I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Malpractice insurance
-
Impose strict caps on what an Insurance company can charge it’s client. Set strict guidelines to be followed by judges. Force the accuser to pay the legal fews of the defendant should the case be thrown out (meaning, it doesn’t go to review, not meaning they lose their case).
Just a few things that could be done.
-
Imposing strict caps on what insurance companies can charge could work but there could be some room for charging, for example the rich could pay a much higher cost while poor could pay lower charges.
On the judges i disagree 100%!!! One of the big reasons we are not a police state is the idea of a court system where judges are not puppets of our government officials. I know sometimes judges get it wrong but over all its a good system. Limits on judges should be kept to a mininium!!
Your third idea is very good but would what poor people who try and sue and lose???
-
Imposing strict caps on what insurance companies can charge could work but there could be some room for charging, for example the rich could pay a much higher cost while poor could pay lower charges.
So 32,000 dollars a year should be allowed? Thats what my mother pays, and she only makes 70,000 dollars a year. She barely works 20 hours a week.
On the judges i disagree 100%!!! One of the big reasons we are not a police state is the idea of a court system where judges are not puppets of our government officials. I know sometimes judges get it wrong but over all its a good system. Limits on judges should be kept to a mininium!!
Yes, limits should be kept at a minimum. But when people are sueing when they spill a cup of coffee on themselves? Judges actually let these cases go through.
Your third idea is very good but would what poor people who try and sue and lose???
The idea is, if you try to sue someone and your case is completely, 100%, idiotic, for example you sue McDonalds because your fat, you should be forced to pay the legal fees of the accused. If your case goes to trial, then you should no longer be obligated to pay their legal fees.
-
Impose strict caps on what an Insurance company can charge it’s client. Set strict guidelines to be followed by judges. Force the accuser to pay the legal fews of the defendant should the case be thrown out (meaning, it doesn’t go to review, not meaning they lose their case).
Yes, a similar motion was brought up in California, though it hasn’t been passed yet. IMO, this is a great way to get rid of all the crap cases and hold the suer accountable. Most of the time, big firms decide to settle rather than battle out suits filed against them due to the lengthy trial and litigation process (hiring lawyers is often times more expensive then just settling).
-
I know the court system isn’t perfect but is better than some other countries!!
Someone ill-wishing could say that this “better than some” also means “worse than most”.
Force the accuser to pay the legal fews of the defendant should the case be thrown out (meaning, it doesn’t go to review, not meaning they lose their case).
That is a common thing in Germany. One of the things not mentioned here, that will follow, is an insurance exactly about those fees. So, then you can sue as you are happy and feel like again, for just a few bucks ;).
-
With all do respect Yanny you can expect to pay those high rates when the state you live in has out of control lawyers. Have you guys noticed that insurance sometimes costs more in states that vote democrat??!!??
Could it be with all those extra regulations?? Don’t forget about those extra taxes!!I hope you don’t mind me asking Yanny but is there other insurance companies your mom could look into?? Also what job you work 20 hours a week and make 70,000 a year?? One last thing Yanny that famous McDonalds case was allowed by a judge BUT, it was decided by a jury if my memory serves. Maybe the jury system needs to be worked on as well??
So F_alk would you give our system a thumbs up or thumbs down??
One last thing I hope nobody was offended by me picking on states that vote democrat, states that vote republican have their problems as well!! Such as every so often trying to put christian stuff in the laws and sometimes barely having it kept out. There are some who don’t understand the idea of a system where relgion is supposed to be kept out of government.
-
THAT IS NO QUOTE AT THE END THERE DAUGHTER HIT THE KEYBOARD SHE ONLY 3 SORRY :D
-
…Maybe the jury system needs to be worked on as well??
So F_alk would you give our system a thumbs up or thumbs down??
Well, i would give your system a “thumbs down”, mostly for the jury system and a system that strongly relies on precedents (correct word?).
With that, you
(1) let people decide who have no big knowledge about the laws and most of the time are easily influenced by perfomances of the lawyers and not by facts, and
(2) these people create the precedents that later will be quoted or used as a measure on similar cases, multiplying the influence of the actor-and-orator-abilities of the lawyers.As i said in the beginning, i think the US judical system is “crappy” (for above reasons and examples from a previous posting).
-
So you like the judge only system, where the judge decides the verdict?? What do you think of our penality system?? Maybe some cases should go jury and some other types should be decided by a judge. The system is not perfect but what happens when you have a bad-judge??
-
so much to talk about, so little time.
There needs to be something in the states - caps, whatever imposed on “winnings” etc. This is all so stupid. The biggest reason why i would not want to practice in the US.
Canada has a much “cheaper” system than America. One reason for this i believe is because the amount of suits, the number of suits that actually go to court, and the pay off at the end is so low. Why is this? A few reasons. Fewer crazy/greedy people, better doctors, and much better lawyers for the doctors. Does this mean that some patients get screwed? Unfortunately, yes :cry: When going up against the best lawyers in the country, its hard to make a serious go of things. Also the winnings are much lower. Whether this is because doctors are competent “overall” or just more restrictive legal systems, although it might not work for the individual patient, it does keep our medical system cheaper, and allow for good care. I know there are lots of anecdotes that could demonstrate fallacies in this argument, but i believe iºm right overall.
till later -
Good point.
-
Caps on insurance premiums without caps on lawsuits?
Anybody remember …
…the state of California limiting (putting caps on) what the energy providers could charge the consumers without limiting (or even being able to cap) what energy providers paid for the energy?
Most Californians call it ‘regulation,’ but almost all economists (except those of Californian, liberal and moderate political background) call it economic disaster (see California fora elsewhere on this forum.)It’s the same idea.
See Economics 101 and/or Business 101 textbooks (pre-1960 or any book by Milton Friedman).
Try …
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/friedman.htmlNOTE: All children 3 years old and under should be executed until they are 4 years old! :o
-
So Xi what do we do about the whole thing?? It’s like we are dammed if we do dammed if we don’t!! Everytime somebody comes up with a idea it gets shot down, mine as well, so what do you say we should do Xi??
-
Let me restate what I want to do. I think I presented it a little haphazardly.
I want the state senate (Or the National Congress) to draft a list of guidelines which a judge will refer to when deciding whether a case goes to trial. In addition, should the judge say the case is ridiculous, the person(s) who submitted the case must pay the legal fees of the defending party.
-
I say limits. Since when is being stupid enough to put a hot cup of coffee between your legs a good reason to collect 10 million $s( later reduced, I believe?) :roll:
Set limits and allow for a .1% increase per year(just a dumb thought.) Then people may learn to be more careful as they won’t collect the big bucks. :roll:I agree with the dropped cases (or winner) paying both lawyers.
Though I am tired of national laws/congress …I prefer state laws … that’s what the US Constitution calls for … (beeping) interstate commerce clause!I’m thinking of nationalizing lawyers.
However, currently I believe and have a t-shirt which says, “Legalize Hunting for Lawyers.” -
Well, I just have a problem with a cap on how much you can be awarded. If say, my doctor was careless during a major operation and in result I will suffer from a bad heart condition which will require monthly check ups and lots of medication, shouldn’t I be able to sue the doctor for more than (the proposed, I know you didn’t propose it) 250,000$? No, I’d sue for millions. Why? Not only has my health been permanently scarred, not only will I be on more medication for the rest of my life. No, its going ot cost me a lot more than 250,000$.
-
Good idea Xi, on the state law idea I would say that some in Congress would resist the idea, there are those that believe D.C. should decide everything for everybody.
What happens Yanny if some Federal judges says the guidelines are unconstional??
-
Well, they can. However these Guidelines are more of a recomendation for the Judges on how to proceed. They might come up in an appeal hearing (Can you appeal a Suit? Not sure), and some judges might reform their actions because of the guidelines.
-
Sounds good Yanny but with trial lawyers being the largest group of donors to the Democrat party, wouldn’t the Democrat party try and stop cap limits??
-
Largest Democratic Donars - Labor Unions
I don’t think campaign donations really make much of a difference at the state level.
Suggested Topics
