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:
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 =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
>> 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)=A0786-1434 fax: (734)=A0786-3235
> morris Æ edapplications.com
>
>
>
>
--11625356-5794-1100025882=:320--
|
