Natural selection at work [Text View]

JAMAS

07/06/2011, 06:28 AM

Reminds me of the guy at the anti-helmet rally this weekend.CRASHED and of course died of head injuries:yesb:

I thought the same thing when I read that, but I believe that group was making a point about making helmet laws mandatory. It was not an anti-helmet rally. It was an anti-helmet LAW rally.

Similar to the seatbelt law, their local government was trying to make helmets REQUIRED. The group called ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Towards Education) states that it encourages the voluntary use of helmets but opposes mandatory helmet laws.

I wear a helmet (and gloves, and a jacket) when I ride. In fact, I wear a back protector and protective jeans (both by ICON) when I ride on long rides. I encourage all of my friends that ride to be just as safe. I have been in 2 motorcycle accidents and have walked away with only my pride injured so I know how much these things help.

With that being said....
I don't believe those items should be required by law. Not wearing a helmet does not affect anyone else but the helmet wearer (and people that care about them)

Probably more said than what was required for Ldubs natural selection thread, but I read this article yesterday and quickly changed my perspective after reading past the headline.

nfpgasmask

07/06/2011, 08:30 AM

Wow, nice. I bet it was some sort of home made pipe bomb or home made pipe bomb/mortar contraption. Must have launched right into his head. That's why you use realllllly sloooooow burning fuse. :_wtf:

Bart

Marlin

07/06/2011, 05:35 PM

Weird, I swear I saw that episode on 1000 Ways to Die on SpikeTV.

Episode 10:
77 Red, White and Blew July 4, 1983 Happy's Trailer Park
Lawrence, KS A group of rednecks attempt to celebrate the Fourth of July by launching a homemade firework from a homemade launcher. When it fails to work, one of them looks down the barrel of the launcher, and the firework explodes in his face, shattering his skull into his brain. (Note: This clip features a Wilhelm scream)

JoFotoz

07/06/2011, 05:43 PM

I'd have to disagree...

With that being said....
Not wearing a helmet does not affect anyone else but the helmet wearer (and people that care about them0

....it make all our health & Auto insurance premiums higher
due to the HIGH cost of caring for / fixing cranial trauma .

AJBTW... I love/ride bikes, and hate helmets..

....but, it makes sense.

JMHO

Jo

pbkid

07/06/2011, 06:13 PM

That's why you use realllllly sloooooow burning fuse. :_wtf:

Bart

Bart-
sounds like you have personal experience with homemade/illegal fireworks??? that wouldnt be the case would it? :smilewink

Marlin

07/06/2011, 06:36 PM

....it make all our health & Auto insurance premiums higher
due to the HIGH cost of caring for / fixing cranial trauma .

Jo

I would be curious to see the cost comparison of death from head injury at the scene,as compared to the physical reconstruction of the rest of the person if they survived an otherwise fatal injury thanks to a helmet.

I am against helmet and seatbelt laws as well. They should do it military style. Get in an accident without a helmet/seatbelt, insurance doesn't pay. Problem solved, you can ride how you like, but its at your own risk.

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 09:21 AM

...The fact that there are still those out there, who despite the best efforts of an overly litigenous society, which puts warning labels on HOT COFFEE cups, STILL manage to "F" themselves up...
Before you keep using the well-known '90's McDonalds lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, I'd suggest you watch the movie "Hot Coffee" currently being shown on HBO.

That particular lawsuit, the real physical damage it caused to the elderly woman, and the repeated negligence displayed by McDonald leading up to the incident was twisted around by the media, the Bush administration, and the likes of Carl Rowe to pass tort reform which ended up making it near impossible for ANY U.S. citizens to seek reasonable recourse for legitimate damages against actual negligence of corporations.

Hopefully none of us here will ever have to find out the hard way the definition of "mandatory arbitration" should we be on the receiving end of any gross negligence of a business large enough to hide behind it's lawyers, but that's what happens when people believe everything they see and hear on tv.

Makes a person wonder just why this particular incident is being so widely reported.

Marlin

07/07/2011, 09:40 AM

Before you keep using the well-known '90's McDonalds lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, I'd suggest you watch the movie "Hot Coffee" currently being shown on HBO.

That particular lawsuit, the real physical damage it caused to the elderly woman, and the repeated negligence displayed by McDonald leading up to the incident was twisted around by the media, the Bush administration, and the likes of Carl Rowe to pass tort reform which ended up making it near impossible for ANY U.S. citizens to seek reasonable recourse for legitimate damages against actual negligence of corporations.

Hopefully none of us here will ever have to find out the hard way the definition of "mandatory arbitration" should we be on the receiving end of any gross negligence of a business large enough to hide behind it's lawyers, but that's what happens when people believe everything they see and hear on tv.

Makes a person wonder just why this particular incident is being so widely reported.

I don't care what McDs did, short of the employee pulling down her pants and pouring it on her crotch. If you are buying a piping hot liquid, placing it in your lap and driving in a large vibrating and moving metal can, you deserve to get burned and can hold no on other than yourself accountable. It would be like getting a sunburn at the tanning salon and then blaming the company.

JAMAS

07/07/2011, 09:42 AM

I'd have to disagree...

....it make all our health & Auto insurance premiums higher
due to the HIGH cost of caring for / fixing cranial trauma .

AJBTW... I love/ride bikes, and hate helmets..

....but, it makes sense.

JMHO

Jo

Not sure. I guess I would need to see data regarding the tie between helmetless injuries and insurance premiums. Perhaps outlawing fatty foods and cigarettes might do more good in lowering health premiums.

vt_maverick

07/07/2011, 10:13 AM

Before you keep using the well-known '90's McDonalds lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, I'd suggest you watch the movie "Hot Coffee" currently being shown on HBO.

Or read this for a more concise overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident

The lady really wasn't some unreasonable, whining, gold digger. On the other hand there were a lot of other courts that disagreed with whether corporations could be held liable.

That particular lawsuit, the real physical damage it caused to the elderly woman, and the repeated negligence displayed by McDonald leading up to the incident was twisted around by the media...

Agreed.

...the Bush administration, and the likes of Carl Rowe to pass tort reform which ended up making it near impossible for ANY U.S. citizens to seek reasonable recourse for legitimate damages against actual negligence of corporations.

Hopefully none of us here will ever have to find out the hard way the definition of "mandatory arbitration" should we be on the receiving end of any gross negligence of a business large enough to hide behind it's lawyers, but that's what happens when people believe everything they see and hear on tv.

Makes a person wonder just why this particular incident is being so widely reported.

Insert liberal paranoia. Take a read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform) (scroll down to Tort reform in US politics) and do some more research... plenty of people are still making nice sums of money in tort cases, and many prominent Dems (including our President) have voted for reform in the time since this case.

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 10:16 AM

I don't care what McDs did, short of the employee pulling down her pants and pouring it on her crotch. If you are buying a piping hot liquid, placing it in your lap and driving in a large vibrating and moving metal can, you deserve to get burned and can hold no on other than yourself accountable. It would be like getting a sunburn at the tanning salon and then blaming the company.
That's all I'm saying. Given what you've just said, you don't have the facts correct, and are forming your opinion on misinformation.

From VT's wiki link:

Hot Coffee documentary

HBO premiered a documentary about the problems with tort reform. The film titled Hot Coffee premiered on June 27, 2011.[25] The title was taken from this case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. A big portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred. The film also discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit. As well as referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts.[26]

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 10:35 AM

...Insert liberal paranoia. Take a read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform) (scroll down to Tort reform in US politics) and do some more research... plenty of people are still making nice sums of money in tort cases, and many prominent Dems (including our President) have voted for reform in the time since this case.
How is it paranoia if what you've just said verifies that what was being promoted in the early 90's as "necessary tort reform" is in need of reform ?

Plenty of people may still be making nice sums, but you're not including the people who have been prevented from receiving legitimate sums or receiving reasonable due course in the meantime.

vt_maverick

07/07/2011, 01:19 PM

How is it paranoia if what you've just said verifies that what was being promoted in the early 90's as "necessary tort reform" is in need of reform ?

Plenty of people may still be making nice sums, but you're not including the people who have been prevented from receiving legitimate sums or receiving reasonable due course in the meantime.

Liberal paranoia. As in attributing every problem in the world to something Bush, Cheney, Rove, Big Oil, Multi-National corporations, etc. have done. If you want to say that companies are lobbying politicians in general to crush the little guy, I would say that is more likely. But if you're trying to attribute negative (from the little guy's perspective) policy change to one party I think it demonstrates a partisan paranoia.

IMHO the problem is that tort law, class action suits, etc. are used to accomplish what the criminal code was unable to do, i.e. punish the corporation for repeated abuse rather than simply award the actual $$$ required to make the plaintiff "whole." The reason the courts awarded the McDonald's lady so much money was directly because of the company's clearly demonstrated apathy for the situation - they wanted to send a message to McDonald's to change its ways. The problem is that removing limits on damages and due course encourages lawyers (if not victims) to sue too often and for too much, increasing (in the medical arena) malpractice insurance rates which therefore increase premiums, co-pays, etc. In the McDonald's example I would think a better practice would be to make them reimburse the plaintiff for her real (not pain & suffering) costs and then sick the DoJ on them for willful negligence.

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 01:53 PM

Liberal paranoia. As in attributing every problem in the world to something Bush, Cheney, Rove, Big Oil, Multi-National corporations, etc. have done. If you want to say that companies are lobbying politicians in general to crush the little guy, I would say that is more likely. But if you're trying to attribute negative (from the little guy's perspective) policy change to one party I think it demonstrates a partisan paranoia.
Then again, it couldn't be that you're trying to generalize my response to suit your own argument could it?

Just because you are trying to portray my response as an indicator that I attribute all the worlds ills to the people/entities you listed doesn't mean that I was. Take from it what you will that the specific examples I included were more associated with the political party that they were/are.

If I'm paranoid about any political parties, it's about ALL of them. That's not partisan, that's realistic.

Ldub

07/07/2011, 03:13 PM

Before you keep using the well-known '90's McDonalds lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, I'd suggest you watch the movie "Hot Coffee" currently being shown on HBO.

That particular lawsuit, the real physical damage it caused to the elderly woman, and the repeated negligence displayed by McDonald leading up to the incident was twisted around by the media, the Bush administration, and the likes of Carl Rowe to pass tort reform which ended up making it near impossible for ANY U.S. citizens to seek reasonable recourse for legitimate damages against actual negligence of corporations.

Hopefully none of us here will ever have to find out the hard way the definition of "mandatory arbitration" should we be on the receiving end of any gross negligence of a business large enough to hide behind it's lawyers, but that's what happens when people believe everything they see and hear on tv.

Makes a person wonder just why this particular incident is being so widely reported.

I'm sorry...:flower:

Let's everyone pretend I used the warning label on my windshield sunshade as an example:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRIVE WITH SHADE IN PLACE

Is that a good enough example of a business covering it's @$$ due to possible frivolous litigation?

Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...:_confused

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...:yesgray:

Double sorry...:flower:

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...:mbrasd:

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..:(

Marlin

07/07/2011, 03:27 PM

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...:yesgray:

MANY MANY DECADES!!!!

Double sorry...:flower:

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...:mbrasd:

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..:(

TV,ha, you probably had to listen to it on the radio......:dan_ban:

(editors note: next time "highlight & embloden" stuff you add to my quoted post, it makes it more noticeable)...:smilewink

L W

Ldub

07/07/2011, 03:50 PM

TV,ha, you probably had to listen to it on the radio......:dan_ban:

No...not exactly grommet (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbandictionary.com%2Fdefine. php%3Fterm%3Dgrommet&ei=5zgWTu_UMMvEsQKKtdRv&usg=AFQjCNEYO9281uWFzSriDzbbhFFYTEOsNA&sig2=ZHAsL4yD-_nFMSmBh7RNkQ)...:laughing:

I read it on the wall of a cave...http://www.myemoticons.com/images/people/male/caveman-1.gif

Marlin

07/07/2011, 04:06 PM

I had changing the color in mind when I was typing it and got side tracked. We are packing for the ECORS race tomorrow. I get to play pit crew for team ISUZU!!!! YIPPPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will have to teach me how to rip those gnarly waves sometime.

Ldub

07/07/2011, 04:15 PM

You will have to teach me how to rip those gnarly waves sometime.

LOL...been too many years...but feel free to use this as a reference...http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/om/1n/i4/surfen2.gif

"Grommet" was the best of both worlds reference that I could think of...since it included youth & oceania, both of which, can be associated with you better than I.

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 04:25 PM

...Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...:_confused
That's the problem, it's NOT just you. There are a lot of people who still believe the spinned version of the story that was portrayed by the media, certain politicians, corporate America, etc.

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...:yesgray:

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..
Go ahead and continue to make light of the suffering of the victim in this case if you think it will help you save face in this particular discussion. (Is that just you too?)

All I'll do is repeat that I hope none of us here ever fall victim to the same kind of treatment offered by those cover-their-@$$ laws enacted back then under the guise of those "necessary" tort reforms.

Ldub

07/07/2011, 05:02 PM

Go ahead and continue to make light of the suffering of the victim in this case if you think it will help you save face in this particular discussion. (Is that just you too?)

:flower: OK...works for me...:yesgray:

And a TRIPLE sorry to you sir...:flower:.:flower:.:flower:

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...:mbrasd:

I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...:_confused

BTW, this thread started off with a random act of stupidity...:smilewink

Y33TREKker

07/07/2011, 07:04 PM

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...:mbrasd:
IMO, while your folksy verbiage is always a nice touch, acting without guile and actually being without guile are two different things. But that's just me. ;)

I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...:_confused
So did I. At least that's how they usually start anyway. Unfortunately, some just can't seem to let them go at that though. But......whadayagonado.

Osteomata

07/07/2011, 07:13 PM

IIRC, McDonalds coffee was significantly hotter than any other large scale provider, and they had had multiple complaints and warnings about it. Its not a matter of stupid people not knowing that coffee is hot, but rather normal citizens haveing a reasonable expectation of what "hot coffee" means, an understanding that was not at all in line with McDonalds superheated version.

My general view, as a soft libertarian, is that there are three methods to control the potential rapaciousness and abuses by large power corporations:
1. government regulation, which as its own set of problems, mainly due to regulatory capture
2. liability law, i.e., civil law suits
3. public opinion translated to market power

I think 3 alone is wonderful, but insufficient. I generally oppose 1 since it will often result in the fox guarding the hen house, and so I am not at all bothered by our supposedly overly litigious society.

Osteomata

07/07/2011, 07:20 PM

And yet there is almost no issue about which you could not make the same authoritarian justification. If the primary determinant regarding government control of individual decisions is merely "is there a social cost", why then no intrusion by the state is unjustified. Mandatory breathalizer interlocks on all new cars, operators licenses for bicycles, banning of toys in happy meals (oh wait they are doing that one in CA). At what point do you draw the line.

I'd have to disagree...

....it make all our health & Auto insurance premiums higher
due to the HIGH cost of caring for / fixing cranial trauma .

AJBTW... I love/ride bikes, and hate helmets..

....but, it makes sense.

JMHO

Jo

VXR

07/07/2011, 11:42 PM

I'm sorry...:flower:

Let's everyone pretend I used the warning label on my windshield sunshade as an example:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRIVE WITH SHADE IN PLACE

Is that a good enough example of a business covering it's @$$ due to possible frivolous litigation?

Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...:_confused

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...:yesgray:

Double sorry...:flower:

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...:mbrasd:

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..:(

:confused:

VXR

07/07/2011, 11:43 PM

:flower: OK...works for me...:yesgray:

And a TRIPLE sorry to you sir...:flower:.:flower:.:flower:

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...:mbrasd:

I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...:_confused

BTW, this thread started off with a random act of stupidity...:smilewink

:confused:

VXR

07/07/2011, 11:51 PM

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving

That is OK we will all wait...

VX KAT

07/07/2011, 11:59 PM

Having a healthcare degree, working in healthcare and being a Litigation Manager handling medical malpractice litigation for hospitals for over 25 yrs, working for a company that owns hospitals, I have seen, read, reviewed, and heard literally thousands and thousands of medical malpractice allegations. I can offer my opinion from the front row:

~ all political parties are adequately represented in claims and lawsuits brought.

~ there ARE many MANY frivolous claims and lawsuits, where no injury was sustained, nor any negligence committed. Oh the examples I could give....

~ there ARE many MANY legitimate claims and lawsuits, where real injury was sustained, and negligence committed. Oh the examples I could give....

~ MANY people either solely cause or contribute to their own injury by doing illogical things. Oh the examples I could give....

~ TRULY, some things are acts of God or whatever you want to call it...or whatever diety you wish to insert there....but sometimes things happen and it's nobody's fault. Unfortunately, IMHO, too often some in our society do not like that answer, and wish to capitalize and reap monetary gain from such an incident, regardless of no negligence.

~ FAR FAR FAR too many "claimants" try to "hit the lottery" in their financial expectations of a settlement, NOT commensurate with the injury.

~ FAR FAR FAR too many juries do not listen to the evidence of a case, as prescribed by law, and decide based on other factors (such as anger, punish, send a message, etc like Mav mentioned)

~The COST of frivolous lawsuits ABSOLUTELY impacts healthcare costs. No one's mentioned the DEFENSE COSTS associated with frivolous lawsuits, that's where a ton of money is spent. Hospitals and doctors must hire attorneys and claim reps to defend them in a claim or lawsuit, regardless of its merit -->....yes, the attorneys make a boatload of money---> the malpractice insurance company may have to raise premiums to cover these increased costs --> the doctor may have to raise their fees to pay for their malpractice premium -->and then companies may raise healthcare premiums for their employees. This is an over-simplified example, but it does demonstrate how healthcare costs can be affected by litigation costs. My example doesn't address the "corporate greed" argument.

~There's very little effective TORT REFORM in effect, in any State, despite what you've heard.

California has probably the most effective, and has had for about 30 yrs. Claimants and attorneys often find ways "around" tort reform.

Louisiana has a "Medical Review Panel" (MRP) where a claimant must first submit their claim to the 3 member physician MRP for review. The panel then votes if the claim is meritorious and allowed to proceed. But I assure you, after my many years of experienced, 99% of claimants proceed with their claim, despite a finding of no negligence by the MRP.... there's ways around this law. So the MRP system (which is a tort refirm attempt) is often ineffective. A few other States have a similar Panel system (Indiana comes to mind), to some degree more effective than LA.

Tort reform specifics are often misquoted/misrepresented by the media and many advocates, just like the McD's coffee incident has often been mischaracterized. Both "sides" do it, believe me. Opponents of tort reform would have you believe the horribly injured wouldn't be able to collect a dime....when in fact, only certain types of "damages" are ever limited in TR. Pain & Suffering ARE what is limited, NOT the actual medical bills, medical care needed or other financial losses (income, etc...) In a case with very serious injuries, requiring a lifetime of continued medical care and assistance, there's no cap on that amount. In tort reform, there's only a cap on the intangible costs, frequently called pain & suffering.

As we all just saw with the Casey Anthony verdict, we may not all agree on the verdict rendered, based on what we, the public have seen or heard, but it's our system of justice. Just like virtually anything, there's good and bad about it, and there's always going to be good and bad players in it too, on BOTH sides......

~Remember, this IMHO.

VXR

07/08/2011, 12:33 AM

there's always going to be good and bad players on BOTH sides

X2:yesb:

Osteomata

07/08/2011, 05:59 AM

Nicely stated Sue, well worth the read for those of you who tend to jump over anything longer than three sentences made up mostly of smiley faces, heh.

I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.

circmand

07/08/2011, 06:17 AM

Y33TREKker

07/08/2011, 07:52 AM

...I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.
That was something else specifically referenced in Hot Coffee. One of the Bush Admin's main reasons cited for pushing tort "reform" was ALL the wasteful court costs associated with frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas which supposedly resulted in the premiums of EVERYONE going up.

As it turned out though, even after the "reforms" were passed reducing the number of cases that actually went to court (many of which were then/now handled instead through mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems), and reducing damage cap liabilities even for legitimate cases of negligence, healthcare costs for EVERYONE in Texas either remained the same overall or cost even more across the board.

So was it all just lip service in favor of big business? Depends on who you ask I guess.

rsteinmetz70112

07/08/2011, 07:56 AM

With Medical Claims there is a certain hubris in parts of the medical community that resist any oversight and any development of "best practices" or "standardization of care".

In my business I have seen several frivolous claims aimed at simply finding the deepest pockets. Sometime these are personal injury claims, sometime its buyers remorse, where someone got what they paid for but found they diidn't make as much money as they though they wold so someone one else must be to blame.

circmand

07/08/2011, 09:30 AM

Here if you are found 5% liable and someone else is 95% and they do not have the money to pay the judgement you can be liable for the full award. Trying to fix this now but the lawyers say doing so would hurt the victim. They are worried about the victim here how about when a murdered gets out after 2.5 years because a bad childhood made him do it?

VX KAT

07/08/2011, 11:29 AM

I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate.

oh, I was referring to LEGAL DEFENSE costs, the amount paid to investigate / defend the claims & lawsuits. Defensive medicine is a whole nutter topic.

That was something else specifically referenced in Hot Coffee. One of the Bush Admin's main reasons cited for pushing tort "reform" was ALL the wasteful court costs associated with frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas which supposedly resulted in the premiums of EVERYONE going up. That's EXACTLY what I referring to above..Legal Defense Costs

As it turned out though, even after the "reforms" were passed reducing the number of cases that actually went to court (many of which were then/now handled instead through mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems), and reducing damage cap liabilities even for legitimate cases of negligence, - CAREFUL HERE, you're not defining "damage cap", and as it's written, it infers ALL damages are capped.....which is exactly what I was trying to explain is a common misconception. I'm NOT aware of ANY law in any State that caps "special damages". "Special damages" are the actual medical care, treatment, lost income, etc, EVERYTHING EXCEPT PAIN & SUFFERING. Lawmakers have always ensured ALL financial aspects are covered for the injured party, and have never limited/capped them in any way.

healthcare costs for EVERYONE in Texas either remained the same overall or cost even more across the board.

So was it all just lip service in favor of big business? Depends on who you ask I guess.

"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?

With Medical Claims there is a certain hubris in parts of the medical community that resist any oversight and any development of "best practices" or "standardization of care". VERY TRUE!

In my business I have seen several frivolous claims aimed at simply finding the deepest pockets. Sometime these are personal injury claims, sometime its buyers remorse, where someone got what they paid for but found they diidn't make as much money as they though they wold so someone one else must be to blame. EXTREMELY TRUE, and plaintiff attorneys wll often even ADMIT that's true....they're after the deepest pockets.

Here if you are found 5% liable and someone else is 95% and they do not have the money to pay the judgement you can be liable for the full award. Trying to fix this now but the lawyers say doing so would hurt the victim. They are worried about the victim here how about when a murdered gets out after 2.5 years because a bad childhood made him do it? That's called "Joint & Several Liability", and it's law in MANY states....so how is that fair to an individual or business that has been found only 5% liable? That's where "for the greater good" philosophy comes into play in a society. But one must realize with "the greater good" comes a cost to all.

Y33TREKker

07/08/2011, 01:07 PM

...CAREFUL HERE, you're not defining "damage cap", and as it's written, it infers ALL damages are capped.....which is exactly what I was trying to explain is a common misconception. I'm NOT aware of ANY law in any State that caps "special damages".
Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".

As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).

Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you? If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.

Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?

Y33TREKker

07/08/2011, 03:59 PM

Coincidentally, this news story from today was one of the other stories covered in Hot Coffee with regards to mandatory arbitration, and how it resulted in this woman fighting with KBR/Haliburton company lawyers for years just to be able to have her case heard by a jury in a court of law.

Texas woman loses Iraq rape case against KBR APAP � 1 hr 28 mins ago

HOUSTON (AP) � A Houston jury on Friday rejected the claims against military contractor KBR Inc. by a Texas woman who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq.

A federal court jury returned its verdict after starting deliberations Thursday in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.

Jones, 26, said she was raped in 2005 while working for KBR at Camp Hope, Baghdad. She sued KBR, its former parent Halliburton Co., and a former KBR firefighter, Charles Bortz, whom she identified as one of her rapists. The Houston-based companies and Bortz denied her allegations.

The alleged sexual assault was investigated by authorities but no criminal charges were filed.

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with Bortz, who said the sex was consensual.

"We're very pleased with the verdict," said Daniel Hedges, an attorney for KBR.

Jones was sobbing in the courtroom after the verdict was announced.

Jones' attorney had asked jurors to award her as much as 5 percent of KBR's net worth in actual or punitive damages. That would be more than $114 million, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Attorney Ron Estefan, in his closing arguments, accused KBR of neglecting to enforce its policies against sexual harassment for years by its contract workers in Iraq. The neglect facilitated Jones' rape, he said.

Attorneys for Bortz and the companies argued Jones concocted her story out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.

Jones testified she was drugged and then raped by a group of KBR firefighters. She said Bortz was in her room the next morning. During four days of testimony, she told jurors she has no memory of what happened because she believed she was drugged with Rohypnol, known as the "date rape drug," just before she was sexually assaulted.

The Associated Press usually doesn't identify people alleging sexual assault, but Jones' face and name have been in media reports and she has promoted her case on her own website.

Bortz's attorney tried to show that after the alleged rape, Jones did not appear to act like she had been attacked but instead went to work as normal, joked around and talked about camp gossip. Bortz no longer works for KBR.

Joanne Vorpahl, one of KBR's attorneys, tried to portray Jones to jurors as someone with a history of being dishonest on resumes and job applications, including not disclosing in a medical questionnaire she filled out before leaving for Iraq that she had been treated in prior years for various things, including depression, dizziness and kidney and bladder problems. Jones said those were simply mistakes and she never intended to be dishonest.

Jones also accused KBR officials of locking her in a trailer after she told them about the rape and not letting her call her family. She testified she's been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, takes medications for anxiety and had to have reconstructive surgery for her breasts, which were disfigured in her attack.

KBR and Halliburton, which split in 2007, were unsuccessful in having Jones' case settled through arbitration as stipulated in her contract.

Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.

VX KAT

07/08/2011, 04:18 PM

Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".

Because semantics can cause some confusion/misunderstanding. All I said was careful, let's make sure you define "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence". I was just trying to define the term "damage cap" so others reading would be clear that there's two types of damages, and there's only a "cap" on one of those.

As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
:confused: I didn't make any comment or opine in any way on this.

Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you?
No, not at all. I'm well aware of the opinions/arguments on both sides of this topic, so I don't take any of it personally.

If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.
Yes, and there's many words that could be inserted into that sentence as well that would change it's meaning. So let's just drop the word "adequately" from my sentence. "All political parties are represented in the claims and lawsuits brought".

I was not an arbitrator, and the arbitrators are NOT employed by the company or individual lawfirm selecting them. They are independent...most often attorneys or judges in the area. I was providing FACTUAL info....And to reiterate what I said, a 3 person arbitration panel is PICKED in the manner I described....One arbitrator is selected by the defense, , one by the plaintiff, and then those two individuals select the 3rd member. I believe it would be hard to argue that's not a fair system, or that it's stacked in ANYONE's favor....as each party gets to select one member (so that's 50/50) and those two select "a neutral third" as it's called. Yes, you could still argue the first two arbitrators are colored by who selected them, but the "Neutral third" is an attempt to cancel out any such bias.

Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?
:confused: I'm not keeping score, or trying to win anything, nor was I questioning anyone's personal character? Where'd that come from? :confused:

And if you re-read my comments, you'll see I readily agree there's many legitimate claims, and many frivolous claims. So I'm not downplaying the validity of anyone's points, I just proffered additional factual info since I happen to know info that other's reading this may not, and felt it added important substance to the discussion.
And I'm sure neither of us want "a lot of people to believe the spinned version" of ANY story.

Actually, if you re-read all my entries in this thread, don't believe you can opine what my beliefs are on this subject. I simply put forth factual info, I chose not to provide any personal opinions. Although I see how some could try to guess my opinions based on who I worked for and what I did. I understand that.

There's no "draw" as I wasn't debating, dueling, sparing or fighting...anyone.

Y33TREKker

07/08/2011, 04:57 PM

As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
I didn't make any comment or opine in any way on this.
"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?
That sure seemed like a defensive rebuttal (based on a personal FRONT (capitalized even) ROW seat) to my comment(s) on mandatory arbitration to me.

:confused: I'm not keeping score, or trying to win anything, nor was I questioning anyone's personal character? Where'd that come from? :confused:
From your comparison: your categorization of my comment as a "broad stroke" generalization as opposed to your front-line personal experience.

It's also coincidental you should suggest how neutral all arbitrators much obviously be because that's something else that was discussed in the show. The specific example given was how even supreme court justices in the state of Mississippi were selected and financially backed by large corporations to campaign for office based on their past records of voting either for or against businesses involved in litigations of almost any kind. The specific judge interviewed was even the basis for the story The Appeal by John Grisham.

As I said before, objectiveness and "mandatory arbitration" being what they are, we all know how the systems are set up. Rationalizations are powerful things as they pertain to who's signing the paychecks. Not saying you were one who would have been consciously swayed (or subconsciously for that matter), but given your earlier defensive rebuttal, let's just say I remain somewhat skeptical of the objectivity of the system. Especially since you're not the only person who's had a few front line dealings with insurance companies and their agents, since "insurance" is pretty much what we're talking about here.

Hot Coffee - HBO. Worth a watch IMO.

Ldub

07/08/2011, 05:41 PM

:confused: I'm not keeping score, or trying to win anything, nor was I questioning anyone's personal character? Where'd that come from? :confused:

And if you re-read my comments, you'll see I readily agree there's many legitimate claims, and many frivolous claims. So I'm not downplaying the validity of anyone's points, I just proffered additional factual info since I happen to know info that other's reading this may not, and felt it added important substance to the discussion.
And I'm sure neither of us want "a lot of people to believe the spinned version" of ANY story.

Actually, if you re-read all my entries in this thread, don't believe you can opine what my beliefs are on this subject. I simply put forth factual info, I chose not to provide any personal opinions. Although I see how some could try to guess my opinions based on who I worked for and what I did. I understand that.

There's no "draw" as I wasn't debating, dueling, sparing or fighting...anyone.

:laughing:...thas why I always remember to STOP after replying once to anything opined by the capt of the debate team...when my memory kicks in, I realize that nothing I'll ever post will change his pov on the subject, & vice versa...:yesgray:
While I can see his point with regard to "victims", I'd be appalled if he could give any credence to my theory of natural selection being a valid enhancement to the shallow end. (Remember the original thread?)

I've always regarded his style of discussion as "twist & spin,winner take all", the actual point is of no consequence...takes all the fun out of it for me.

I just put up a post it note to myself..."don't take the bait".

Osteomata

07/08/2011, 06:42 PM

I'm a guy who tends loosely towards agreeing with you on the content, and yet I am willing to say you are taking this way more personal than Sue, and ascribing motives and assuming opinions not at all expressed.
As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
I didn't make any comment or opine in any way on this.
"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?
That sure seemed like a defensive rebuttal (based on a personal FRONT (capitalized even) ROW seat) to my comment(s) on mandatory arbitration to me.

From your comparison: your categorization of my comment as a "broad stroke" generalization as opposed to your front-line personal experience.

It's also coincidental you should suggest how neutral all arbitrators much obviously be because that's something else that was discussed in the show. The specific example given was how even supreme court justices in the state of Mississippi were selected and financially backed by large corporations to campaign for office based on their past records of voting either for or against businesses involved in litigations of almost any kind. The specific judge interviewed was even the basis for the story The Appeal by John Grisham.

As I said before, objectiveness and "mandatory arbitration" being what they are, we all know how the systems are set up. Rationalizations are powerful things as they pertain to who's signing the paychecks. Not saying you were one who would have been consciously swayed (or subconsciously for that matter), but given your earlier defensive rebuttal, let's just say I remain somewhat skeptical of the objectivity of the system. Especially since you're not the only person who's had a few front line dealings with insurance companies and their agents, since "insurance" is pretty much what we're talking about here.

Hot Coffee - HBO. Worth a watch IMO.

Ldub

07/08/2011, 08:25 PM

:confused:

:confused:

That is OK we will all wait...

You sir, have once again humbled me with your mildly terse, yet somehow benevolent replies...:yesgray:

When you post :confused:, I always feel enlightened, but must admit, my first reaction is to explain myself better...maybe typing really slow would help?

VXR

07/08/2011, 08:48 PM

You sir, have once again humbled me with your mildly terse, yet somehow benevolent replies...:yesgray:

When you post :confused:, I always feel enlightened, but must admit, my first reaction is to explain myself better...maybe typing really slow would help?

:confused:

07/08/2011, 08:55 PM

:confused:

You just gonna have to type slower Dub.:o:(:smilegray

He just can't keep up.:yesgray::yesy::yeso:

PK

VXR

07/08/2011, 09:48 PM

You just gonna have to type slower Dub.:o:(:smilegray

He just can't keep up.:yesgray::yesy::yeso:

PK

Good one.

Did you think of that yourself?

Ldub

07/08/2011, 09:49 PM

Weird, I swear I saw that episode on 1000 Ways to Die on SpikeTV.

I guess this was an "off season" repeat...http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/job/ouvrier/dynamite.gif

Y33TREKker

07/09/2011, 09:27 AM

:laughing:...thas why I always remember to STOP after replying once to anything opined by the capt of the debate team...when my memory kicks in, I realize that nothing I'll ever post will change his pov on the subject, & vice versa...:yesgray:
While I can see his point with regard to "victims", I'd be appalled if he could give any credence to my theory of natural selection being a valid enhancement to the shallow end. (Remember the original thread?)

I've always regarded his style of discussion as "twist & spin,winner take all", the actual point is of no consequence...takes all the fun out of it for me.

I just put up a post it note to myself..."don't take the bait".
Speaking of remembering things, given our past exchanges, I could say all the very same things about you.

The irony of the original story wasn't lost on me, but it wasn't my fault that you got the facts wrong about something YOU brought up while trying to prove your point. As usual though, you tried to SPIN things around to try to divert attention away from that fact rather than STOPPING when you should have, and continued to opine anyway.

You're free to regard my style in any way you choose, but it won't change the fact that you always seem to end up needing to cover your own @ss for expressing things in your own style.

Y33TREKker

07/09/2011, 09:36 AM

I'm a guy who tends loosely towards agreeing with you on the content, and yet I am willing to say you are taking this way more personal than Sue, and ascribing motives and assuming opinions not at all expressed.
If that's the case, I apologize Sue. As I mentioned to LDub just now, given past experiences/exchanges on this website, I'm just used to a lot of the usual suspects nitpicking just about every comment I make on this site because of those past experiences/exchanges.

While I try not to cite those past exchanges every time something like this happens, I try not to forget them either as I'm aware that a lot of people these days like to adopt "I don't get mad, I get even" attitudes and just NOT LET THINGS GO.

rsteinmetz70112

07/11/2011, 11:30 AM

Arbitration, if the panel is fairly selected, leads to prompt resolution. Litigation can and often does take years and leads to appeals that go on even longer.

tom4bren

07/11/2011, 11:50 AM

Too bad "natural selection" doesn't work on threads. This one should've died after the first 10 posts.

Osteomata

07/11/2011, 05:51 PM

Ok, but I have no idea what threads you are talking about, and thus don't have any preformed opinion about you. So your responses come across as if you are thin skinned, and more interested in winning the debate than providing insight or swaying opinion, and this tends to bury legitimate points you do have. This is also often my problem as well. so perhaps I recognize it in others. I once embarrassed myself badly on a forum, admittedly after a few scotches, by reacting strongly to an opinion including the observation that the person was possibly a sock puppet shill for the company in question. Turned out it was the forum owner. Not a shill. I was rightfully laughed at. So as a person that tends to knee jerk comment, aggressively, personally, and with intent to win, I can only advise you to ease back on the throttle a touch.

If that's the case, I apologize Sue. As I mentioned to LDub just now, given past experiences/exchanges on this website, I'm just used to a lot of the usual suspects nitpicking just about every comment I make on this site because of those past experiences/exchanges.

While I try not to cite those past exchanges every time something like this happens, I try not to forget them either as I'm aware that a lot of people these days like to adopt "I don't get mad, I get even" attitudes and just NOT LET THINGS GO.

Y33TREKker

07/11/2011, 07:32 PM

Ok, but I have no idea what threads you are talking about, and thus don't have any preformed opinion about you. So your responses come across as if you are thin skinned, and more interested in winning the debate than providing insight or swaying opinion, and this tends to bury legitimate points you do have. This is also often my problem as well. so perhaps I recognize it in others. I once embarrassed myself badly on a forum, admittedly after a few scotches, by reacting strongly to an opinion including the observation that the person was possibly a sock puppet shill for the company in question. Turned out it was the forum owner. Not a shill. I was rightfully laughed at. So as a person that tends to knee jerk comment, aggressively, personally, and with intent to win, I can only advise you to ease back on the throttle a touch.
Your opinion is noted, along with the fact that it's based on a lack of understanding of the background history my comments were based on.

Everyone here is free to view/interpret the information I've relayed from the show Hot Coffee in any way they want, but the act of shooting the messenger usually speaks for itself.

I stand by the comments I've made as containing a reasonable amount of skepticism considering the people (and the other members on this forum those people consider friends)/comments/past histories involved, so while I think it unfortunate that you've embarrassed yourself by making the types of comments YOU'VE made and later regretted on similar forums, I'll decide for myself how to feel about the comments I've made, and I guess will just suggest that in similar future situations you maybe ease back on the scotch a touch.

I appreciate the concern just the same though.