Vice Presidential Debate!

None of the more popular tort reform bills floating around various states and Congress have had anything that addresses those problems though. The focus of those bills is normally limiting damages. While that may help the insurance companies by limiting what they payout, as well as decreasing the number of lawsuits because they won't be as profitable for trail lawyers, it also has the effect of screwing the people out of the best lawyers to prosecute their cases. And without the best lawyers they can get, they won't win against insurance companies. The bigger issue is that lawyers cost too damned much, and the vast majority aren't in it to help their fellow man, they're in it for the money (and they enjoy arguing). In a perfect world, limiting awards would in theory drive down the cost of lawyers since you'd have more lawyers competing for less money. That won't happen, or at the very least, will not happen with any meaningful speed. 1 of 2 things will happen: (1) Lawyers go back to hourly pay, which means a lot of victims will not be able to afford a lawyer, or (2) those lawyers who do care about their fellow man can no longer make enough money to stay in business AND effectively fight industry lawyers.

I completely agree that America is sue happy; that the wrong people are getting sued, that third parties are being asked to pay for someone else's mistakes when they acted in good faith. How do you protect those third parties, put a stop to frivolous lawsuits, AND still offer victims a chance for justice, and do it only through a new bill/law? Laws alone are either black and white or so full of loop holes that they do no good. And seen from a larger view, the state of our legal system, especially in regards to malpractice, is anything but black and white. What should we do? I don't know. All I know is that even if we eliminated all lawsuits against corporations, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, the American people would not see substantial monetary relief, as the companies would pocket as much of the income saved from a lack of lawsuits as possible, rather than pass it on to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

None of the more popular tort reform bills floating around various states and Congress have had anything that addresses those problems though. The focus of those bills is normally limiting damages. While that may help the insurance companies by limiting what they payout, as well as decreasing the number of lawsuits because they won't be as profitable for trail lawyers, it also has the effect of screwing the people out of the best lawyers to prosecute their cases. And without the best lawyers they can get, they won't win against insurance companies. The bigger issue is that lawyers cost too damned much, and the vast majority aren't in it to help their fellow man, they're in it for the money (and they enjoy arguing). In a perfect world, limiting awards would in theory drive down the cost of lawyers since you'd have more lawyers competing for less money. That won't happen, or at the very least, will not happen with any meaningful speed. 1 of 2 things will happen: (1) Lawyers go back to hourly pay, which means a lot of victims will not be able to afford a lawyer, or (2) those lawyers who do care about their fellow man can no longer make enough money to stay in business AND effectively fight industry lawyers.

I completely agree that America is sue happy; that the wrong people are getting sued, that third parties are being asked to pay for someone else's mistakes when they acted in good faith. How do you protect those third parties, put a stop to frivolous lawsuits, AND still offer victims a chance for justice, and do it only through a new bill/law? Laws alone are either black and white or so full of loop holes that they do no good. And seen from a larger view, the state of our legal system, especially in regards to malpractice, is anything but black and white. What should we do? I don't know. All I know is that even if we eliminated all lawsuits against corporations, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, the American people would not see substantial monetary relief, as the companies would pocket as much of the income saved from a lack of lawsuits as possible, rather than pass it on to the public.

---

Yes and No. If you took them all away and then did not make a mandate to take it into account when setting prices for servies and goods they would most likely pocketed the extra money. If you will pay what they want now, why change?

But the government could and should force business to take it into account when setting prices. I hate big Government but even I will give on that one. Everyone is passing the price of lawsuits and red tape on to the consumer and it is hurting everyone.

Tort reform should be a bigger issue than it seems to be. It could help both parties get what they want done.

Here is a thing about how it can help. I think it was done back in 1996 so take it how you will.

http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Yes and No. If you took them all away and then did not make a mandate to take it into account when setting prices for servies and goods they would most likely pocketed the extra money. If you will pay what they want now, why change?

But the government could and should force business to take it into account when setting prices. I hate big Government but even I will give on that one. Everyone is passing the price of lawsuits and red tape on to the consumer and it is hurting everyone.

Tort reform should be a bigger issue than it seems to be. It could help both parties get what they want done.

Here is a thing about how it can help. I think it was done back in 1996 so take it how you will.

http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm

---

If the government would step in, yeah, it could work. And I'd have no problem seeing that. In addition to that, I'd love to see not-for-profit insurance companies. The biggest thing that could help tort reform would be for so-called victims not to abuse the system. They are just as responsible as the lawyers, in my mind. But until those people get some ethics, that won't happen.

Interesting ideas in that link, btw. I'd love to see what would happen if a state implemented that plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

If the government would step in, yeah, it could work. And I'd have no problem seeing that. In addition to that, I'd love to see not-for-profit insurance companies. The biggest thing that could help tort reform would be for so-called victims not to abuse the system. They are just as responsible as the lawyers, in my mind. But until those people get some ethics, that won't happen.

---

Well that is the catch. Most people who are really big assholes about suing, are poor. This shit is making them poor by costing them more money for good and services, and by keeping more factories from opening up in their area to offer more work.

Middle class americans are pretty ethical, if only because they like where they are at and don't want to chance losing it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

As soon as Yoshi mentioned MSNBC, I knew that some braindead liberal was going to bring up Fox News, even though nobody mentioned it in this thread, and nobody used a Fox News article as a source to prove a point.

Good job g0zen.

---

Yep. Hook, line, and sinker.

Edwards won IMO, but it was hardly the massive piece d'ownage that Kerry pulled on Bush at the presidential debate. As for Cheney- we don't need that Halliburton fucknut as our vice president. It's time for Bush to start getting his $200K salary for doing nothing.

The electoral college stinks. The whole ball of wax should be decided purely by vox populi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverDude

Edwards won IMO, but it was hardly the massive piece d'ownage that Kerry pulled on Bush at the presidential debate. As for Cheney- we don't need that Halliburton fucknut as our vice president. It's time for Bush to start getting his $200K salary for doing nothing.

The electoral college stinks. The whole ball of wax should be decided purely by vox populi.

---

No it shouldnt. That would give stupid states like California and New York a wholly uneven amount of focus and influence, and states like Wyoming and South Dakota would be entirely neglected. It's a significant trade-off.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says how states' electors should be divided up. Its just that the winner-take-all system has triumphed in history. I would be in favor of a sort of proportional system, whereby if Bush wins 40% of California he would get 40% of the electoral votes (which would be about... 20 or 21 I think) - it would require zero Constitutional amendment (so it could happen quickly) and is in my opinion a far better solution than just piling the votes into 2 huge piles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

No it shouldnt. That would give stupid states like California and New York a wholly uneven amount of focus and influence, and states like Wyoming and South Dakota would be entirely neglected. It's a significant trade-off.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says how states' electors should be divided up. Its just that the winner-take-all system has triumphed in history. I would be in favor of a sort of proportional system, whereby if Bush wins 40% of California he would get 40% of the electoral votes (which would be about... 20 or 21 I think) - it would require zero Constitutional amendment (so it could happen quickly) and is in my opinion a far better solution than just piling the votes into 2 huge piles.

---

To your former comment, that happens within the states already. I live in South Carolina. I typically vote Independant or Democratic (assuming their candidates don't suck). When it comes to the presidential election, my voice will not be heard because for every 1 vote for Kerry, 3 votes will go to Bush. A lot of left-leaning people don't even go to the polls here, because they feel like there's no way their candidate will win in the face of the "Religious Right" swarm. The only choice they feel they have is to move to another state.

Now, if the proportional voting system was in place in all states, that'd be a moot point. And while the US constitution could be left alone, the state constitutions would need to be amended.

I still like that Non of the above option some other coutries have. Something like that would be really awesome right about now.