Malpractice insurance

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??

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??

@waraxis:

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.

@waraxis:

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.

@waraxis:

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:

@Yanny:

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$? No, I’d sue for millions. Why? Not only has my health been permanently scarred, not only will I be on more medication for the rest of my life. No, its going ot cost me a lot more than 250,000$.

the problem i have with this is that no doctor (well, nearly no doctor) intentionally botches up a surgery. Furthermore, there is the whole “misadventure” thing. This is when people have different anatomy, unknown biophysiological characteristics and disorders etc. that causes a surgery to appear “botched”. This does not mean that the physician was not competent, or did his best, but that there were circumstances beyond his/her control. As for the “careless” doctor - this does happen, but not too frequently, and when it does, it is due to “human error”. Naturally it sucks when this human error is committed on you. At the same time, nice as it would be to crucify this doctor over a simple (however occassionally crippling) mistake, how far do you take this? Is it right to destroy a “human”, possibly wonderful doctor due to personal circumstances? Many would say yes, and i can see this perspective, however from my point of view, it is hard to do this.

@Xi:

@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:

keep in mind that many professional organizations wish to remain such, and have the knowledge basis that requires that they do the watch-dogging for lack of a better term. I think that in many respects these organizations are harder on their colleagues than a citizens board (or other) might be.

I’m not saying they or all their decisions are bad. However, some outside oversight is not a bad idea(e.g., a five member panel with one or two civilians/non-pros.)

@Xi:

I’m not saying they or all their decisions are bad. However, some outside oversight is not a bad idea(e.g., a five member panel with one or two civilians/non-pros.)

Well, that’s where the media come into play, don’t they?
These cases get a lot of coverage over here, so there is not necessarily a need to get someone form the outside into the panel.

What about having a larger panel?? What about a system where you have a seperate branch of government decide on what the make up will be for the panels??

@waraxis:

What about a system where you have a seperate branch of government decide on what the make up will be for the panels??

AFAIK that decision is made by another branch, i think the legislative decides the general make up, but not who exactly will be in there. I doubt that that decision will be made by the judicative though.