed life more. The people less fortunate are able to take advantage of the government programs available to everyone. Ok, some people born into a wealthy family or with the right connections may have it easier but no one is held back who wants to push ahead... Then in 1996 the Spanish people voted José María Aznar as president, a Capitalist and guess what.... Nothing changed, people worked, took vacations, went out and partied (lots of that), worked hard and played hard. The Politicians changed, the label of the government changed but everything stayed more or less as it was... The people VOTED the Socialist out of power and brought in the Capitalist party. With 12 or so years in power the new government found lots of corruption in the old regime which brought a good house cleaning and things seemed better than ever. President Aznar did some great things in his two terms as President, two four years terms just like in the USA. The people were very content with him and his party the PP (Popular Party which = Capitalist Party) and was sure to be voted in again even though Aznard felt two terms were enough and wasn't running for a third term. Then March 11, 2004 happened. The Spanish equivalent to 9/11. Just two weeks before the Spanish elections terrorists set off a series of bombs in the metro system in Madrid, 191 people were killed. This act was just enough to tip the scales back to the socialist party because of president Aznards strong alliance with President Bush and his sending troops to the middle east. The Spanish people felt targeted by the terrorist for that reason and voted in the Socialist candidate who promised to pull the Spanish troops out of the Middle East. The Spanish people VOTED in once again the Socialist government and guess what.... nothing changed, people worked, took vacations, went out and partied (lots of that), worked hard and played hard. Socialism is Democratic. It's not even close to Communism... Health care, Spain has social heath care for its people. So what does that mean? If you need to go to the hospital there is no cost, no cost... Some will say, oh yeah that's great if you want to wait six months or be told no to some kind of needed heath care. Not true. If you have an emergency you go to the front of the line. if you have something, not life threatening you will have to wait your turn, could be a couple weeks or could be a couple months depending what it is and how urgent it is. But wait, you can also have private health insurance so if you choose not to use the social medicine you can go to a private hospital and get what you need with no waiting and a private room if you want. Because there is the social medicine available to the people as an alternative the private heath insurance is much more affordable. Many businesses offer private health insurance to their workers and many people buy their own heath insurance but it is not necessary... The social medicine care is very good, the doctors are good, not second rate by any means. i was on my Harley one day and a stupid girl talking on a cell phone ran a red light and hit me. I was taken to the hospital in an ambulance they did X-rays, treated me, gave me medication and sent me home... No charge. I have had family and friends visit me here and a couple of times I had to take some one to the hospital emergency room. They were looked at, treated, medicated and sent home... They never had to fill out any forms or sign anything. Social medicine can work but it needs to be complemented buy an affordable private insurance and the frivolous lawsuits in the USA must come to an end. The main reason heath care is so expensive is because of what doctors have to spend on medical insurance... Once again, I am American, I love the USA but some times you need a bit of distance and outside experience to see things clearer... Ok, let the flames begin.....[/quote'] No flame here Dave, I agree 100%. I'm currently on State sponsored health insurance, which because of my financial situation, is free. I believe the cap in R.I. is 36000 dollars a year, if you're over the cap, and still want the state insurance, it's 650 dollars a MONTH! Actually, I should say State FUNDED, but now Rhode Islands on the verge of bankruptrcy, Their making a lot of cuts across the board, I may have no health insurance next month, but I do agree with you, kinda like the song, "...meet the new boss, same as the old boss...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Bravo!!! Beautiful' date=' elegant in its simplicity. You want transparency in government spending? There it is Obama![/quote'] The elegant simplicity is why it's doomed. The POLs don't understand simplicity and they don't want simplicity because it takes away their power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I am in favor of tort reform so far as it isn't related to punitive damage amounts. That is to say the ethical determination of the suit should be considered and a standard should be met to meet basic qualifications. My reason for this is that if a punitive cap is created it allows corporations to do cost analysis as to determine weather they repair or fix the situation that caused the initiation of the suit. For example a corporation who manufactures medical equipment is sued due to a software problem which causes 1 in 500 people to be misdiagnosed. The corporation determines via cost analysis and given a cap on punitive damages that they are willing to pay the suits rather then fix the problem. This could lead to a lower standard of health care. If the limit on punitive damages doesn't exist the corporation is more likely to fix the problem. This is due the the fear factor of losing a major suit. The over all health care is better supported. Reformation could be established via an ethical review of the so called "frivolous" law suit. If a suit is determined to be of this type damages could be awarded to the defendant, thus eliminating the "frivolous" suit. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I think people will continue to file frivolous lawsuits in hope of a payday. Who's gonna do the "ethical review" and make a decision? That mechanism is already in place, and does not work. Fine the hell out of big corporations if you want, that's fine, but DO NOT give lottery-sized settlements to individuals. Class Action suits are even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I think people will continue to file frivolous lawsuits in hope of a payday. Who's gonna do the "ethical review" and make a decision? That mechanism is already in place' date=' and does not work. Fine the hell out of big corporations if you want, that's fine, but DO NOT give lottery-sized settlements to individuals. Class Action suits are even worse.[/quote'] You have to go to the source of the problem which are the trial lawyers. In the end, it is the lawyers that profit the most from these suits. You have to find a way to take away their incentive to encourage and file these suits. You also have to cap punitive damages. Class action suits are a joke. Those who are allegedly harmed get a coupon...the lawyers who filed the the suit end up multi-millionaires. Few of these class action suits go to trial. Corporations understand that it is cheaper to settle than fight--which only encourages more suits. Corporations also know that juries in these types of trials more often than not find in favor of the plaintiff. The legal system also need to put an end to jurisdiction shopping. There are a number of jurisdictions in Texas and Illinois that are very plaintiff-friendly and are where most of the class-actions are filed. I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that all your need is one person from the class to live in one of those jurisdictions to be able to file it that jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 You're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoyt Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Bravo!!! It was about 23% when proposed by Linder and Boortz. That was before the "stimulus" was created to "help" us. Still' date=' the percentage wouldn't need to move more than a few tenths. A much smaller IRS would still be in business, as bean counters. Beautiful, elegant in its simplicity. You want transparency in government spending? There it is Obama![/quote'] Boortz and Linder are wrong in their calculation. Besides, Boortz is one of the biggest racists and bashers of the poor in this country (the SOB wrote speeches for Lester Maddox, Georgia's last openly segregationist Gubnor). As to "malpractice" insurance, the average doc pays between 5 and 10% of his gross revenue toward premiums. If we wiped out liability suits all together, it wouldn't make a measurable difference in health care costs. According to the AMA, over half the physicians are ready for major health insurance reform. And according the the AHA, 70% or more of hospitals are for it. A physician who sees nothing but Medicare patients can make a very decent living if he works hard. It's a tough job, but also rewarding in a number of ways. The original poster is right in a number of respects as far as I am concerned. The sooner right wingers start looking at our country as a "society" where we all have responsibility for each other, the better we will be. Spain is a good example. Just because they are not in the habit of bombing the heck out of innocent people, threatening the world and trying to rip everyone off financially, does not make them "dirty" commies or socialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 ...The sooner right wingers start looking at our country as a "society" where we all have responsibility for each other' date=' the better we will be.[/quote'] It takes a village... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 It is evident that AXE has discovered some of the finer traditions in Spain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.