Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

So someone who engages in irresponsible activity that spreads the
disease is to be left to go ahead and do that, with the results that it
actually does spread out of control. I see - millons die, but at least
their rights weren't violated. You've just reinforced my statement.

My point.

My point. Obviously some people don't know what that means, and the
rest of us pay the bill.

No - because to make that happen, you would, from your perspective, have
to violate their rights in one way or another. So once again, in order
to "preserve their rights", millions die needlessly. That's a falacious
argument if I ever heard one.

Review what you've written, and I think you'll see that your
"consistent" (time-wise) philosophy has some huge inconsistencies
(logic-wise) in it. You need to get quiet with yourself and think it
through again, and swallow your pride and break the consistency in your
position because things do not add up. Start with the rights of all
parties involved - that's a huge inconsistency.

So a person stepping out in front of a bus causes the results to spread
to others how?

Whatever.

But it's OK to stick me and everybody else with the bill for those that
have behaved irresponsibely (i.e., my rights don't matter)? I don't
think so. If I'm going to pay the consequences of their irrseponsible
actions, then I should have some say in their abilities to infect
themselves and others and to subsequently send me (and societey) the
bill (that's where the person who steps out in front of the bus differs
from the person who gets AIDS from their own irresponsible actions -
their stepping out in front of the bus does not cause others to also get
run over by the bus too - and the person who gets AIDS from a blood
transfusion is in a different category, different discussion). Either
that, or they get to do their thing and be left to die from their own
stupidity. Those are the two choices. I prefer the former, but if that
option is not acceptable by your logic, then the latter is the only one
that has any justice to it at all. Or do you have a thrid option that
does not "violate anyone's rights"?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Luckily for the public it looks like a medical career is not in my
future ;-)
I understand where you are coming from with regards to extravagant
settlement amounts but those tend to be a result of Jury Awards.

Do you honestly think the people that are on springer every day can
understand the difference between $100K & $1 million? After all it's
only 1 more zero ;-)

I think that Judicial settlements (with the option of appeal) are the
most reasonable approach.

Imagine you were the German woman with the medical instrument left in
you. Your career was going to be lingerie model & your fiance left
you after your 8 months of endless bitching about "the pain" You've
now got a 12" scar across your stomach that every subsequent guy will
see (and wonder about) the scar. This is assuming you've not got any
ongoing pain which limits your sex life.

Does the value of a used mini van sound reasonable? I suppose where
you live also plays a part. If you're in the middle of Alaska (or
perhaps Alabama) $20K might buy you a nice house, but in New York It
might buy you a dinner (plus perhaps a movie).

I'm thinking, keep the present system, lose the Jury awards and Thank
GOD that I'm not a Doctor.

 

I believe that in France and Canada people who stop to help a person
in an accident cannot be sued for any non-intentional incompetence.

 

I like your thinking Joe. Ever thought of a run for President?

 

Art,

I got news for you - everybody screws up sooner or later. I
don't mind a system where injured parties are reasonably
compensated for someone else's mistakes. I do mind a system
where an honest mistake become some sort of entry in to an
enormous lottery.

Ed

 

People with HIV who knowingly have unprotected sex are arrested and put in
jail all the time.

 

Yeah, most of the women I see on 'Cops' are ones I'd want to strip
search....NOT!

--Geoff

 

Recently in NC there was a car stopped at a stop sign and a 50 year old tree
fell without warning and killed the people inside. You don't cut down all
trees because that happened once. There are all kinds of anecdotal stories
out there about lawsuts. Most have been reversed on appeal and you don't
hear that part of the story from people who want riduculous limits on
lawsuits. When doctors do their job correctly they don't get sued.

 

Goodness! I surely don't want the collective 'we' making a decision
like this one!

This, in a nutshell, precisely illustrates one of my main objections to
socialized medicine. Thank you for bringing it into such sharp focus.

--Geoff

 

So you are saying that a jury of your peers is inherently unfair to doctors?
You think somehow when someone gets jury duty they turn off their brain? I
don't think so. Please provide a scientific explanation for your
conclusion.

 

You seem to want science only when it's unattainable and can't hurt your
position, Art.

It's well known and understood that most of the legal cases that settle
out of court do so because both sides recognize that letting the morons
who find themselves on the typical jury decide the case is usually not
for the better of anyone.

Besides that, I think a doctor would have a tough time getting a jury of
his peers. How many medical professionals serve jury duty? And what
are the chances that a group of them would find themselves on the same
jury for a medical malpractice lawsuit?

--Geoff

 

If that is what you think, then perhaps you should think about
that some more. Any attorney will tell you the reason they can
easily manipulate a jury is because the people sitting in the
jury box are the ones that were not
smart enough to get themselves out of jury duty.



mike hunt

 

Yes, we had one of those (fintail) in the sities...

That's hardly justification for a generalisation!

DAS

 

Well, maybe / maybe not. About 10 years ago my Mother was
driving Her company car down a main street in the town
nearest where she worked. A large limb fell from an old oak
tree and smashed her car. Fortunately she suffered only
superficial injuries. Comprehensive insurance replaced the
car (the companies insurance, not the town's insurance). My
Mother didn't get any money from anyone (or ask for it).
However, the town promptly cut down the offedning tree and
all the other large old trees on that street that were on
the towns right of way.

Regards,

Ed White

 

I think juries are manipulated into making unreasonable
awards. Do I need a scientific explanation for what seems so
apparent in many cases?

Juries are led to believe only the rich are paying. You
know, the evil insurance companies, or the evil large
corporations. You aren't really hurting the little guy when
you award millions to an injured party - right? Anybody that
believes that is an idiot and the perfect candidate for a
civil jury.

I have never been on a jury. I've been on the list twice but
never actually had to go downtown so to speak. A fellow
engineer has had to join the pool a couple of times, but
both times he was immediately excused the minute he admitted
he was an engineer. I am sure that no trial lawyer would
ever want me on a jury. I am old, white, and have a degree
in engineering. I would be impervious to most of the BS they
throw out.

As I said before. I have no problems with actual and
reasonable damages being awarded. I do have a problem with
punitive damages. If there is willful negligence involved,
put the perpetrator in jail, don't shower money on the
injured person and some scum trial lawyer. If you think
economic sanctions are the only ones that work, then have
the government fine the perpetrators and use the money to
benefit society.

Ed

 

_________________________________________________________

Normally I don't do "me too" posts, but me too!

 

Haha, you raise a few points there that I never thought about. I do think
that you're right though.

 

same for me.. good thinking ED... thats the way it was years ago.. i
remember my grandfather(who was like most people back then in the 40's
and 50's)... if you sued someone you had better have a good reason to do
so.. if you got hit by a cop.. the reasoning was that if you did nothing
wrong you would never have got hit in the first place... if you did
something wrong you go to jail..... but that was the difference back
then and now.. now everyone wants something for nothing................
and they have a plague of locus that go by the name of attorneys that
get paid to get you something for nothing..... and they get about 40
percent of that something.....

 

With that one story I told before the family is trying to appeal the law
here to get more then the 100k. If they didn't take the child to the doctor
the same ending would have resulted. I could understand the parents getting
quite a bit more if he was involved in the death, but he wasn't. Once again,
if it's so easy stop going to doctors to figure out what's wrong.

Different people have different ways of defining correct. I have a knee
problem and I went to my doctor a few times and each time he said that it's
nothing. After about the 4th time I went to a specialist and he told me I
need surgery. Do I think that the first doctor did his job correctly?
Absolutely. Quickly? Not at all. There was another time when I was having
pains in my abdominal region and I went in but they couldn't find anything
wrong so they took a blood test. Within a few hours they told me to go right
to a hospital. They never found out what was wrong. Do I think that they did
that correctly? Not really, I'd like to know what I had. Quickly? Yep.
There's a tradeoff between following everything exactly down to the letter
and trying to do things quickly. You can try all you'd like to do both at
the same time, but sometimes certain events don't allow it.

Say you're having heart surgery and something goes wrong. Do you want the
surgeon to take his time or would you prefer that he kind of speed it up? In
a perfect world everything and everyone would work at 100% speed and with a
0% error rate all the time. If he doesn't move fast enough you'll die and he
gets sued by your family. If he moves faster and makes a mistake he gets
sued by you. If you can handle that kind of pressure, kudos to you.

 

Horseshit.

We're doing a terrific job of taxing, restricting and humiliating
cigarette smokers *without* socialized medicine.