Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

Phillip Schmid wrote:

I've heard of lawsuits where a doctor was sued

And there are "good samaritan" laws in some places that require you to
stop and help if you can. A case of literally being damned if you do
and damned if you don't. The world has gotten way too complicated (by
human stupidity).

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

 

That, to me, is 90% of the problem - the "Springer" mentallity that our
society has bought into, and it shows up in the juries.

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

 

Q: What do you call the guy who flunked out of med school, engineering
school and business school?

A. Attorney.

 

That is the most ignorant thing I have heard yet. Seriously you think all
these lawsuits are good honest lawsuits. Are you nuts? Like I can't watch
Tv for more then 10 minutes without some scumbag lawyer coming on talking
about how your kid has cerebral palsy, or you have some medical condition
and we can win millions because it has to be th fault of the doctor. It has
to be. You know what I say. If you don't like doctors cause you think they
are gonna do wrong. Do it your own damn self and when you fucking die from
your ignorance sue yourself.

 

No. Or, as Elvira Kurt says: No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Remember, ideas
that come from outside the YSM are stupid, bad, idiotic, wrong, communist,
socialist, pinko, and shitty.

Only ideas that come from inside the YSM are worth pursuing. In fact,
ideas that come from inside the YSM are blessed by God and Jesus and them.

DS

 

Someone will always graduate last. Even if the class was of only 1
person... Here is another thought. If people from 4th rate med schools
are being hired regardless of their poor education wouldn't that make you
think that maybe there aren't enough doctors out there and its this major
deficit and lack of qualified doc's that might help cause all this
malpractice. Or would you prefer that there are only a handful of really
good doctors and you have to wait (well lets see, my mother can wait 2-3
months to see her doctor for something but usually just a week at most.) so
have to wait like 3-12 months to see a doctor? At least then you couldn't
sue the doctor. Perhaps we should work at encouraging people to enter this
field and so we can find competent doctors to fulfill our drive for perfect
health, not just any guy that passes med school and passes the licensing
exam. Sueing a doctor for doing something wrong, that is truly malpractice,
fine. Sue him, get if fixed if you can, get some money, perhaps if you can
no longer work because of it, make the doctor pay for it. Fine. But whne
it is something that is chance, or a rare possibility. Its not something to
sue, and especially no win over. Think of the poor doctor delivering his
first baby. There is a lot of shit going on. What if he messes up one
little thing. he could get sued for millions. You wouldn't want that
stress, I wouldn't want it. People need to learn that there is this level
of respect that should be had for someone that is taking on such a great
task. Seriously. It is a skill, and there are a lot of things that doctor
has to think about. I think it is amazing that a doctor can even perform
some of the surgeries they perform now a days. I am impressed at their
skill. If I had to have one of those wild open body, with my parts
everywhere and this doc using some miniscule laser to get in some deep
little tube somewhere to cut this and repair that. and he left a
screwdriver in me, hey, as long as he pays for them to find it, and take it
out and maybe a little extra cash, sure. I can't really argue about it,
compared to what the man just did. Cause otherwsie I would probably be
dead, or really sick and not enjoy much of life anyways. So I have an
additional scar now. Oh well, I am alive, and feel better, and he still did
a much greater thing than his mistake. He made me better, and restored my
life. Mistakes happen. I guess my point is. There are honest mistakes,
and there are those of just pure negligance. Someone that doesn't know what
they are doing and thus misdiagnoses something or is poking around with no
idea what they are doing. They deserve to get sued, and lose their license.
But an honest mistake should only have to repair that mistake and maybe
offer a little compassion reward. As I read in the stories of lawsuits this
isn't how it is. It is, lets get blood money from anyone that makes the
slightest error in anything. Its a evil greed driven style that puts a very
stinky color on everything this country was ever created for. Sometimes we
should just be happy for the life we have, not because we don't have the
life we want. Sometimes that might just be our own fault.

And in response to a post a little ways up. Someone stated that if doctors
did their job right, insurance rates would go down. Yeah right... are you
silly? I had a perfect driving record, and did my car insurance rate go
down... Hell no, I was young.. I am a bad driver. It didn't matter what my
driving record was, it mattered what my age and sex were. I am sure it is
similar to doctors. A doctor may be a perfect guy, but still if he is
young, and wants to perform duties that have historically lead to high
payouts, I bet he is paying his ass in insurance rates. Lets not get this
idea that insurance is a fair system here. I know some people can be
dillusional, but lets not get crazy here.

 

Well, now you see why Art's been in in my killfile for a month or so.

 

That's as may be, but it doesn't change the applicability of your
argument.

I disagree with you. That does not mean either of us has our brain
disengaged.

 

Of course it is, but it also disproves the putative socialized-medicine
causality of exertion of governmental pressure against disapproved
behaviors.

 

But if you read the constitution in the context in which that
amendment was added you will understand why it is so important and why
there wasn't the gun problem then, that there is here now.

All Land owning citizens had the constitutional right to bear arms.
(remember Women, Blacks & other minorities weren't "full citizens")

Thus, the right to bear arms was twofold:
1) To protect your capital (your investments). Moderately important.

2) To keep the government in check & prevent autocratic rule.
(Remember a nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.)
VERY Important.

Switzerland has the right approach and logic to firearm possession.
The people's of the world could learn a lot from that nation. (the
governments of England, Canada Third Reich German etc have learned a
lot from the Swiss of what not to do).

Take the guns from the people so only the criminals & the Government
has weapons... Can we rally behind Michael Moore now?

 

Perhaps it's because they don't want tenants who are aware of their
rights?
My Uncle has been a slumlord for decades, he's very careful to only
rent to stupid people. Keeps the repair costs low and the income
high.

 

I'll give you a real idea for tort reform.

Reform 1:

Loser pays winner up to the extent he spent money on the suit. For example,
if I spend $20k sueing Chrysler and they spend a million defending
themselves and I lose, I owe Chrysler $20k because that is what I spent.

Reform 2:

Winners of punitive damages share them with a trust fund used to reimburse
people who are injured by someone who has no money. For example, 2 guys rob
you. They go to jail and you would like to sue them to get your money back.
Create a trust fund from a percentage of punitive damages awards. So when
McDonalds serves too hot coffee again and has to pay $20million in punitive
awards, put, say $5 million in a trust fund for victims and the winner in
the McDOnald's case only gets $15 million..

 

Your post shows the ridiculousness of the typical tort reform logic. All it
takes is one guy like you on the jury and the award will not be outrageous.
Just 1 guy. Whenever you hear about some outrageous award, including the
McDonald's case, you can be sure that there was a darn good reason for it.
Juries just don't go nuts and hand out money.

 

You must not know how to use your newsreader properly, Dan, because you
still sometimes respond to my posts.

 

One word for you...... TIVO.

 

Seriously.. what could possibly of been a good reason for the McDonald's
coffee case? Coffee is hot, you ordered it, and wer stupid enough to pour
it on yourself. The only thing McDonald's should have been required to give
was perhaps some napkins. It's not rocket science that coffee is hot. I
read the court readings... nothing exceptional there. Many juries go nuts
and hand out money, because people who agree that the awards are too high
are rather few and far between in the first place and thus are not very
likely to be on a jury. I am sorry that I don't agree with you that
plaintiffs should always be awarded multi million dollar prizes. I realize
some get lowered, and such, but the fact that it is suggested in the first
place, and then have to be appealed which costs the taxpayers more money.
If you are going to refuse that there is a sue happy pandemic here in the
U.S. then I am sorry but you must be wearing a shinny pair of blinders.

 

Well, I don't watch TV at home anyways, its not worthwhile, but when I do
watch it at someone elses house or wherever occasionally that seems to be
the #1 commercial. But thanks for that great suggestion. I will keep in
mind after I get my big payout from some scrupulous lawsuit.

 

What do you expect from an ignorant top poster?

 

I like reform #2. Ontario speeding tickets have a portion devoted to
"victims compensation fund" The problem with that fund is
administration "costs" and how fund dispersion is implemented.
Reform #1 would just result in the litigants fuding numbers ala Enron.

 

Man - I had to read that sentence over about 5 times before I understood
what it was saying - and that was after looking up "putative"!
Translation for those still having trouble with it: "It shows that it
isn't necessary to have socialized medicine in order for government to
meddle on people's personal habits".

We can't go to complete socialism in one fell swoop - it has to be done
by peeling one layer of the onion off at a time. Each layer is peeled
off by the libs as they sense that the public is properly prepared for
it. They just got there quicker with the tobacco thing than they did
with socialized medicine - but that's on the agenda - like I said, as
soon as they have the public properly prepared to accept it. Excuse me
- I have to go - I think I hear the black helicopters hovering
outside...

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