I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Malpractice insurance
-
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.
-
From what I hear Yanny the trial lawyers have over taken them on the donations, I could be wrong. But I swear i saw it on T.V. being said. I think they also said the unions were now 2nd. Could you find a link to sort this??
-
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??
Yup, i like the system where the judge decides. When i happen to have a bad jusge, then (1) our university system has failed, (2) the “judge-appointment”-chamber has failed, (3) this judge when blatantly being wrong will not be judge any longer.
We don’t have scandals like those very often, and then you can always go to a higher court, with the higher ones having more than one judge who have to decide, and who have proven themselves to be good judges to reach those positions.@Xi:
However, currently I believe and have a t-shirt which says, “Legalize Hunting for Lawyers”
Tehehehee…
-
I think mathematical formuli already exist (and in some cases are already used) to calculate future earnings.
Maybe part of the judgement could be regular adjustments to pay for increases in medical/pharmaceutical costs. If the insurance companies gave you a choice of taking a one-time lump sum or them giving you so much each month/year to cover costs … which would you chose. I think I’d let the Insurance company dole out the $. Think about it … they take your premium, invest it, own most shopping malls/centers in the US, Build great offices, have their name on college bowl games … Who’s a rich little insurance company? -
So F_alk do you think we should change on how we pick federal judges? How else could it be down? You say in one of your options of the judge not being a judge anymore, do you think we should lose the life time membership for federal judges?? Maybe go to 10 year terms?? Who decides when a judge is wrong?? Won’t that mess up the idea of seperate branches of government?? Please explain your position more??
Xi is it true that insurance companies own so much stuff like that?? Then why the Insurance companies complaing then? Maybe their rates are high because of greed and not trial lawyers? I would love to see their tax papers on what they are bringing in.
-
It was true a few years ago. I worked for the biggest term life insurance company. Do you think they want to give up their gains. NO! you gotta pay for their losses.
-
So F_alk do you think we should change on how we pick federal judges? How else could it be down? You say in one of your options of the judge not being a judge anymore, do you think we should lose the life time membership for federal judges?? Maybe go to 10 year terms?? Who decides when a judge is wrong?? Won’t that mess up the idea of seperate branches of government?
The judges over here are picked (AFAIK) from senior lawyers, who apply for becoming a judge and get accepted by the board of judge-appointing (or something called close to that). The “not a judge anymore” was when i happen to have a (very) bad judge, who bends the law, or is too ignorant, or does not stand on the ground of our constitution. He then is fired. So, nothing like terms over here, but mis-use or mis-behavior can be punished (that was only as an answer for your “bad judge” question).
Other judges decide wether a judge is wrong. That does not mess up the division of power in the state at all. -
But what if the senior lawyers have a agenda?? Since alot of lawyers seem to lean way to the left, I’m glad we got our system on that part. No offense F_alk but the idea that only lawyers picking judges sends chills down my spine.
-
Senior lawyers don’t lean to the left. They lean to whatever is most beneficial to their bank accounts.
-
But what if the senior lawyers have a agenda?? Since alot of lawyers seem to lean way to the left, I’m glad we got our system on that part. No offense F_alk but the idea that only lawyers picking judges sends chills down my spine.
The judges are picked from senior lawyers, not by senior lawyers. They are picked by a commitee, and how the members of that commitee are picked i have to look up :).
-
@F_k:
Other judges decide wether a judge is wrong. That does not mess up the division of power in the state at all.
Oh, excellent! That’s like the US Senate’s Ethics Committee which slaps the wrists of misbehaving Senators(Torricelli comes to mind :roll: ). Or cities in the US who have allowed their police departments to have an Internal Investigations Department(cops correcting cops with no oversight. :roll: )
Take off your blindfold, mon ami! :wink:
Suggested Topics
