X-Spam-Status: No -- Hits: -1.665  Required: 5
X-Spam-Summary: BAYES_00
Sender: -1.665 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA9LsVHF027661 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:54:32 -0500
Received: from granny.mr.itd.umich.edu (granny.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.70]) 	by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA9LsPZS031419; 	Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:54:25 -0500
Received: FROM struggle.mr.itd.umich.edu (struggle.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.79]) 	BY granny.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 41913ACA.252BF.6212 ;  	 9 Nov 2004 16:46:50 -0500
Received: from 2004-0034.sph.umich.edu (host51-132.sph.umich.edu [141.211.51.132]) 	by struggle.mr.itd.umich.edu (smtp) with ESMTP id iA9LknZt015857; 	Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:46:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <0F3038E3-327C-11D9-BC57-000A95DA4C4C &AElig umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.60.0411091339450.320 &AElig 2004-0034>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411081733140.27690-100000 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>  <91B70C5E-326C-11D9-BC57-000A95DA4C4C &AElig umich.edu>  <Pine.WNT.4.60.0411091133240.320 &AElig 2004-0034>  <8d35806704110909114dc660c &AElig mail.gmail.com> <Pine.WNT.4.60.0411091222540.320 &AElig 2004-0034>  <0F3038E3-327C-11D9-BC57-000A95DA4C4C &AElig umich.edu>
X-X-Sender: conneely &AElig mail.umich.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="11625356-5794-1100025882=:320"
Content-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.60.0411091641200.320 &AElig 2004-0034>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:48:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
To: Dave morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Karen Conneely <conneely &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: improving the world
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                 
X-UID: 7

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--11625356-5794-1100025882=:320
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.60.0411091344461.320 &AElig 2004-0034>

The problem is, of course, that it's hard to reduce the incentive for=20
frivolous lawsuits without also reducing the incentive for companies to=20
avoid taking risks that could harm consumers.  I do like the jail term=20
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=
=20
wish there was a way to compensate people who have been really harmed=20
without also attracting the greedy - ideas?

Oh, and here's a potential "good thing" about the Republicans being in=20
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=20
meant, I know... :)

>
> What about this: place a low cap on monetary value for lawsuits. So you c=
an=20
> sue someone if they wrong you, but the most you can get is a few tens of=
=20
> thousands, not millions- especially for "emotional damage" or something e=
lse=20
> that's not an actual cost you incur. That way the lawyers fees, a % of th=
e=20
> settlement, get smaller and there's less incentive for lawyers to go out =
and=20
> find cases just so they can get rich.
>
> But simultaneously, you replace the high punitive damages with criminal=
=20
> charges. If a doctor was going to get sued for $10M for doing something t=
hat=20
> egregiously incorrect, instead remove his license to practice for 10 year=
s.=20
> Or forever. Or put him in jail. So people who really got hurt and have a =
real=20
> case can really put away the people who did wrong. Since more than the mo=
ney,=20
> it's most important to prevent the negligence from happening again.
>
> Instead of fining corporations hundreds of millions of dollars for lettin=
g=20
> someone get hurt, put the CEOs and bean counters personally in jail for 2=
0=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 ther=
e=20
> were still people willing to become lawyers and do a good job, but=20
> appropriately low so we didn't have the huge "get rich quick" mentality t=
hat=20
> we often get today.
>
> I think having juries or panels of doctors to decide what's reasonable is=
=20
> essential- yes they'll defend each other- but they're simultaneously the =
only=20
> ones who can really tell what's reasonable or not. And there are lots of =
good=20
> doctors out there who would want to do the right thing. Maybe if there we=
re a=20
> double blind or other system of anonymity so that doctors who told the tr=
uth=20
> couldn't get later ostracized by their colleagues for having done so. Hmm=
=2E
>
> 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=
=20
>> that people are increasingly likely to sue for anything that goes wrong
>> during a medical procedure, preventable or not - especially when it come=
s
>> to obstetrics.  This is definitely a disturbing trend in our society;=20
>> ironically it's at least partially brought on by how good things are and=
=20
>> how high expectations are as a result.  This wouldn't have happened 100=
=20
>> years ago because nobody expected to be cured when they went to the doct=
or=20
>> (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.=
=20
>> But there does need to be some sort of consequence for serious cases of=
=20
>> malpractice.  Medical grand juries that could not only decide whether
>> the lawsuit was frivolous but also advise as to appropriate damages woul=
d
>> be ideal, as long as they could be impartial.  Do you guys think this is=
=20
>> feasible?
>>=20
>> I have to admit I'm a little bit cynical because of my friend's story;=
=20
>> apparently one of the other doctors took him aside and told him yes, you=
=20
>> 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 ho=
w=20
>> the possibility of frivolous lawsuits would cause doctors to band togeth=
er=20
>> and protect each other, but it's ironic that this would cause them to=20
>> refuse to snitch on a colleague who really did something terrible; doubl=
y=20
>> ironic that this unwillingness to police each other is (I think) the=20
>> reason why they all get policed to this extent.  A vicious cycle.  Maybe=
=20
>> Danny can put this into a game theory framework...
>>=20
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Lisa Hsu wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:44:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Karen
>>> Conneely <conneely &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but it's a slippery slope - how do you differentiate the=20
>>>> frivolous
>>>> lawsuits from the very justified ones?  Knowing that 1) there are=20
>>>> companies
>>>> out there that hire actuaries to calculate the risk of death=20
>>>> associated
>>>> with a defective product and to do cost-benefit analyses that figure=
=20
>>>> in
>>>> the cost of lawsuits and settlements, and _then_ decide whether or not=
=20
>>>> to
>>>> recall the product, and 2) in addition to all the caring doctors out=
=20
>>>> there
>>>> who just want to do good, there are doctors who take a cavalier=20
>>>> attitude
>>>> towards their patients (one of my friends nearly died because the=20
>>>> surgeon
>>>> who did his appendectomy was drunk) - well, knowing these things makes=
=20
>>>> 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=20
>>>> that
>>>> won't hurt the people who actually have just cause to sue, fine.  But=
=20
>>>> 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=20
>>>> incentive to
>>>> prevent it wasn't high enough.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Dave morris wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> I don't know, this list sounds a little too right wing for me. :-)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Here's a challenge- what are the good things that will come out of=20
>>>>> the
>>>>> Republicans owning the government for four years? Anyone can come up=
=20
>>>>> with a
>>>>> litany of bad things, I challenge people to list the pros as well.=20
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> start:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> An actual chance of litigation reform for the medical and possibly=20
>>>>> other
>>>>> industries.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Sure- it will largely benefit big businesses and the rich at first=20
>>>>> because
>>>>> those are the lawsuits they'll target, but I do agree that=20
>>>>> litigation has
>>>>> become way too rampant and core to our society in all strata in a=20
>>>>> way that's
>>>>> dragging us all down. Starting to pull away from that, implementing=
=20
>>>>> real
>>>>> consequences for frivolous laws suits etc., could be worth quite a=20
>>>>> bit.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I'm creating a new mailing list for discussion of how to improve=20
>>>>>> the world
>>>>>> (primarily bitching about Bush a while longer till we reach=20
>>>>>> catharsis on
>>>>>> that one).  There are just a few key people on it so far, but I=20
>>>>>> made a web
>>>>>> page to get on or off, if you want to start spreading the word...
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> And while I'm at it:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>  What Do You Think?
>>>>>>  The Republican Majority
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Last week, Bush became the first Republican president to be=20
>>>>>> re-elected
>>>>>> with House and Senate majorities since 1924. What do you think?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>      "So they still control the House, Senate, and Oval Office?=20
>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>> at least we still have the smug, condescending attitude that cost=20
>>>>>> us the
>>>>>> election in the first place."
>>>>>>  Beverly Banks
>>>>>>  Systems Analyst
>>>>>>                                      "Our nation may be bitterly=20
>>>>>> divided,
>>>>>> but at least our government
>>>>>> can agree on being ultra-conservative."
>>>>>>  Edgar Mendez
>>>>>>  Data Keyer
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>      "What's so bad about this? Could some Democrat explain it to=20
>>>>>> 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=20
>>>>>> boring
>>>>>> placeholder like John Kerry is actually a really good sign for the=
=20
>>>>>> Left."
>>>>>>  Leo Watts
>>>>>>  Custom Tailor
>>>>>>      -----
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Bush Promises To Unite Nation For Real This Time
>>>>>>  WASHINGTON, DC--A week after winning a narrow victory over=20
>>>>>> Democratic
>>>>>> presidential nominee John Kerry, President Bush promised to "unite=
=20
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> divided nation, but for real this time." "Just as I pledged in=20
>>>>>> 2000, I
>>>>>> promise to bring the two halves of this nation together--only this=
=20
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> I'm really gonna do it," Bush said Tuesday. "I'll work hard to put=
=20
>>>>>> an end
>>>>>> to partisan politics. Seriously, though. This term, I will." Bush=20
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> requested the support of all Americans for his agenda of cutting=20
>>>>>> taxes and
>>>>>> extending America's presence in Iraq.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel=20
>>>>>> Reeves"
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>> Dave Morris
>>>>> University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat &AElig umich.edu, aka=20
>>>>> KB8PWY
>>>>> home: 734-995-5525  office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax:=20
>>>>> 734-763-5567
>>>>> Electrodynamic Applications Incorporated
>>>>> phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
>>>>> morris &AElig edapplications.com
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> Dave Morris
> University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat &AElig umich.edu, aka KB8PWY
> home: 734-995-5525  office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
> Electrodynamic Applications Incorporated
> phone: (734)=A0786-1434 fax: (734)=A0786-3235
> morris &AElig edapplications.com
>
>
>
>
--11625356-5794-1100025882=:320--