Zeb, A reasonable approach to the problem.
On Aug 18, 10:50 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I think the court should have some latitude in dealing > with frivolous lawsuits as they are not all one flavor. If, for > instance, a suit is brought because the lawyer truly feels and > reasonably argues that it meets the legal standards for such, even if > it doesn't, the judge can just throw it out. If, on the other hand, > the judge determines that the suit is completely without merit and > just a naked attempt to get money from a company in a settlement > rather than waste money on a trial, he could whack the suer with > fines, etc. The same would go for suits brought just to harass the > other party. > > On Aug 17, 5:22 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > If it was a "fake" accusation and/or suit the proper charge would be > > attempted insurance fraud, or theft by fraud, which I believe is a > > criminal offense. Are you saying your definition of "frivilous > > lawsuit" is actually "attempted fraud"? Fruad has always been illegal. > > > On Aug 17, 3:23 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That is the point Zeb... If the lawsuit is frivolous as determined by > > > the courts, have the courts fine the lawyer $10,000 for a fake > > > lawsuit... > > > > On Aug 17, 3:52 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The court will have to determine, on an individual basis. I'm sure > > > > they'll consider if there is enough evidence of the charge, if the > > > > charge was intentional and/or avoidable, if any damage actually > > > > occurred............ > > > > > On Aug 17, 12:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Jgg, > > > > > > Dammit you are not listening. DEFINE "fivilous lawsuit". > > > > > You can't "cap" what lawyers earn unless you are also ready to cap > > > > > what doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. can earn. > > > > > > On Aug 17, 10:45 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Lets start here > > > > > > > Limiting the abuse of frivolous lawsuits pushed by lawyers and/or > > > > > > patients... One place to start is if a lawsuit is frivolous, > > > > > > charge > > > > > > the lawyer and patient for slander and/or label... Limiting > > > > > > putative > > > > > > damages... Limiting the practice of suing any and all who MIGHT be > > > > > > involved... Capping lawyers compensation to the smaller of a > > > > > > percentage or a hard limit... There are other suggestions, I > > > > > > understand the any solution is by definition complex and nuanced... > > > > > > But not to even discuss the issue or consider it when the WH, as it > > > > > > does now, insisted this is a debate on health INSURANCE reform is > > > > > > silly > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 10:12 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > Third time, give me your definition of tort reform. How can we > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > rationally what you seem to be unwilling or unable to even define? > > > > > > > I've already suggested a cap on punitive damages, and punitive > > > > > > > damages > > > > > > > only. What do you have to say? > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2:18 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I said together... You suggest payment and delivery system > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > tort reform first... I then asked why not tort reform > > > > > > > > first... My > > > > > > > > point was and is an unreformed tort system IS a major factor in > > > > > > > > health > > > > > > > > care raising costs --- it effects and alters how physicians MUST > > > > > > > > practice just to avoid greedy lawyers whose principle is to sue > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > and all involved regardless of fault... Even if the lawyer > > > > > > > > loses, > > > > > > > > often their costs ARE required to be paid by the claimants... > > > > > > > > So if > > > > > > > > you want systemic health care reform, you must have tort reform > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > well... The Democrats pretend otherwise... > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 11:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > WHY should there be tort reform first? Who's struggling more, > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > family that is facing immediate bankruptcy due to medical > > > > > > > > > bills or the > > > > > > > > > Physician so financially stressed by the cost of medical > > > > > > > > > malpractice > > > > > > > > > insurance he may not be able to afford a new Mercedes this > > > > > > > > > year? > > > > > > > > > > Once again I ask, give me a clear definition of what you mean > > > > > > > > > by "tort > > > > > > > > > reform". > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 10:06 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Then what about tort reform FIRST... The problem Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > is you > > > > > > > > > > have to address all the systemic problems, or at least > > > > > > > > > > start to, to > > > > > > > > > > have long lasting cost saving health care reform... That > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Democrats refuse to is telling... Your line of argument is > > > > > > > > > > fundamentally the same as Obama's lines " You have to pass > > > > > > > > > > health > > > > > > > > > > reform now or else", "Any change is better the no change", > > > > > > > > > > and "We > > > > > > > > > > have thoroughly discussed health care for 40 years".... > > > > > > > > > > > If these were true, tort reform would be part and parcel of > > > > > > > > > > any health > > > > > > > > > > reform reform now... People remember how the emergency > > > > > > > > > > "Stimulus > > > > > > > > > > Bill" changed the basic formulation of welfare payment due > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > provision slipped in at the last moment... > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 3:55 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not all have to be done in one piece at one time. > > > > > > > > > > > No one has > > > > > > > > > > > yet to give a concise definition of tort reform other > > > > > > > > > > > that to shout > > > > > > > > > > > about "frivolous lawsuits". A cap on punitive damages > > > > > > > > > > > ONLY would > > > > > > > > > > > probably be a good place to start. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2:43 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > A partisan solution without tort reform will only make > > > > > > > > > > > > matters > > > > > > > > > > > > worse... That is the rest of the story Obama is > > > > > > > > > > > > refusing to > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss... The notion of Health Reform at any cost > > > > > > > > > > > > is as dangerous > > > > > > > > > > > > as Peace at any cost was in 1938... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 3:37 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree in principle with the solution you suggest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I hope you > > > > > > > > > > > > > realize that the need for a better healtcare system > > > > > > > > > > > > > is hardly > > > > > > > > > > > > > something new, it was first proposed by President > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truman. It's ALWAYS > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to be "this needs more study, what's the rush" > > > > > > > > > > > > > according to some > > > > > > > > > > > > > people. Look at the energy problem, our dependence on > > > > > > > > > > > > > oil, most of it > > > > > > > > > > > > > foreign. Only an idiot would not have realized the > > > > > > > > > > > > > solution must be > > > > > > > > > > > > > found after the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. Thirty five > > > > > > > > > > > > > years or > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible progress towards a viable solution simple > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 1:01 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or if you want to point to Medicare, just look to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how they base the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > payments for doctor visits.... It is a portion of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ordinary and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > customary charges... So if your costs are $50 per > > > > > > > > > > > > > > visit, you have to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jack it up to include your profit, Medicare's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discount, and project > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that figure 3 years in the future... SO The visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that cost $50, for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when you might profit $10 if you get $60 you might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charge $100 to have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Medicare discount the bill back to $60... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or might a doctor have an xray machine in-house so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his elderly patient > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not have make a second appoint at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hospital... It would be a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sin if he made a slight profit from THAT service > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (especially when he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charged less the the Hospital)... The problem with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Health Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate is it is so nuanced that to reduce it to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "greedy insurance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > companies and doctors) makes it a meaningless > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shouting match... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My solution??? Get a serious bi-partisan panel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose recommendations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congress would have vote yea or nay... If Health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Care is so demanded > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the American People, it will wait six-eight > > > > > > > > > > > > > > months for folks to get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it right.. Instead Obama demands action, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regardless of viability, now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for his political resume... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 3:54 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? And the fact that each and every test is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > billable has nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatsoever to do with it I suppose? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 2:39 pm, jgg1000a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor will help the stupidity and incompetence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within the legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community... Why the extra tests??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malpractice Insurance requires > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it because of an uncontrolled tort system... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 6:13 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Health Care reform > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will eliminate stupidity and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incompetence within the health care field. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 3:42 pm, jgg1000a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
