On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > REAL example: > woman's doctor doesn't do childbirth's, because the insurrance would be > unpayable. (29.000$ vs 107.000 for insurrance if she did births) > (have forgotten the name, but it was on very credible 2. german television)
Yes, that's true. Many OB/GYN's have gotten out of the "childbirth business" because malpractice insurance rates in that field have skyrocketed. > There are 2 possibilities: > 1) american doctors are soooo bad, that they very often do something wrong > (very low propability) > 2) american's too often sue and want to much money 3) Just a few Americans sue and want too much money, and the insurance companies raise premiums based on a projection of trends into the future rather than on any past or present actuarial reality. (e.g., since we've had a 100% increase in malpractice suits related to childbirth in the last year, [increase from 10 to 20] we must raise premiums based on the assumption that they will continue to rise 100% each year for at least the next 5 years) > Signs point to 2) Doctors *have* been sued because the baby was born with birth defects. I can't imagine such a case would be won, but even if 2) is true and the suits are lost, it could move insurance companies to take the actions in 3). > S> I can not find it in my copy of the UN Charter. Please > S> enlighten me as to which section and paragraph of the UN > S> Charter recognizes "undeniable rights." > Indirectly in the preamble: > "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the > human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and > small" The preamble has no force of law. It's basically a "political speech" at the beginning to set the tone and explain the reasoning for the law that follows. The US Constitution also has a preamble, as does the charter for rec.crafts.glass. The preambles for all three carry the same amount of legal weight. > I (as not being a native speaker) thought that inalienable and undeniable were > roughly the same, but anyways I ment inalienable. I knew what you meant, and wasn't addressing that. :-) > PS: as for Guantanamo: > Art. 5 > "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or > degrading treatment or punishment." They are being fed three times a day, they have comfortable beds. How is that cruel or inhuman? They are not degraded. They are not being punished, but merely temporarily detained until their status can be determined, so you see, Art. 5 has nothing to do with this situation. (No, I don't actually condone that viewpoint... I'm just donning the lawyer cloak momentarily.) Language is imprecise. It is subjective. What may be funny to you may be degrading to me. No question about it, most lawyers are despicable in that they have no scruples or morals of their own. They don whatever cloak of ethics their clients hand them. In a strange way though, this is a trait that more of us could do with; the ability to see the situation through someone else's eyes; reason using someone else's premises. The difference between a lawyer and an empath is that the former usually does it for money (and/or personal glory) while the latter does it for understanding. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
