-
I just have to get a few things off my chest...
"YOU said, "....Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner."
Actually you sound like a Communist sympathiser, here. Hasn't it been discredited in your eyes? Or was it just the implementation??"
-- First off, I find it incredibly annoying when people start mixing the terms "Marxism" and "Communism" around like they are interchangable (this goes back to both posts). Fact of the matter is, Marx would not have been a Lenninist and most certainly wouldn't have been a Stalinist. In fact, when asked about how his theories were being used during his own lifetime (specifically referring to Germany at the time), he stated "...all I know is that I am not a Marxist". He would have been appauled to see his vision turn into what we saw in the 20th century which was nothing like the democratic 'utopia' that he wanted.
I think that it is imperative that people understand that capitalist societies in Marx's day allotted almost zero rights to the working class. Children were working along side their parents or in mines, there was no mandatory school system, the average shift for a labourer was 15 + hours per day, an average days pay was almost enough to keep a family alive, police forces were brought in as a tool to control the masses, and the rich were get richer in ways that we could not dream of today. Marxism and the 'spectre' of Communism (that is, the idea of it) fundamentally changed capitalist societies for the better. Labour unions, child labour laws, pay increases, the middle class etc., all owe their birth to a general societal fear in this thing they called "Communism". This 'spectre' was fundamentally altered by the Soviet regimes of the 20th Century.
Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.
In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.
-
[QUOTE=Keith from Canada
Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.
In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.[/QUOTE]
I tell you what. You keep your system and I'll keep ours. Both have their merits. Which one is better, well that's up for debate. But, I can tell you that if I ever have a serious ailment like Heart Problems, Cancer, Brain injury, etc. My butt is staying right here in the good ol' USA for care. Health ins. or no Health ins. We are generally considered to have the best doctors in the world. I am lucky in that I live in Houston. We have a medical center that is larger than most cities made up of Hospitals, Clinics, Research Labs, Trauma Centers, etc.
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the avg. life expectancy is lower here in the US than in Canada. OK? I doubt our helthcare system has that big of an impact on that. I'm guessing McDonalds and it's Big Mac has a larger effect.
You and RGA are Canadian. Freakin Great! Myself and other's are American. We can argue all day who's better than who. The fact is, I'm not moviing and I doubt either of you will either. Enjoy life! That will make you live longer than anything else you do.
Sorry for the rant! :D
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith from Canada
I just have to get a few things off my chest...
"YOU said, "....Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner."
Actually you sound like a Communist sympathiser, here. Hasn't it been discredited in your eyes? Or was it just the implementation??"
-- First off, I find it incredibly annoying when people start mixing the terms "Marxism" and "Communism" around like they are interchangable (this goes back to both posts). Fact of the matter is, Marx would not have been a Lenninist and most certainly wouldn't have been a Stalinist. In fact, when asked about how his theories were being used during his own lifetime (specifically referring to Germany at the time), he stated "...all I know is that I am not a Marxist". He would have been appauled to see his vision turn into what we saw in the 20th century which was nothing like the democratic 'utopia' that he wanted.
I think that it is imperative that people understand that capitalist societies in Marx's day allotted almost zero rights to the working class. Children were working along side their parents or in mines, there was no mandatory school system, the average shift for a labourer was 15 + hours per day, an average days pay was almost enough to keep a family alive, police forces were brought in as a tool to control the masses, and the rich were get richer in ways that we could not dream of today. Marxism and the 'spectre' of Communism (that is, the idea of it) fundamentally changed capitalist societies for the better. Labour unions, child labour laws, pay increases, the middle class etc., all owe their birth to a general societal fear in this thing they called "Communism". This 'spectre' was fundamentally altered by the Soviet regimes of the 20th Century.
Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.
In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.
I'm really not familiar with Marx, so I won't argue there. I've heard he believed that government would eventually disappear under his system (I believe I picked this up from the Gulag Archipelago - should be required reading), and that sounds utopian to me.
I do know workers' conditions have been dreadful throughout most of history, this is why I steadfastly defend our (that's all of ours here) system, it works, it's far, far more of a workers paradise than others' systems tried. I believe any changes should be gradual, and heavily examined. It's a lot easier to screw something up than get it right in the first place.
I disagree that Communism was the driving force behind the changes, at least here in the US. Our presidents were elected, and the big change came during the depression.
I'm not going to argue our health care is perfect - nothing is perfect. As far as complaints about HMOs, etc, remember we're not used to waiting here and will complain. I belong to an HMO and don't have a problem.
I will repeat, however, that it works for us. Even the uninsured working (deserving) poor cannot be denied medical attention. This is exactly what I mentioned before: when out of my county I would NEVER tell the citizens of country a or b what to do. I will (and have, as here) explain if asked. I will listen to their opinions. I will defend our position if necessary. In the face of disagreement comparisions become necessary, of course.
It comes down to this: If we as citizens decide if we're willing to pay more, for complete medical coverage run by politicians, that is an internal affair, as is our choice of leaders, and will stay that way. Hate Bush, hate Kerry (which is certainly what will happen if he's elected, do you think he's going to do these various foriegn nationals bidding? He too will absolutely continue to kill terrorists, just not as effectively :) ), in the final analysis it's up to US citizens what the US is going to do.
Pete
-
Pete(thanks for your wishes)
Firstly I am not anti-American - what people including myself seem to expect is that America be perfect - which is of course ludicrous to expect. Death rates and all that are similar anyway - it's not like you all die at 47 and we live to 97. The numbers are probably 2-3 years apart. Higher gun deaths at an early age(and wars) probably impact negatively these numbers(if they're included).
Health care arguments while I can see what you're saying - a homeless person may be able to get into one of your hospitals an ER - will he be able to get the best care or the care from the cheap place? In other words I am a student making no money and just recently got a family doctor after moving to Vancouver Island. My dad on his pension has had to pay no money to get all these tests and drugs etc. Well it's not totally free they dinged him $15.00 to get one of those disabled parking cards for the rearview mirror?? The drug industry is a disgrace and R&D is a bit much - Canada buys the drugs off you guys but we're paying next to nothing and in turn we give it to patients for next to nothing. My parents know seniors in the US who claim they're forced to go without the drugs because they can't afford them - so if they will be provided free then Americans need to get that info because they tell outsiders how bad it is - and then the media says it too and suddenly people outside the US think your system is rather heartless. This may be incorrect as you say but a lot of Americans themselves may not realize your medical system is totally free. Indeed, everyone should refuse to pay Blue Cross - why pay if you'll get it done free anyway?
The insurance companies from what I have read are the real drain on the US system.
I am not sympathizing wirh communism but Marxism is another matter - not that I buy that either --- All the isms were invented way back and in high gear during the interwar period. Stalinism was his way of supposedly crushing the class system and of course crushing religion - his competition for power - made sense. Nevertheless he had a dream to compete on a world stage and be an educated and industrialized society.
I am more of a centerist. I agree with some of the right proposals and generally social issues on the left. I am pro gay marriage - pro choice(to a degree) - Pro universal healthcare and education(ie everyone has the same chance financially to go to ANY university in the country). In other words if I'm a straight A student and that is the entry requirment then I can attend U of T or UBC. I know several Americans on my Campus that only go here because they could not afford your schools - and these Americans are NOT subsidized like I am. My total 5 and half years will run around $55,000.00Cdn - but this is Tuition/books and living allowance and I have gone to summer school during this period as well so 3 semesters per year. Am I not wrong to say that some universities in the US that $55,000.00 Cdn would only get me through one year? Yes there is prestige but really Shakespeare is the same whether you learn it at Malaspina University College or at Harvard - and knowing a professor here who taught at big Ivy Leagues in the US he said the marking here is actually tougher due to the special interests impacting some of those schools - no one needs to look much past the athletes to see that it would be wise to give this persona pass in English because he is the star of the team even if he can't read his own name.
None of this is to say that there is no corruption here - different countries different philosophies and atmospheres - I like to travel because I like to see the way other countries do things - London has a certain feel Paris a certain vibrancy - and then there's Australia mate. The US is interesting because you can't really judge it as a country but more like separate countries - Oregan is nothing like California which has a different feel than Arizona which is different from Florida and from Hawaii(this is like a whole other place) and I should think Alaska is quite a bit different as well. It was too long since Detroit and New york to remember much - and Washington State is similer to BC in may ways.
We are all living history - at the turn of this century Britain and France and Germany were the world powers. During the first and second world wars these countries were borrowing heavily from the United States in rebuilding their countries and other financial reasons such as Germany trying to make reparations to France as part of the Versailles treaty. When the colonies began to gain independance from Britain such as India and to a point Ireland The great British Empire began to collapse - and with war also. Those countries ***** and complain because they have to pay America back for those loans - those 5 billion loans plus interest head back to the US at 10billion - but no one forced them to take out the loans.
Canada has had large militaries in the past given our population size was tremendous in WW2 - and kept the lifeline open to Britain - which wopuld have fell a good 3 years before D-Day without them. And as my Canadian Military history instructor noted - you can't dictate policy on a world stage without a strong military presence. Canada has basically handed over our foreign policy to the United Nations - they protect us - err America Protects us.
We are so anti nukes anti this anti that that we can't be taken seriously. Does America really care about what we have to say - if we had 80,000 nuclear weapons and a 20 million man army they sure as **** would - and there would be no softwood lumber argument with your country right now. This whole affair is nothing but America punishing us for not siding with you IMO.
I don't think going into Iraq is all about finances - but Pete I also would not put all your faith into the notion that it was totally altruistic - or all about worry about an iminant danger to your country from Saddam Hussein - there is something more to it than both left and right are arguing. Is it about oil totally no - but every country that relies on oil would have to be interested in it to some degree - and that includes France Germany and Canada who have their own interestes to seeing Saddam stay in power. (especially France and Germany). I would also try and find what these people thought about Iraq before and after 9-11. This can't be just chucked out - and I think the Haliburton connection needs some real focus.
But taking down Saddam hussein and people like Milosovich are imo NEVER bad things - Their killers and need to be held accountable on a world court. The UN is that world court - they found him guilty, incidentally, and America imposed the punishment because they were sick of giving him a 100 warnings. On the other hand you need to be sure your evidence is sound - that Saddam was financing Biny and they have weapons they were going to use against ALled interests. All directions pointed and still do to Saudi Arabia Iraq some flea bag country with a lightweight who your top people said was completely contained and had no capability to make weapons and the previous administration also said this and were more in the know.
But hey does it matter - it's done now and everyone on this forum talking about it won't change world policy.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Pete(thanks for your wishes)
Firstly I am not anti-American - what people including myself seem to expect is that America be perfect - which is of course ludicrous to expect. Death rates and all that are similar anyway - it's not like you all die at 47 and we live to 97. The numbers are probably 2-3 years apart. Higher gun deaths at an early age(and wars) probably impact negatively these numbers(if they're included).
I would add JSEs' comments about diet, as well, I can vouch that we eat a LOT of junk. The gun (at least outside of the getto) and "war" death count is negligible.
I often defend America as if she were perfect. I know only too well that is not true, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Health care arguments while I can see what you're saying - a homeless person may be able to get into one of your hospitals an ER - will he be able to get the best care or the care from the cheap place? In other words I am a student making no money and just recently got a family doctor after moving to Vancouver Island. My dad on his pension has had to pay no money to get all these tests and drugs etc. Well it's not totally free they dinged him $15.00 to get one of those disabled parking cards for the rearview mirror?? The drug industry is a disgrace and R&D is a bit much - Canada buys the drugs off you guys but we're paying next to nothing and in turn we give it to patients for next to nothing. My parents know seniors in the US who claim they're forced to go without the drugs because they can't afford them - so if they will be provided free then Americans need to get that info because they tell outsiders how bad it is - and then the media says it too and suddenly people outside the US think your system is rather heartless. This may be incorrect as you say but a lot of Americans themselves may not realize your medical system is totally free. Indeed, everyone should refuse to pay Blue Cross - why pay if you'll get it done free anyway?
No, the homeless man will not get as good of care as, say, Dick Clark (does that guy age backwards?), but he will get "adequate" care, and let me assure you that "a cheap place" doesn't exist here outside of free clinics.
The pharmaceutical companies here make an average of 4-6% larger net margins than industry in general, which tell me that, yes, they're charging a bit much. But what should we do? In our experience regulation stifles. These companies are pumping out new life saving drugs at an astonishing rate! I don't know if a senior up there gets the 15-20 prescriptions they do down here, more all the time, this is why the costs are going up so much. It's something new, and I have no doubt that we will get a handle on it eventually, out of necessity.
I didn't say our system was free (nothing is truly free) but that the poor do not have to pay. Folks on the dole here get excellent coverage. I get excellent coverage, that I and my employer pay for (which is the same as saying I pay for), though not AS good and not 100% paid for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
The insurance companies from what I have read are the real drain on the US system.
It's this stink'en greedy attitude - stub my toe on the wall and I'll sue the guy who built my house - it's amazing. And the medical malpractice lawsuits - if someone dies (and everybody will!!) - it was the doctors fault and he has to pay - a LOT.
Not to say doctors don't make mistakes but it's getting way out of hand. And with so many former trail lawyers in Congress (you could say the lawyers' union is running the country) it looks like it's only going to get worse.
I should add, though, that our system IS very expensive. I can't believe what palaces our hospitals are becoming. The last one I was in was so palatial I got a bad, bad, feeling. Something like decedent. Ditto for our schools, etc, most foriegn nationals don't quite understand how much money we as a society have, and that excess is not healthy for a culture. I believe this is at least starting to happen in some other 1st world countries, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I am not sympathizing wirh communism but Marxism is another matter - not that I buy that either --- All the isms were invented way back and in high gear during the interwar period. Stalinism was his way of supposedly crushing the class system and of course crushing religion - his competition for power - made sense. Nevertheless he had a dream to compete on a world stage and be an educated and industrialized society.
Yes, he had a dream, all right. Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?
I strongly recommend it to everyone reading this, the whole story is told in the first chapter, then expanded on. If you read one book this year suggested by an Audio site, make it this one :D .
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I am more of a centerist. I agree with some of the right proposals and generally social issues on the left. I am pro gay marriage - pro choice(to a degree) - Pro universal healthcare and education(ie everyone has the same chance financially to go to ANY university in the country). In other words if I'm a straight A student and that is the entry requirment then I can attend U of T or UBC. I know several Americans on my Campus that only go here because they could not afford your schools - and these Americans are NOT subsidized like I am. My total 5 and half years will run around $55,000.00Cdn - but this is Tuition/books and living allowance and I have gone to summer school during this period as well so 3 semesters per year. Am I not wrong to say that some universities in the US that $55,000.00 Cdn would only get me through one year? Yes there is prestige but really Shakespeare is the same whether you learn it at Malaspina University College or at Harvard - and knowing a professor here who taught at big Ivy Leagues in the US he said the marking here is actually tougher due to the special interests impacting some of those schools - no one needs to look much past the athletes to see that it would be wise to give this persona pass in English because he is the star of the team even if he can't read his own name.
Here you would not be considered centrist.
Yes, education here is expensive. I recently sent my daughter-in-law to school, she stopped after roughly two years.
I was amazed at the cost. I was also amazed at the aid available, the majority from private sources. Middle class people get hit the hardest, the poor get heavy subsidies and the rich, well, they're rich!!
I wouldn't have minded if she took some classes up north, although you'alls might have posioned her mind with your hippie thinking lol!
The athlete thing is nothing new - but quotas still are sinking in. The Cleveland Orch. had a conniption when they were told that listening to potential recruits behind a screen - to prevent racial profiling - was unacceptable. To prevent degradation by hiring less talented people they hired a black announcer, who is very good btw. Not that by hiring a black guy (or girl) would have automatically been bad, just that there are still few who play at that level as of yet, and so are in great demand. I have no doubt that the passing of time will help level this (and other) disparities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
None of this is to say that there is no corruption here - different countries different philosophies and atmospheres - I like to travel because I like to see the way other countries do things - London has a certain feel Paris a certain vibrancy - and then there's Australia mate. The US is interesting because you can't really judge it as a country but more like separate countries - Oregan is nothing like California which has a different feel than Arizona which is different from Florida and from Hawaii(this is like a whole other place) and I should think Alaska is quite a bit different as well. It was too long since Detroit and New york to remember much - and Washington State is similer to BC in may ways.
One thing my Gran mentions every time over here is that Europeans have no idea how big we are. I would guess this is true of your country, as well, as you have a great area.
She says, they (the Europeans) think there should have been another election ('00), they don't realise it just wouldn't work.
And the difference inside states, I live in Cleveland, which is rust-belt little sleepy Chicago, two hours south is Columbus, nice clean and modern (and growing) but with a more rural feeling, two more hours south and you're in Cincinnati, the Queen City, which feels very much southern.
The difference in accents is noticable.
I think we share this, driving to Toronto from here first you get the Falls, then the wine country (love it), then urban Toronto, all pretty darn quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
We are all living history - at the turn of this century Britain and France and Germany were the world powers. During the first and second world wars these countries were borrowing heavily from the United States in rebuilding their countries and other financial reasons such as Germany trying to make reparations to France as part of the Versailles treaty. When the colonies began to gain independance from Britain such as India and to a point Ireland The great British Empire began to collapse - and with war also. Those countries ***** and complain because they have to pay America back for those loans - those 5 billion loans plus interest head back to the US at 10billion - but no one forced them to take out the loans.
I realize we have made many loans but the figures quoted above RE: the Marshall Plan include grants only, no loans.
The Brits tell me it was ww2 that broke the camels' back, with many other reasons (including yours, I'm sure). Amazing what a large part of the world the Commonwealth covers, and many Americans, myself included, consider GB the "Mother Country", easy to see why, as it really is.
My SO sat for an old invalid German lady, who still adored Hitler. She believed all the bad stuff was lies. Although I obviously wouldn't agree she also told stories of wandering about various countries with her mother (father killed in ww1) between the two wars, how they had to beg for food and were ridiculed and persecuted where ever they went for being German. She remembered being put in stocks for taking an apple from a tree. I did a little research (a while back now) and no wonder they backed the first guy who said they were somebody. It was an awful time, not commonly known, and had a LOT to do with ww2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Canada has had large militaries in the past given our population size was tremendous in WW2 - and kept the lifeline open to Britain - which wopuld have fell a good 3 years before D-Day without them. And as my Canadian Military history instructor noted - you can't dictate policy on a world stage without a strong military presence. Canada has basically handed over our foreign policy to the United Nations - they protect us - err America Protects us.
This is my biggest beef with Europe. Do you think the the UN can really protect anyone from, say, a coyote? If they want to talk the talk, and they obviously do, and I for one would welcome it, if they would walk the walk! Show me the money!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
We are so anti nukes anti this anti that that we can't be taken seriously. Does America really care about what we have to say - if we had 80,000 nuclear weapons and a 20 million man army they sure as **** would - and there would be no softwood lumber argument with your country right now. This whole affair is nothing but America punishing us for not siding with you IMO.
This wood thing has been going back and forth for a long time now. It's a protectionist policy on the part of the States and I for one totally disagree.
I also think we (both of us) have to bend over backwards in consideration of each other, what with that "longest peacetime border in history" thing going on :) . Good for us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I don't think going into Iraq is all about finances - but Pete I also would not put all your faith into the notion that it was totally altruistic - or all about worry about an iminant danger to your country from Saddam Hussein - there is something more to it than both left and right are arguing. Is it about oil totally no - but every country that relies on oil would have to be interested in it to some degree - and that includes France Germany and Canada who have their own interestes to seeing Saddam stay in power. (especially France and Germany). I would also try and find what these people thought about Iraq before and after 9-11. This can't be just chucked out - and I think the Haliburton connection needs some real focus.
Altruistic? Enlightened self interest is sure not altruistic! This is Realpolitik, the only kind that works over the long haul. And Haliburton, same deal. most people including Americans don't realise that the invasion would not have gone off so smoothly without them, they did a LOT that the armed forces used to do themselves, it freed up military guys to fight.
My dad did a lot of work with contractors, and handling contracts, working for gov't here for decades.
Anyone that's even had a house built knows the score. It goes like this: Bid a contract. Get the job. The MINUTE there's an extra the contractor puts in for his upcharge, and particularly with the gov't but often elsewhere it is a ridiculously huge, overstated sum. The game begins, back and forth, offer and counteroffer, it happens every day.
Not to say Haliburton hasn't done some crappy things. It's a company, it will put profit first. Liars and criminals in business should always go to jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
But taking down Saddam hussein and people like Milosovich are imo NEVER bad things - Their killers and need to be held accountable on a world court. The UN is that world court - they found him guilty, incidentally, and America imposed the punishment because they were sick of giving him a 100 warnings. On the other hand you need to be sure your evidence is sound - that Saddam was financing Biny and they have weapons they were going to use against ALled interests. All directions pointed and still do to Saudi Arabia Iraq some flea bag country with a lightweight who your top people said was completely contained and had no capability to make weapons and the previous administration also said this and were more in the know.
But hey does it matter - it's done now and everyone on this forum talking about it won't change world policy.
Yeah the fur's sure flying over THAT! You know :) I support this war for many reasons but must say I believe this issue was handled badly - very badly. I believe the Sauds are doing very well, now.
BTW, I don't believe we can impose justice on the world, (and I don't think we [the US] has the right), maybe a semblence of order occasionally, keep roads open, etc. No looking for dragons to slay, they should have to come to us.
And yes, we're really kind of pathetic, but at least we all care enough to be concerned, maybe we'll all learn something, who knows?
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
It's this stink'en greedy attitude - stub my toe on the wall and I'll sue the guy who built my house - it's amazing. And the medical malpractice lawsuits - if someone dies (and everybody will!!) - it was the doctors fault and he has to pay - a LOT.
Not to say doctors don't make mistakes but it's getting way out of hand. And with so many former trail lawyers in Congress (you could say the lawyers' union is running the country) it looks like it's only going to get worse.Pete
Very good point. My wife is a medical malpractice attorney (ok, start the jokes now) who defends Doctors, Hospitals, Nurses, etc. Suits have gotten out of hand. Here in Texas, we just recently past some Tort reform but it could be a lot better. People sue for everything. Attorney's look for any mistake regardless of whether it had anything to do with the incident in question. They sue everyone. A nurse could have given the wrong medicine to a patient that may or may not have caused any side effects and the patient will sue the Nurse, the Doctor, the Hospital, the Group the doctor belongs to, the radiologist, the doctor's dog, etc. It's crazy. Things go wrong, it's a fact of life. Doctors are not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. People just seem to forget that and see dollars signs glowing in front of them. If you think you pay alot of helthcare insurance, you ought to see what some doctors pay. It's staggering!
RGA, insurance companies are not the problem. People complain about the high cost of coverage. Fine, let's lower the cost and see how long your bills get paid. Insurance companies can only pay out as much as they bring in. Simple math. Insurance companies charge what it needed to cover losses or benefits plus an extra amount (reserves) that is ususally mandated by individual states. Insurance companies have to keep the doors open in order to provide covarage. Cut back on frivalous (sp?) lawsuits and make the looser pay and our insurance rates will go way down.
JSE
-
Dude, relax a little! Enjoy life! OOOOHHHHMMMM...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith from Canada
Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.
In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.
I tell you what. You keep your system and I'll keep ours. Both have their merits. Which one is better, well that's up for debate. But, I can tell you that if I ever have a serious ailment like Heart Problems, Cancer, Brain injury, etc. My butt is staying right here in the good ol' USA for care. Health ins. or no Health ins. We are generally considered to have the best doctors in the world. I am lucky in that I live in Houston. We have a medical center that is larger than most cities made up of Hospitals, Clinics, Research Labs, Trauma Centers, etc.
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the avg. life expectancy is lower here in the US than in Canada. OK? I doubt our helthcare system has that big of an impact on that. I'm guessing McDonalds and it's Big Mac has a larger effect.
You and RGA are Canadian. Freakin Great! Myself and other's are American. We can argue all day who's better than who. The fact is, I'm not moviing and I doubt either of you will either. Enjoy life! That will make you live longer than anything else you do.
Sorry for the rant! :D
JSE
At least what's being said, towards us, in a negative fashion has possibility for merit where as what others are saying has absolutely no merit!
Speaking as one of those 10mil. who doesn't have any coverage under our current system, I haven't seen anywhere, that I can recall, anyone is dissing the "quality" of health care but instead are dissing the "availability" to all citing affordability as the main reason. Affordability is the reason I don't have coverage now and haven't had most of my adult life(20yrs). Not saying I just don't make enough, just saying life wouldn't be the same... to say the least.
Besides, we got other things to be more worried about than a healthcare system that at least works for the 80% or so of Americans that are privately insured. :D
-
I wish more people juries thought this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Very good point. My wife is a medical malpractice attorney (ok, start the jokes now) who defends Doctors, Hospitals, Nurses, etc. Suits have gotten out of hand. Here in Texas, we just recently past some Tort reform but it could be a lot better. People sue for everything. Attorney's look for any mistake regardless of whether it had anything to do with the incident in question. They sue everyone. A nurse could have given the wrong medicine to a patient that may or may not have caused any side effects and the patient will sue the Nurse, the Doctor, the Hospital, the Group the doctor belongs to, the radiologist, the doctor's dog, etc. It's crazy. Things go wrong, it's a fact of life. Doctors are not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. People just seem to forget that and see dollars signs glowing in front of them. If you think you pay alot of helthcare insurance, you ought to see what some doctors pay. It's staggering!
RGA, insurance companies are not the problem. People complain about the high cost of coverage. Fine, let's lower the cost and see how long your bills get paid. Insurance companies can only pay out as much as they bring in. Simple math. Insurance companies charge what it needed to cover losses or benefits plus an extra amount (reserves) that is ususally mandated by individual states. Insurance companies have to keep the doors open in order to provide covarage. Cut back on frivalous (sp?) lawsuits and make the looser pay and our insurance rates will go way down.
JSE
Yes, that was a very good point. I'm 100% with you guys on this one. Ya know, there is so much we can do in our everyday lives that could reduce the visits to the hospital... and that is one of them. Recognizing that our own health is something we can influence to a large extent is the first step to a safe and prosperous life. It's a shame that the integrety of some of these people is such that they would be willing to defraud the system for personal gain(or recovery).
But let me also tell you that the insurance industry is not exempt from blame on the current state of our healthcare system. While you are correct in your statement about spending what you take in, I would maintain that they haven't made a very good effort to limit the spending on their part. If you provide a service(as a hospital), and you were guaranteed payment(because the payee has the assets) what would stop you from slowly raising the "cost" for same service over time? The only thing the insurance co has to bargin with is volume. But does that keep the cost down? It does for the insurance co! It doesn't do anything for me as the hospitals give discounts to the base rate instead of lowering/maintaining a reasonable base rate. I'm left with making too much per yr to qualify for help, making to little to pay for assistance and paying FULL price on my services I or my family do receive since I don't generate any volume. Now, it's people like me who are blamed for the law suits and the bankrupcies and the moneys lost by the hospital but when you think about it, how much help are we really receiving in an effort to pay the bill?
I'm going through a little thing with the hospital and support staff now for a surgery my wife had back in Feb. I've been doing a little research about the proceedure(gall bladder removal), it's risk's, and it's cost both past and present. In the last 5yrs, the cost of said proceedure has doubled in my part of the country. As far as safety, it's considered to be one of the safest invasive surgeries a human can have. It's also on one of the most useless organs you have. This kind of surgery used to be done in the Dr's office not to long ago. Almost a walk in the park. Yet that same proceedure(surgeons and hospital) will cost you almost $15K in the midwest and close to $20K on either coast. Five or six yrs ago that same proceedure cost the insurance co AND the recepiant about $5K or so. Now, insurance co's pay anywhere from 50% to 80% or more of that bill and the rest is written off as a cost of doing business in an effort to gain more business. Hospitals have succeeded at raising the cost for the same service, knowing that the insurance co will still guarantee payment(which is still higher even with the discount), and the insurance co will pay that increase knowing that they will regain their losses/increase their profits by increasing the premiums of those who feel they can't live w/o insurance coverage. And where do I fit in? I get stuck with the full bill while everyone who can afford it still get a discount because they at least payed for part of the bill through their paying the premiums. At best all I can do is convince the hospital and the surgeons that the money I can pay is better than nothing at all and get my discount that way. While not very noble(and I really hate having to deceive anyone) it is sometimes effective and necessary. Above all, I do pay ALL the bills in what ever amount.
Ultimately, it is up to us, and what we are willing to pay to not have to pay. Insurance used to mean help with a catastraphy, now people use it for anything and everything no matter how minute the expense citing that they are paying for it anyway. Until insurance companies are willing to stop paying for the trivial stuff, and the public begins paying for their own way more often, things will only get worse... if the government doesn't step in first with a tangeble solution.(not holding my breath on that one either)
Thanks for listening J :D
-
Karl,
Yep I don't see a way out of it till people get a grip. It's hard, though, 'cause when it's your family member that needs that procedure, or test, etc. And the way dollar signs light up in peoples eyes - I've hit the lawsuit lottery!! Justice = compensation.
A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.
It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.
The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!
Yikes!
I hope things get better for you. Does your church know?
JSE,
Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
JSE,
Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)
Pete
BRING IT ON!
I'll be there! :D
JSE
-
Isn't it funny, how we can start...
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Karl,
Yep I don't see a way out of it till people get a grip. It's hard, though, 'cause when it's your family member that needs that procedure, or test, etc. And the way dollar signs light up in peoples eyes - I've hit the lawsuit lottery!! Justice = compensation.
A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.
It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.
The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!
Yikes!
I hope things get better for you. Does your church know?
JSE,
Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)
Pete
out with MM and end up with healthcare! Maybe MM can do a piece on healthcare next! LOL
Does my church know? Funny you would ask that since the hospital is a church based hospital that is supposed to be "not for profit"! In fact, that was the only reason I went to this hospital because it was recommended for that fact. It doesn't really matter anyway as most churchs here only provide compassion and understanding... maybe some help with applications to assistance that I still wouldn't qualify for. Anything else and you get the "God only helps those who help themselves" bit. You have to loose a baby or a house or something to get much else. Besides, I'm not asking for, nor would expect any help in paying my own way. What I would like is to pay at the same rate as everyone else whether it be an individual or a corperation, the proceedure should cost the same reguardless. All I am saying is that for various reasons, a number of people and organizations have made the american healthcare system less and less accessible to the general public over recent yrs. By that I mean that due to the cost of receiving healthcare or insurance coverage in this country, more and more people are having to decide whether the risk of getting sick is high enough to justify the cost of insurance. People are seeking out alternatives to traditional insurance all the time in an effort to have some kind of affordable assistance. Most have very little luck in that endeavor. I myself have had coverage off and on based on my ability to pay for such services and finally last year I couldn't keep up and had to drop it again. In the last 5yrs, my premiums for the same "family" coverage have increased from $160/mth to almost $400/mth and that's "my half". I would also say that at $400/mth, that's about 12%-15% of my pre tax income(depending on overtime). Another way of putting it... After I pay all the bills for the house, elect, water, trash, gas, food, clothes, and the rest of the simple "necessities" of life, insurance would be over 1/2 of what's left every month.(BTW, I have never owned a new car or a new house)
I don't know if Canada has the answer or not but I would like the ability to decide on my own through being able to participate in such an experiment here if the oppurtunity were to present itself.
"A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.
It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.
The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!
Yikes!"
Two things...
1) He lived... didn't he?
2) Was that here, or in England? Here, even 50yrs ago, that would have been done with a general anesthetic in the local Dr's office. Man, your gramps was one tough little man!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by karl k
out with MM and end up with healthcare! Maybe MM can do a piece on healthcare next! LOL
Does my church know? Funny you would ask that since the hospital is a church based hospital that is supposed to be "not for profit"! In fact, that was the only reason I went to this hospital because it was recommended for that fact. It doesn't really matter anyway as most churchs here only provide compassion and understanding... maybe some help with applications to assistance that I still wouldn't qualify for. Anything else and you get the "God only helps those who help themselves" bit. You have to loose a baby or a house or something to get much else. Besides, I'm not asking for, nor would expect any help in paying my own way. What I would like is to pay at the same rate as everyone else whether it be an individual or a corperation, the proceedure should cost the same reguardless. All I am saying is that for various reasons, a number of people and organizations have made the american healthcare system less and less accessible to the general public over recent yrs. By that I mean that due to the cost of receiving healthcare or insurance coverage in this country, more and more people are having to decide whether the risk of getting sick is high enough to justify the cost of insurance. People are seeking out alternatives to traditional insurance all the time in an effort to have some kind of affordable assistance. Most have very little luck in that endeavor. I myself have had coverage off and on based on my ability to pay for such services and finally last year I couldn't keep up and had to drop it again. In the last 5yrs, my premiums for the same "family" coverage have increased from $160/mth to almost $400/mth and that's "my half". I would also say that at $400/mth, that's about 12%-15% of my pre tax income(depending on overtime). Another way of putting it... After I pay all the bills for the house, elect, water, trash, gas, food, clothes, and the rest of the simple "necessities" of life, insurance would be over 1/2 of what's left every month.(BTW, I have never owned a new car or a new house)
I don't know if Canada has the answer or not but I would like the ability to decide on my own through being able to participate in such an experiment here if the oppurtunity were to present itself.
"A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.
It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.
The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!
Yikes!"
Two things...
1) He lived... didn't he?
2) Was that here, or in England? Here, even 50yrs ago, that would have been done with a general anesthetic in the local Dr's office. Man, your gramps was one tough little man!
Karl,
On health care, I wouldn't mind an experiment, but it just won't happen that way, you know?
Yep the cost for all of us, I think, is going up, a lot. I don't know the answer to that.
I have never bought a new car or house, either, even if I could afford it the immediate depreciation looks like a bad deal, to me!
That surgery happened in Chicago in the late 30s'. Apparently he got a bit better, then started turning green, he STILL WORKED (as a railroad mechanic), right up to the bitter end.
I'm kinda glad it came up, I'll ask good old dad for a refresher on the details the next time I see him, I'll post under "Surgery in the '30s".
I hope I'm not too far off!!
Pete
-
Mark Fiore's latest political cartoon pretty much parallels Moore's theme of the Administration distracting from the news by creating an atmosphere of fear and contradictory messages. Pretty funny depiction of Tom Ridge actually (never thought of him as the masked superhero type!)...
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/fear.html
-
At the risk of instigating a riot, I must step in and defend my profession. I am a trial lawyer and am very proud to be one. For the most part my practice involves helping injured workers get the workers' compensation and medical benifits they're entitled to under the law. The workers' comp system in our state is arcane and comp insurance companies often use it to their advantage which results in unfair and even inhumane treatment of injured workers. My fee is capped by statute, but it's very satisfying to drag a comp insurance company into court and have the judge order it to provide the very treatment its own hand-picked doctor recommended. I used to ask myself several questions, eg, is the insurance company practicing medicine w/out a license?, why does the court have to order them to pay for something they are already obligated for under the law?
My practice also includes motor vehicle accident cases. I screen cases to determine 1) fault and 2) whether the potential client has a permanent injury. Juries, even if they believe the other driver to be at fault, generally do not award damages for what is known as a soft tissue injury such as whiplash eventhough whiplash is real. Insurance companies know this as well and many such as Alfa and State Farm have used this knowledge to deny small claims and force the claimant to sue. They have further adopted a policy of trying these smaller cases rather than settling for a reasonable amount (often less than $10, 000). Their rationale is that eventually plaintiff lawyers will figure out that it's not worth it to take these cases. But, where does that leave the injured driver who may have missed a week of work and incurred medical bills?
For those of you who actually believe the frivolous lawsuit myth, I encourage you to go to www.snopes.com which has a section on legal urban legends. You'll find that it's predominantly propaganda. There's no way I would file a medical malpractice lawsuit if I wasn't sure that I could prove that the doctor in question breached the applicable standard of care AND that I could find a reputable medical expert to testify to such. Believe me, it's very difficult to find a doctor who will testify against another doctor. It is also very expensive to bring such a lawsuit and under my standard fee arrangement I front all the fees. Therefore, the injury must be severe enough that the potential damages make it worth pursuing. My method of evaluation is not unique and any pragmatist trial lawyer who expects to have a long career would employ this type of evaluation. (BTW, don't kid yourself either. Many people more wise than us decided a long time ago that an award of money is the best way to compensate those injured by the negligent, wanton, reckless or intentional act of another.)
In addition, there are mechanisms in our civil justice system that weed out lawsuits that have little or no merit. They are motions that test the legal theories behind the claims asserted and the evidence upon which the claims are based. There's nothing quite as daunting as having a motion for summary judgment entered against one of my clients. It's like saying my client doesn't desreve a trial by jury. It's not always easy to determine up front whether all the facts as stated by your client will be supported by the evidence once discovery begins.
I have on occasion filed lawsuits or entered into presuit negotiations with the intention of filing for the very purpose of challenging a law unfavorable to my client. Immunity for government officials based on the outdated premise that the King can do no wrong is one of my favorite targets. Within the rules and ethics I must follow I am allowed to bring a lawsuit to challenge the very law that prevents my lawsuit if I am able to make a good faith argument that the law should be changed, modified, or held unconstitutional.
I am amazed at the criticism civil juries have received as of late. It's like everyone now believes that our bought-and-paid-for congressmen know better than our neighbors. Much of this sentiment has to do with the propaganda being spread such as that addressed in the link above. You don't hear much talk about Kellogg suing Exxon over the tiger, or Fox News suing Al Franken over the phrase "fair and balanced" (I take that back - I think Franken made sure people knew about it), or Victoria's Secret going after a KY store called Victor's Little Secret which went all the way to the Supreme Court, or Enterprise Rent-A-Car suing several rental cos. for using the phrase" we'll pick you up" because when Enterprise uses it they mean "we'll pick up your spirits" too! If we continue on the present course, the courts will be left to the elite. They were envisioned as a level playing field for the weak and strong. It's the only branch of our government in which we get to participate directly by serving on juries.
I do have some statistics, studies and reports debunking the myth that lawsuits are the cause of the recent medical malpractice liability insurance "crisis". I've said enough for now but will share them soon. I'll even provide you some facts on the McDonald's hot coffee case if you're interested. Speaking of McDonald's, do you think they would have added a healthy menu and changed their cooking oil if some nutty law professor and his students in the northeast hadn't sued them and other fast food chains for making someone obese. That lawsuit was thrown out, but the Justice Dept. is after McDonald's now. Although I don't often agree, the courts have been used many times in attempts to propagate social change. Read some of your civil rights cases such as those extending the commerce clause of the constitution to eliminate private racism at hotels and restaurants near interstate highways. I'm here to tell you that the system is not perfect because it relies on people and it can stand to be tweaked every once in awhile, but it's the best system in the world and wholesale changes are not the answer. If anything, we should be vigilant watchdogs of our right to trial by jury and should be especially suspicious of efforts to weaken it (such as taking important questions that should be case-specific out of the hands of jurors and putting the answers in legislation).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
At the risk of instigating a riot, I must step in and defend my profession. I am a trial lawyer and am very proud to be one. For the most part my practice involves helping injured workers get the workers' compensation and medical benifits they're entitled to under the law. The workers' comp system in our state is arcane and comp insurance companies often use it to their advantage which results in unfair and even inhumane treatment of injured workers. My fee is capped by statute, but it's very satisfying to drag a comp insurance company into court and have the judge order it to provide the very treatment its own hand-picked doctor recommended. I used to ask myself several questions, eg, is the insurance company practicing medicine w/out a license?, why does the court have to order them to pay for something they are already obligated for under the law?
My practice also includes motor vehicle accident cases. I screen cases to determine 1) fault and 2) whether the potential client has a permanent injury. Juries, even if they believe the other driver to be at fault, generally do not award damages for what is known as a soft tissue injury such as whiplash eventhough whiplash is real. Insurance companies know this as well and many such as Alfa and State Farm have used this knowledge to deny small claims and force the claimant to sue. They have further adopted a policy of trying these smaller cases rather than settling for a reasonable amount (often less than $10, 000). Their rationale is that eventually plaintiff lawyers will figure out that it's not worth it to take these cases. But, where does that leave the injured driver who may have missed a week of work and incurred medical bills?
For those of you who actually believe the frivolous lawsuit myth, I encourage you to go to www.snopes.com which has a section on legal urban legends. You'll find that it's predominantly propaganda. There's no way I would file a medical malpractice lawsuit if I wasn't sure that I could prove that the doctor in question breached the applicable standard of care AND that I could find a reputable medical expert to testify to such. Believe me, it's very difficult to find a doctor who will testify against another doctor. It is also very expensive to bring such a lawsuit and under my standard fee arrangement I front all the fees. Therefore, the injury must be severe enough that the potential damages make it worth pursuing. My method of evaluation is not unique and any pragmatist trial lawyer who expects to have a long career would employ this type of evaluation. (BTW, don't kid yourself either. Many people more wise than us decided a long time ago that an award of money is the best way to compensate those injured by the negligent, wanton, reckless or intentional act of another.)
In addition, there are mechanisms in our civil justice system that weed out lawsuits that have little or no merit. They are motions that test the legal theories behind the claims asserted and the evidence upon which the claims are based. There's nothing quite as daunting as having a motion for summary judgment entered against one of my clients. It's like saying my client doesn't desreve a trial by jury. It's not always easy to determine up front whether all the facts as stated by your client will be supported by the evidence once discovery begins.
I have on occasion filed lawsuits or entered into presuit negotiations with the intention of filing for the very purpose of challenging a law unfavorable to my client. Immunity for government officials based on the outdated premise that the King can do no wrong is one of my favorite targets. Within the rules and ethics I must follow I am allowed to bring a lawsuit to challenge the very law that prevents my lawsuit if I am able to make a good faith argument that the law should be changed, modified, or held unconstitutional.
I am amazed at the criticism civil juries have received as of late. It's like everyone now believes that our bought-and-paid-for congressmen know better than our neighbors. Much of this sentiment has to do with the propaganda being spread such as that addressed in the link above. You don't hear much talk about Kellogg suing Exxon over the tiger, or Fox News suing Al Franken over the phrase "fair and balanced" (I take that back - I think Franken made sure people knew about it), or Victoria's Secret going after a KY store called Victor's Little Secret which went all the way to the Supreme Court, or Enterprise Rent-A-Car suing several rental cos. for using the phrase" we'll pick you up" because when Enterprise uses it they mean "we'll pick up your spirits" too! If we continue on the present course, the courts will be left to the elite. They were envisioned as a level playing field for the weak and strong. It's the only branch of our government in which we get to participate directly by serving on juries.
I do have some statistics, studies and reports debunking the myth that lawsuits are the cause of the recent medical malpractice liability insurance "crisis". I've said enough for now but will share them soon. I'll even provide you some facts on the McDonald's hot coffee case if you're interested. Speaking of McDonald's, do you think they would have added a healthy menu and changed their cooking oil if some nutty law professor and his students in the northeast hadn't sued them and other fast food chains for making someone obese. That lawsuit was thrown out, but the Justice Dept. is after McDonald's now. Although I don't often agree, the courts have been used many times in attempts to propagate social change. Read some of your civil rights cases such as those extending the commerce clause of the constitution to eliminate private racism at hotels and restaurants near interstate highways. I'm here to tell you that the system is not perfect because it relies on people and it can stand to be tweaked every once in awhile, but it's the best system in the world and wholesale changes are not the answer. If anything, we should be vigilant watchdogs of our right to trial by jury and should be especially suspicious of efforts to weaken it (such as taking important questions that should be case-specific out of the hands of jurors and putting the answers in legislation).
Dean,
Thanks for speaking up.
I for one did not finger the lawyers originally, I blamed the people. But of course lawyers are the problem. Just kidding!
But I believe it is true that the bar is the single most powerful group in Congress.
I really don't know enough about this issue. Why do you think premiums are going up? The insurance companies are saying with caps they can plan their expenses.
I remember, as a Realtor, that I would get mad every time some buyer sued the seller, I'd get sucked in, it would always be: "Pete, I know you're OK, but my lawyer told me to name everyone, I've got to get this settled and your company has insurance" - Aaarrrrghhh!
I realise now that it's your job, you have a fiduciary duty to give advice that's in his best interest, same as I did, but aaarrrrghhh! Did I get upset occasionally! I figured out it went with the job eventually.
Of course, when I was threatened by a shady builder, I looked at him, smiled, and said "We pay for and get the very best representation, so bring it on". It worked VERY well, never had another problem with that guy. Too bad it was only marginally true!
So maybe your view of lawyers depends on which side of the fence you're on.
And how are the juries doing? I know in Ohio they've (the authorities) gotten very strict about serving jury duty, up until recently almost no one went. I would love to serve, but never been called, even though I've been a registered voter all my adult life. What's you're take?
Pete
-
Pete,
There's no short answer to rate hikes, the effects if any of tort reform on rates, etc. I get most of my information from the Center for Justice and Democracy and rather than trying to condense it, I'll refer you to their website www.centerjd.org I know that the last cry for tort reform was in the mid-80's and in response to the medical malpractice "crisis" and threats by ins. cos. to leave certain states, over 40 states enacted tort reform. But rates didn't go down. There is an insurance cycle dictated by interest rates, ins. rate competition, etc. that is fairly well explained at the website referred to above. The Center for Justice and Democracy often sides with Trial Lawyers, but if you spend some time at their website you'll see that they have some pretty good evidence backing them up.
In direct actions against insurance cos. for bad faith refusal to pay claims, I do not like the idea of their being able to "plan for their expenses" based on caps. In other words, I like the idea of some uncertainty so that they can't "plan" to deny a percentage of claims regardless of merit, for example. If they know the exact dollar amount they might be hit for, then it may be more profitable for them to take their chances. On the other hand, when a professional such as a doctor or real estate agent is sued, then the area of knowing what your liability is going to be becomes grayer. But, the insurance company is generally in control and can settle a meritorious claim within the policy limits. If it doesn't settle when it has the oppurtunity and a verdict comes back against the professional in excess of the policy limits, the defendant may bring a suit against his insurance company for the excess. Most of the time, the defendant will assign his right to sue his insurance company to the plaintiff in the original case. Plaintiffs lawyers don't like to go after an individual with no insurance or for amounts in excess of the policy limits (of course there are exceptions such as the civil suit against O.J.). Through caselaw our judges have come up with this philosophy on uncertainty: the person who is found to have caused the harm should bare any uncertainty as opposed to the injured.
In your realtor example, it IS generally the lawyer who advises the client to name every potential defendant in a lawsuit. On the other hand, I've talked clients out of naming some as defendants. The test is whether under the facts as alleged a legally recognized cause of action can be stated against that individual. As stated in my previous post, the client's version of the facts aren't always exactly right. If they're not, then a defendant may get out on summary judgment. I had a case recently that involved the sale of a home infested w/termites (termites are potentially a big problem here). I named the realtor and her company, the seller, and the termite inspector and his company. When I went to take the realtor's deposition I realized that she had shown me a house before and of course she remembered me which made me a little uncomfortable. (I'm sure she was pissed.) Their had been some representations made that allowed us to get around the caveat emptor doctrine applicable to an existing home, so I pressed on. One thing about practicing the kind of law I practice, I'm either loved or hated - there's no middle ground.
I do appreciate your willingness to serve on a jury. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to challenge the process by which jurors are summoned for jury duty. As long as the selection process is random and based on a list such as drivers licenses or voter rolls there's not much a lawyer can do about it. I had a case recently where my client was African-American and we were in a county that was 13% African-American. Of the 50 or so people summoned to jury duty only one was African-American. I could challenge the other lawyer if he struck a potential juror based soley on race or gender, but there was nothing I could do about the makeup of the jury pool.
I have observed that most people either try to get out of jury duty, or they resent being called. But once they are selected to be on a jury, they take their jobs seriously. In my home county, the judges will send a sheriff's deputy to get people who don't show up for jury duty. The first Thursday and Friday of every May we have Law Day where seniors from the local high schools come to the court house and some serve as a real jury in a minor criminal trial while the others observe. The seniors always take their responsibility seriously. Our local bar takes this oppurtunity to stress how important jury duty is. We've been doing it since the mid-80s and I think we're seeing a new generation of jurors who are more willing to serve.
I think you're right about lawyers being very powerful in Congress, but the lawyers are not always on the same side of every issue. Unfortunately, it takes money to run and win. I would like to see a wider spectrum of representation, but I'm not sure how we could achieve it. I wouldn't be afraid of an electrician, a mechanic, an assembly worker, a farmer, etc. serving in Congress.
I think debating our civil justice system is good. Like I said, it's not perfect. But when lawyers have to respond to ad campaigns that stretch the truth (like the National Chamber of Commerce's ad campaign about the "lawsuit abuse tax", or insurance execs raising rates and arguing for damages caps while at the same time stating that damages caps won't lower rates), we know we're up against well-backed profiteers. Anyhow, it's a war that wares on me. I would much rather be fighting for my clients than defending myself and my profession. I might have a little more time to listen to my system or watch a dvd!
Tim
|