Malpractice insurance

I keep it with the former german minister of justice who said: “The judical system of the US is crappy.”

And as i said elsewhere, it seems like the US citizens are happy to give up their own responsibilities and their own thinking.
If you can sue a fast food company for selling hot coffee that can scald (sp?) yourself…. i would understand if you can sue one who sells tepid coffee, but not hot coffee… i rather expect it to be hot. Just as i take for granted that people know that microwaves are not designed to dry your pets… and i know how to use toothpicks, i don’t need instructions for that, just because some sued that company. I expect toothpicks to be able to harm my gums, how else could they clean between my teeth otherwise…

All in all: It isridicolous, how such a country that seems to take pride in not thinking could grow that strong. Probably just statistics, that in all the population the exceptions to that rule are enough to run the country in the back.

just my 2 Euro-cents…

So what would you want the New Jersey State Senate to do Yanny?? You say we should control our courts more. How do you do that without ruining the court system?? I know the court system isn’t perfect but is better than some other countries!! Would you propose the New Jersey State Senate start some state program to cover costs, where would the money come from?? Raise taxes?? Then what do you do when bussinesses start leaving the state because the higher taxes??

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???

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).

@waraxis:

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”.

@Yanny:

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

@waraxis:

…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.html

NOTE: 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??

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.”

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??