On Tort Reform

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform : You are correct. Most court cases are won on theatre and which lawyer can play on the juries sympathy or predjudices. The facts are only secondary.
    Posted by smileybennyhill


    The actual truth is that medical malpractice claims are very difficult to win.  The big wins and the questionable wins hit the papers, but the losses are hardly ever mentioned.  But what do I know, I was a lawyer for 15 years...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from smileybennyhill. Show smileybennyhill's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform : The actual truth is that medical malpractice claims are very difficult to win.  The big wins and the questionable wins hit the papers, but the losses are hardly ever mentioned.  But what do I know, I was a lawyer for 15 years...
    Posted by Reubenhop


    True, but the frivolous suits can drag on for years and cost you a fortune. I know this from experience.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform : Healthcare is not an inalienable right like the right to free speech. It requires that for people that cannot afford healthcare that the government take money from someone else to provide it. It requires that someone deliver the service - how can a right be granted if there is no one to provide the service? Are we going to force people to be doctors? And when you replace BC/BS with the government, do you think they are going to be any different?? If so, I have a car that runs on water that I would like to sell to you. If the goverment is going to pay for your healthcare insurance, you are inviting the government into your bedroom, bathroom, living and kitchen to tell you how to live. If you think that's a fair trade off for lower healthcare costs then that's your problem. If you think that costs will actually go down when government gets more involved in healthcare then you are asking for something to happen that has never happened before. Face it, the only reason anyone would be for this is if they are the ones that get "free healthcare" paid by someone else. In the dictionary you can find their picture under "selfish".
    Posted by Newtster



    Whether a right is termed "inalienable" or not is irrelevant.   The issue is whether we think it is valuable or not.  Education was not provided for the citizenry until the mid-19th century and now it is considered indispensible.   Kids have a right to education and people come forward to be teachers.  It would be no different for government provided healthcare: perhaps you should look beyond our borders as other nations are managing pretty well (covering all people at less cost).   Your fear of government intrusion because of its support of healthcare is rather dramatic paranoia.  And wanting a better system is not selfishness: I have good healthcare, but I want a better system for everyone.  My motivation (like most supporters of reform) is based on a combination of the rational (our system costs too much and covers too few) and the emotional (compassion for those in need).   Indeed, it could be argued rather forcefully that your view is "selfishness" personified: "I've got mine, the hell with the rest of you." 
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     

Share