No, I can't really think of anyone needing millions of dollars; however, I also realize that never having been injured, I am in no place to tell people what the real extent of their damages are, and neither are you, I would imagine.Are you MAD?!
Can you give one good fucking reason for why somone deserves Millions?
You relise how your contradicting yourself don't you? If you can't provided a reason WHY people deserve Gigantic awards the only other reasons is Because "They feel like it" somthing which you say your aginst.
Can you provided me one credable reason why anyone deserves any extra money at all when they will already have every Medical Cost covered IN ADDITION to the widely exaggerated Salery you will be payed for the rest of your life for doing absoulty nothing?
Hmm, OK, fair enough, I should have thought that statement through.Prehaps you need to open your eyes and look at the number of HMO's going out of Busniess, Or Drug Companys that either fail or have to merge to surive, Take a closer look at the stock performance of Companys after getting hit with redicioulious damages, Tobacco companys are only holding on because of their deep-pockets but if they loose another round of Lawsuits they are done for
I'm in agreement with you here, actually. There is no reason that corporations and such should be automatically made to pay huge damages to genuinely-injured people just because they are nearby and wealthy when they are not guilty. Typically such cases involve corporate managers, not the actual corporation, committing some sort of injury. The corporate managers, not the entire damned corporation, ought to be held at fault. As for big tobacco, well, that's a unique case; the various state governments and the federal government have gotten in on the lawsuit action in addition to private individuals, so the tobacco companies are getting a lot more screwed over than they would be with normal lawsuits.
There are probably thousands of lawsuits carried out a year, and only a very tiny few of them actually involve very high awards. It is not common. Punitive damages aren't even particularly common, hell, they're only awarded in 3.3 percent of cases!
Contradiction, Anecdotal refers to an uncommon thing, What is not uncommon is redicously high rewards by Jurys, What is not uncommon is them getting slashed by Judges by huge amounts but then some states don't let Judges slash it that much or put a Cap on the Slash amount meaning when all's said and done Seventy Billion Dollers is not Seventy Billion any more but only 17 Billion..... Yep... onnnllly 17 Billion
But back to the point, It only NEEDS to happen once
To put it another way and use a classic example, How many people need to die from Asbestous Posioning before we start doing somthing about it?
How many Companys need to be driven out of busniess before you willing to get off your moral high horse and relise there is no one on this planet who deserves Billions no matter what was done to them
I think you're misunderstanding me, at least a little bit; I do think American tort law is in need of some reform, I just don't think the solution is to deny people the right to sue for what they feel to be the full measure of their damages. As I said above, the solution is not to reform the amount of damages, but rather who pays the damages.
Medical malpractice accounts for only 0.55 percent of national health care costs. That is not an insane amount. And maybe the doctors on on strike so that they can gain at the expense of others? No, that would never happen, that is NEVER the motivation for strikes...I see, I guess thats why the NY Post writes all those storys about Doctors going on Strike "for fun" instead of the fact that they are being driven out of busniess by insane insurance expesnives
Or maybe you forgot the fact that few HMO's or Insurance Companys are confined only to a Single State and are instead Nation Wide, Or Prehaps you forgot the fact that in states that don't have limits drive up the costs for everyone else as "GASP" guess what? Thats how Economics work
Um, no. Insurance rates are not FLAT, they vary according to differing factors, such as risk, location, and family history. By the reformers' logic, insurance rates should have dropped in states with stingier tort law because (according to the reformers' logic, again) lower awards = lower insurance rates, and it will be cheaper, theoretically, to insure people in states where awards are limited. This of course did not pan out, as I stated earlier, such laws have failed to significantly impact insurance rates.
And where does your surgeon friend get his figures?Thats in addition to Inflation
The acutal Figure is roughly 9.5% a year according to my Surgeon friend, try that one out for size and compare
Note: I would probably agree with you on at least more than a few issues concerning the reforming of tort law, my primary issue is with people who want to cap damages. [/quote]
