Well, it's done - Page 8

d-ray657 · #71 03-23-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

In general, I have no issues with that perspective, beyond it begging this, simple, metaphor: "Car crashes are good, they help us build safer cars."

Actually the logic there is incomplete. It should be:

Car crashes are bad.

Those who are injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another should be made whole in damages.

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

As a result of the injured person obtaining damages for his or her injury, people are more careful (make safer products, establish safer procedures etc.)

Therefore, the ability to recover damages for injuries in a car crash is good.

Regards,

D-Ray

d-ray657 · #72 03-23-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis.

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

I wouldn't jump on the ignore button too quickly. Noone often makes good points. I believe that he is feeling betrayed by the party right now, because it could have done better.

Like Noone, I am extremely disappointed in the goodies that the insurance companies received, and the effect of lobbying on the bill. It did not include repeal of the antitrust exemption, but the House has passed that measure separately. The senate has yet to consider it. It did not involve a government option, or preferably a single payer. I don't think single payer was a viable political option.

Overall, I will say I was glad it passed. If it had not passed, I very well doubt that any president would spend substantial political capital on health care reform for the foreseeable future. That's why I can live without single payer right now. If the President had overreached and sought a stillborn single payer plan, we would be in the situation discussed above - no reform at all. This has established a baseline, and it makes more improvements viable in the future.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles · #73 03-23-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis.

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

Noon's a pretty good guy...for a communist. And don't read too much into what I have to say...my momma dropped me on my head.

Chas

Zeke · #74 03-23-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Actually the logic there is incomplete. It should be:

Car crashes are bad.

Those who are injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another should be made whole in damages.

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

As a result of the injured person obtaining damages for his or her injury, people are more careful (make safer products, establish safer procedures etc.)

Therefore, the ability to recover damages for injuries in a car crash is good.

Regards,

D-Ray

The key there being, "injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another."

Metaphorically, if you smoke three packs a day and get lung cancer? You're at fault, not the tobacco company: even if they wanted (enticed?) you to smoke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Ray

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

You mean like, say, drivers? Or, the insurance companies of drivers -- the majority of whom were not in crashes -- who advocate increased premiums due to an ability by operators to recover damages incurred when one willingly takes on the inherent risk of driving?

I have a Master's in Public Affairs/Policy. I'm not going to take on an attorney in specific matters of law (losing battle), I'm a policy geek! I just believe we have to jump full nilly into government regulation and tort reform or stay 100% out of the way and let nature take its course.

Personally, I think the USA is better than to be ruled via social Darwinism. Making that so isn't Socialism, as some have claimed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Ray

I wouldn't jump on the ignore button too quickly. Noone often makes good points.

Your point is well founded and I acquiesce.

finnbow · #75 03-23-2010, 04:21 PM

I think a possible solution to the tort problem in this country is to have the losing party pay all legal expenses rather than have attorneys take on cases based on contingency fees. That would preclude silly "Hail Mary" lawsuits. This is how it is done in many European countries and I don't think they suffer the same runaway lawsuit problems we do.

noonereal · #76 03-23-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis.

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

My newbie friend, you may want to read my posts on this subject (there are many) instead of joining the party at the end and demanding that one tired dancer dance again because you arrived.

My guess is that if I had made just as brief a reply but in favor of this fiasco you would have no urge to run to the ignore button.

IMHO this bill is garbage, garbage.

If my frustration on this subject offends you, you will have a difficult time raising your post count here. After 9 posts if you need an ignore button you may want to consider that your problem may not be one long time exasperated poster.

noonereal · #77 03-23-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think a possible solution to the tort problem in this country is to have the losing party pay all legal expenses rather than have attorneys take on cases based on contingency fees. That would preclude silly "Hail Mary" lawsuits. This is how it is done in many European countries and I don't think they suffer the same runaway lawsuit problems we do.

I completely agree.