In some ways it is good that the Kerry administration didn't have to
clean up after Bush, but this just means 4 more years of increasing
debt and a bigger mess for another Republican (if elected in 2008) to
make bigger. If we get a Democrat in office in 2008 (hopefully), he
(or she) will have to face an even bigger fiscal mess - I don't wish
the aftermath of Bush on anyone, really. I guess I'm having a hard
time seeing that glass half full on this one...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:48:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Karen
Conneely wrote:
> The problem is, of course, that it's hard to reduce the incentive for
> frivolous lawsuits without also reducing the incentive for companies to
> avoid taking risks that could harm consumers. I do like the jail term
> idea for the really guilty. We could still allow large fines as punitive
> measures but require them to be donated to...I don't know - charities?
> Paying down the national debt? It seems like you might still want to have
> fines as a way of punishing the corporation and not just the CEO. I also
> wish there was a way to compensate people who have been really harmed
> without also attracting the greedy - ideas?
>
> Oh, and here's a potential "good thing" about the Republicans being in
> power: http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/
>
> Basically it's that now they have to clean up their own fiscal mess instead
> of having someone else do it for them. Kind of the opposite of what you
> meant, I know... :)
>
>
>
> >
> > What about this: place a low cap on monetary value for lawsuits. So you can
> > sue someone if they wrong you, but the most you can get is a few tens of
> > thousands, not millions- especially for "emotional damage" or something
else
> > that's not an actual cost you incur. That way the lawyers fees, a % of the
> > settlement, get smaller and there's less incentive for lawyers to go out
and
> > find cases just so they can get rich.
> >
> > But simultaneously, you replace the high punitive damages with criminal
> > charges. If a doctor was going to get sued for $10M for doing something
that
> > egregiously incorrect, instead remove his license to practice for 10 years.
> > Or forever. Or put him in jail. So people who really got hurt and have a
real
> > case can really put away the people who did wrong. Since more than the
money,
> > it's most important to prevent the negligence from happening again.
> >
> > Instead of fining corporations hundreds of millions of dollars for letting
> > someone get hurt, put the CEOs and bean counters personally in jail for 20
> > years. That seems more just to me anyway, and better for society overall.
> >
> > You'd need to set the settlement levels appropriately high such that there
> > were still people willing to become lawyers and do a good job, but
> > appropriately low so we didn't have the huge "get rich quick" mentality
that
> > we often get today.
> >
> > I think having juries or panels of doctors to decide what's reasonable is
> > essential- yes they'll defend each other- but they're simultaneously the
only
> > ones who can really tell what's reasonable or not. And there are lots of
good
> > doctors out there who would want to do the right thing. Maybe if there were
a
> > double blind or other system of anonymity so that doctors who told the
truth
> > couldn't get later ostracized by their colleagues for having done so. Hmm.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Karen Conneely wrote:
> >
> >> That seems like a good idea, if they could make it work. I have heard
> >> that people are increasingly likely to sue for anything that goes wrong
> >> during a medical procedure, preventable or not - especially when it comes
> >> to obstetrics. This is definitely a disturbing trend in our society;
> >> ironically it's at least partially brought on by how good things are and
> >> how high expectations are as a result. This wouldn't have happened 100
> >> years ago because nobody expected to be cured when they went to the doctor
> >> (and rightly so!) I know the cost of malpractice insurance and the
> >> threat of lawsuits are things that hang over the heads of most doctors.
> >> But there does need to be some sort of consequence for serious cases of
> >> malpractice. Medical grand juries that could not only decide whether
> >> the lawsuit was frivolous but also advise as to appropriate damages would
> >> be ideal, as long as they could be impartial. Do you guys think this is
> >> feasible?
> >>
> >> I have to admit I'm a little bit cynical because of my friend's story;
> >> apparently one of the other doctors took him aside and told him yes, you
> >> almost died because your surgeon was drunk and messed up, and
> >> no, you'll never get me or anyone else to testify to this. I can see how
> >> the possibility of frivolous lawsuits would cause doctors to band together
> >> and protect each other, but it's ironic that this would cause them to
> >> refuse to snitch on a colleague who really did something terrible; doubly
> >> ironic that this unwillingness to police each other is (I think) the
> >> reason why they all get policed to this extent. A vicious cycle. Maybe
> >> Danny can put this into a game theory framework...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Lisa Hsu wrote:
> >>
> >>> i once read an article positing that it might be a good idea to have
> >>> these like....medical grand juries to decide whether a suit should go
> >>> through. like grab a bunch of doctors to sit on the medical grand
> >>> jury, and they can decide whether the suit is frivolous. a lot of
> >>> suits currently happen just because the patient didn't come out as
> >>> good as new, which is actually impossible to achieve 100% of the time
> >>> no matter how good the doctor is. so a jury of doctors can determine
> >>> whether the doctor in question was negligent or not. what do you guys
> >>> think? i thought it sounded pretty interesting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:44:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Karen
> >>> Conneely wrote:
> >>>> Yeah, but it's a slippery slope - how do you differentiate the
> >>>> frivolous
> >>>> lawsuits from the very justified ones? Knowing that 1) there are
> >>>> companies
> >>>> out there that hire actuaries to calculate the risk of death
> >>>> associated
> >>>> with a defective product and to do cost-benefit analyses that figure
> >>>> in
> >>>> the cost of lawsuits and settlements, and _then_ decide whether or not
> >>>> to
> >>>> recall the product, and 2) in addition to all the caring doctors out
> >>>> there
> >>>> who just want to do good, there are doctors who take a cavalier
> >>>> attitude
> >>>> towards their patients (one of my friends nearly died because the
> >>>> surgeon
> >>>> who did his appendectomy was drunk) - well, knowing these things makes
> >>>> me
> >>>> want to set the caps on damages paid even higher rather than reducing
> >>>> them. If they can really find a way to weed out the frivolous ones
> >>>> that
> >>>> won't hurt the people who actually have just cause to sue, fine. But
> >>>> I'd
> >>>> much rather see McDonalds get sued once in awhile for something stupid
> >>>> than to see people being hurt and killed because the monetary
> >>>> incentive to
> >>>> prevent it wasn't high enough.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Dave morris wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't know, this list sounds a little too right wing for me. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's a challenge- what are the good things that will come out of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Republicans owning the government for four years? Anyone can come up
> >>>>> with a
> >>>>> litany of bad things, I challenge people to list the pros as well.
> >>>>> I'll
> >>>>> start:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An actual chance of litigation reform for the medical and possibly
> >>>>> other
> >>>>> industries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure- it will largely benefit big businesses and the rich at first
> >>>>> because
> >>>>> those are the lawsuits they'll target, but I do agree that
> >>>>> litigation has
> >>>>> become way too rampant and core to our society in all strata in a
> >>>>> way that's
> >>>>> dragging us all down. Starting to pull away from that, implementing
> >>>>> real
> >>>>> consequences for frivolous laws suits etc., could be worth quite a
> >>>>> bit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm creating a new mailing list for discussion of how to improve
> >>>>>> the world
> >>>>>> (primarily bitching about Bush a while longer till we reach
> >>>>>> catharsis on
> >>>>>> that one). There are just a few key people on it so far, but I
> >>>>>> made a web
> >>>>>> page to get on or off, if you want to start spreading the word...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And while I'm at it:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What Do You Think?
> >>>>>> The Republican Majority
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Last week, Bush became the first Republican president to be
> >>>>>> re-elected
> >>>>>> with House and Senate majorities since 1924. What do you think?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "So they still control the House, Senate, and Oval Office?
> >>>>>> Well,
> >>>>>> at least we still have the smug, condescending attitude that cost
> >>>>>> us the
> >>>>>> election in the first place."
> >>>>>> Beverly Banks
> >>>>>> Systems Analyst
> >>>>>> "Our nation may be bitterly
> >>>>>> divided,
> >>>>>> but at least our government
> >>>>>> can agree on being ultra-conservative."
> >>>>>> Edgar Mendez
> >>>>>> Data Keyer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "What's so bad about this? Could some Democrat explain it to
> >>>>>> me in
> >>>>>> under an hour, without starting to scream or cry?"
> >>>>>> Sam Howell
> >>>>>> Credit Checker
> >>>>>> "The fact that 48 percent of Americans voted for a
> >>>>>> boring
> >>>>>> placeholder like John Kerry is actually a really good sign for the
> >>>>>> Left."
> >>>>>> Leo Watts
> >>>>>> Custom Tailor
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bush Promises To Unite Nation For Real This Time
> >>>>>> WASHINGTON, DC--A week after winning a narrow victory over
> >>>>>> Democratic
> >>>>>> presidential nominee John Kerry, President Bush promised to "unite
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> divided nation, but for real this time." "Just as I pledged in
> >>>>>> 2000, I
> >>>>>> promise to bring the two halves of this nation together--only this
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>> I'm really gonna do it," Bush said Tuesday. "I'll work hard to put
> >>>>>> an end
> >>>>>> to partisan politics. Seriously, though. This term, I will." Bush
> >>>>>> then
> >>>>>> requested the support of all Americans for his agenda of cutting
> >>>>>> taxes and
> >>>>>> extending America's presence in Iraq.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - google://"Daniel
> >>>>>> Reeves"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Dave Morris
> >>>>> University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat Æ umich.edu,
aka
> >>>>> KB8PWY
> >>>>> home: 734-995-5525 office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357 fax:
> >>>>> 734-763-5567
> >>>>> Electrodynamic Applications Incorporated
> >>>>> phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
> >>>>> morris Æ edapplications.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > Dave Morris
> > University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat Æ umich.edu, aka
KB8PWY
> > home: 734-995-5525 office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357 fax: 734-763-5567
> > Electrodynamic Applications Incorporated
> > phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
> > morris Æ edapplications.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|
