Frivolous Lawsuits My Ass... I'm Sick of This Bullshit!

[BamaLefty]

Just look a here... so ignorant.

Welcome to America, the land where there is no personal responsiblitiy and everyone's crimes and problems are created by someone else.Here we have parents of fat kids wanting to sue the fast food industry for making their kids fat. We have the parents of people who died of smoke related deaths wanting to sue the cigarette companies because their product caused the death of a loved one(HELLO IT SAYS THAT IT COULD CAUSE CANCER AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS ON THE D^MN BOX). We have people suing wal-mart for making the addicted to shopping there (shullbit) We have people who want to sue Janet Jackson because their 11-year old son didn't know what a breast was(yeah right ) We have people who want to sue video game makers because they say that an 18-year old kid killed police officers because he played Grand Theft Auto We have prostitutes who want to sue strip clubs because they say that the clubs was a gateway to their prostiution lifestyle. We have poeple who want to close casinos because it made them chronic gambling addicts.

Where is the personal responsibility? Why do people make excuses and blame everyone else but themselves for their own mistakes.


http://www.ttforums.com/index.php?topic=14032.new;boardseen#new

[havocmom]

1. Here in reality, personal lawsuits are down. Corporate filed suits are up

The junta talks like it is a big problem, but it just isn't. Corporations want the little guy to be hamstrung when it comes to holding corporations accountable for real damages they cause. Corporations are also the major filers of lawsuits.

They just want to remove anyvestige of consumer protection and trot out the idiot suits to work folks up about it.

Insurance companies and corporations are the ones behind the campaign.

[Dr Ron]

3. There is a problem with frivilous suits--but Bush distorts the issue

A tremendous number of malpractice suits filed are fivilous.

The problem is that Bush's proposals do nothing to reduce this. His proposals protect the insurance companies from real suits, but don't reduce frivilous suits, and don't reduce heath care costs.

[havocmom]

5. State that enacted 'tort reform' Have not seen any lowering of malpractice

insurance costs, so you are right, his proposals protect insurance companies but don't reduce health care costs.

Yes, there are some bad suits, but the facts are personal suits are down, corporate suits are up. The whole thing is a ruse.

Malpractice rates are up because the market isn't preforming to the satisfaction of insurance company execs. All insurance rates go up when the market is down.

And what is the number for % of doctors/% of suits? Something like 3-4% of the doctors involved in 80+% of the malpractice suits? A little real professional oversight and weeding out of bad doctors would go a long way to protect the public AND other doctors. And I thing the lawyers need to clean their house too. Get rid of the ambulance chasers.

All the tort reform BS is just the attempt to pump up the bots to scream for it when what it does is take away rights. I do think the British system might be worth considering.

[Dr Ron]

7. Frivilous versus real suits

While the total number is down, there are still enough frivilous malpractice suits to get doctors to fall for Bush's line, failing to realize his plans won't help.

There are two ways to look at malpractice suits. There's a huge number of frivilous ones--most malpractice suits either don't go to trial or the doctor wins at trial. From that perspective, the solution is to find ways to keep frivilous suits from being filed.

If you look at it from the perspective of suits where the doctor loses, then a small number are responsible for a large number of suits. This is a combination of bad doctors (where weeding them out will help), but also of situations of doctors in high risk specialties in the more litiginous areas, where it isn't an issue of weeding out the bad doctors.

Ironically, malpractice reduces rather than increases efforts to bring about improvements. The malpractice situation has everyone afraid to admit that any errors are ever made, making it harder to fix them.

In any event, just limiting damages on noneconomic damages will have little impact. In cases where doctors lose, the noneconomic damages are not the major costs. In the cases of frivilous suits, the goal is to prevent the suits from being filed in the first place, not just to reduce the potential loses.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

2. And Jeff Guckert or Jim Gannon

Who wants to sue anyone who calls him on his alternative life style and his alternative forms of employment.

[Snotcicles]

4. Sounds like someone needs more information sources. n/t

[Stephanie]

6. What about people who had heart attacks because the Dr. prescribed Vioxx?

What about them? Should we all get chemistry & biology degrees before we get a prescription filled out? Is that our personal responsibility?

[mr fry]

8. there is implied risk in life

anything can kill you, no drug and nothing is truely safe,

if you bungie jump in NZ and the band breaks and you die their laws say tough shyte, you knew the bands could break.

as fo vioxx, they did not make the drug for the purpose to kill people, every year people die from flu shots, chickenpox, mumps, measles, you name it there is risk in everything, be brave little buckaroo

[linazelle]

9. That's bullshit...the whole point of drug testing and Bush's alleged

reason for not buying drugs from Canada is that they are supposed to be safe. When people buy drugs in America, it's under the assumption they've been tested and pose no serious harm--especially death. To imply that the drug companies should be excused for selling what should be safe drugs is what's frivolous.

[Blind Tiresias]

10. you are partially right

Bush is full of shit, in that there is no logical reason that drugs cannot be imported from Canada. But at the same time, Canada's standards of drug testing, research and purity are probably the same as ours, and everyone should know that any prescription drug has potentially dangerous side effects due to either improper use or adverse drug effects.
In the case of vioxx and other Cox2 inhibitors, the FDA ignored evidence that these drugs cause cardiovascular complications because drug company researchers wrongly assumed that original drugs of this type (OTC advil, aleve, etc) has beneficial cardiac effects.
You are correct in that you have a right to safe drugs. But Canada's generic vioxx was no safer than the stuff merck made. But Americans on the whole are badly ignorant of drugs and what they are capable of, which is why asshats like Rush Limbaugh can claim he was abusing an (illegally obtained) "prescription" drug, while wanting to send kids who sell/smoke reefer to jail, all of this being acceptable his simian listeners.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Do you have any statistics?

How many lawsuits are you talking about? Filed by citizens or corporations? Aren't the really "frivolous" ones thrown out?

Or do you want more tort reform?

[Squeech]

12. Disagree

at least in the case of cigarettes.

It has been (laboriously) proven in court that the tobacco companies knew about the health risks and addictive properties of smoking and engaged in hugely deceptive practices to conceal those facts from their consumers. I remember magazine ads, back when I was a kid, that said "Eight out of ten doctors smoke Camels," with photos of benignly smiling men in medical garb, trying to reinforce the notion that cigarettes had the implicit approval of medical science. It wasn't true, of course; Big Tobacco systematically lied, all the while manipulating the chemistry of their products to make them even more poisonous and addictive. I think this is tortious behavior.

[Telly Savalas]

13. And even today much of their marketing is aimed at kids.

Who is supposed to identify with Joe Camel? A 50 year old or a 10 year old?