January 07, 2005

• I am not a lawyer. And I'm fullly aware that the majority of red some states don't really care about "facts" etc. I'm just saying - after we confirm the torture-memo guy, we'll fix it so that dumping massive loads of toxins into public waterways will be easy to do. In other words - it's on - BOGU.
• This bugs me, too. Especially when people see the limitations being imposed as somehow good for the little guy. There is a reason that all of the tort-reform associations are funded by "big business."
• Is there a name for the phenomena of people voting for candidates who don't represent their interests? I remember it starting in earnest with Reagan . . .
• petebest, I dunno, but "What happened to Kansas?" or whateverthehell that book was called talks about it a lot. You can convince an awful lot of people with the rhetoric he uses -- prices going up, doctors quitting, etc.
• The opposition talking point should be "Bush wants to make the world safe for the maker of the next Vioxx"
• Is there a name for the phenomena of people voting for candidates who don't represent their interests? Patridiotism.
• "No, we don't need no billion-dollar lawsuit against Citibank and their filing of false credit reports, because it just drives up the costs for all of us!" (Bitchslap)
• I should add that I don't support multi-million lawsuits if just one person benefits. There should be a per-person cap of say, $1 mil, and anything in excess of that gets put towards a charity or a humanitarian fund.
• While it is rather obvious to thinking individuals that the primary motive behind reducing lawsuit payouts is to keep more money in the hands of big business, there is another interesting motive behind it. Here is a nice exerpt from a fantastic article : In our last interview, I tried out on Rove a scenario I called "the death of the Democratic Party." The Party has three key funding sources: trial lawyers, Jews, and labor unions. One could systematically disable all three, by passing tort-reform legislation that would cut off the trial lawyers' incomes, by tilting pro-Israel in Middle East policy and thus changing the loyalties of big Jewish contributors, and by trying to shrink the part of the labor force which belongs to the newer, and more Democratic, public-employee unions. And then there are three fundamental services that the Democratic Party is offering to voters: Social Security, Medicare, and public education. Each of these could be peeled away, too: Social Security and Medicare by giving people benefits in the form of individual accounts that they invested in the stock market, and public education by trumping the Democrats on the issue of standards. The Bush Administration has pursued every item on that list. Rove didn't offer any specific objection but, rather, a general caveat that the project might be too ambitious. "Well, I think it's a plausible explanation," he said. "I don't think you ever kill any political party. Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances. But do you weaken a political party, either by turning what they see as assets into liabilities, and/or by taking issues they consider to be theirs, and raiding them?" The thought brought to his round, unlined, guileless face a boyish look of pure delight. "Absolutely!"
• One million dollars can actually be a very small amount of money, rolypolyman. What do you do with someone who acquires a treatable cancer or asbestosis or any other disability which requires long-term (even lifelong) medical help, all at the hands of someone (person or corporation) who is negligent? Limiting awards to an arbitrary sum makes no sense in these cases. I typically frown at people who are awarded money in frivolous lawsuits, but can think of more than a few who, although financially compensated, had their lives ruined. If capitalism admits no limits other than what the free market will bear, why introduce this sort of limitation? Who really benefits from restrictions on class-action lawsuits?
• Is there a name for the phenomena of people voting for candidates who don't represent their interests? I remember it starting in earnest with Reagan . . . I think it started in earnest with the first time in history people were allowed to vote, and it's called "human nature."
• I'm more worried by the $250K cap on medical malpractice suits. Basically, that's putting a price on your, your wife's, your kid's life. A doctor could kill your kid by gross negligence, and it costs him $250K. If he can afford to pay that, hey, he can afford to be sloppy. Same with these big business caps. It makes it affordable to kill people. Tip--anytime someone says "it's win-win for big business and the consumer!" guess what? It's "win" for the big business. Period.
• I agree wholeheartedly with the first portion of TenaciousPettle's comment. Lawsuit payouts are budgeted-in expenses. The cheaper it is to hurt or kill someone, the more people a business can afford to hurt or kill. Caps on attorney's fees are fine with me. Caps on damages are not fine. Lawsuits are designed to compensate victims and to provide tortfeasors with an incentive not to commit the same tort again. The Republicans seek to take away the second purpose of a lawsuit so that business can enjoy a higher profit margin. It has absolutely nothing to do with helping the average citizen.
• The opposition talking point should be "Bush wants to make the world safe for the maker of the next Vioxx" Um. Yeah. I'm sure that he does. As we all should. Because the maker of the last Vioxx was also the maker of Hyzaar and Cozaar which treat high blood pressure, Emend which is used to help people undergoing chemotherapy, Fosamax which helps prevent osteoporosis, antibiotic Invanz, cholesterol-lowering statin Zocor and the HIV drug Crixivan. You bet your ass we want the world to be safe for the maker of the next Vioxx.
• This is basically a case of powerful anecdotal evidence overpowering rationality. People can get angry about the outrageous awards and convince themselves its a HUGE problem-- just like many people want cell phones banned for drivers because we can all picture "that obnoxious rich guy in his Mercedes yacking away and not watching the road." Whether or not the sterotype has any statistical basis in reality- it presents an easy target for people to get emotional about.
• You bet your ass we want the world to be safe for the maker of the next Vioxx. Actually, you can bet your ass. I'll pass. Regardless of all the "miracle drugs" you mentioned, (and I agree there are a lot of good things there) Vioxx is a case in point for why these limits are a stupid idea. This administration is supposedly all about "responsiblity". The vioxx case was a case of extreme irresponsibility. On the part of Merck for not doing enough testing, on the part of the FDA for getting in bed with the drug makers and shotgunning every new drug that comes down the pike straight to market and for the doctors who get what amounts to basically payola for prescribing certain drugs. If there were strict rules and stringent penalties for these things, and a government agency that actually worked the way it should, Vioxx would never have made it to market.

• I should add that I don't support multi-million lawsuits if just one person benefits. There should be a per-person cap of say, $1 mil, and anything in excess of that gets put towards a charity or a humanitarian fund.

  So you're saying that in the case of Pinto-esque malfeasance, someone left permanently crippled, requiring nursing care for the rest of their life, and robbed of the chance to earn a living - the average US income per capita over a working lifetime alone is >$1 million - should get only a million bucks? And then what? Be put out with a bowl to beg so their kids can go to college?
• If Bush is looking for a way to convince Americans that this sort of tort reform is a good idea, he should copy the ricockulous PR blitz that got this crap passed in California. It was touted as protection for small businesses from frivolous lawsuits, but this is what it was actually about. Whenever I fall into thinking that maybe Arnold isn't so bad, this proposition, which would not have passed without his dogged support, reminds me that he is evil. Maybe he isn't as evil as Bush, but he is still hhhhhurting America.
• Good post.