Natural selection at work

[VX KAT]

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).
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?

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

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]

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.

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

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.

[Osteomata]

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.

[Y33TREKker]

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.

[Osteomata]

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]

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.

[Ldub]

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

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.

...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...
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".

[Y33TREKker]

...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...
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.

[rsteinmetz70112]

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]

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

[VXR]

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

[Moncha]

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

It ain't natural but it will die...