Bush signing lawsuit limitationsFollow

i have to agree with you. while there is some benifit to limitations, th ramafications to hurt the innocent are far greater.

HMO,s will let you die to save money. i kow this for a fact, especailly about Sigma health care in particullar, the largest HMO in america whose parent company is the same as Haliburtons parent company.

my brother spent two years on arbitration, and seeing doctors unlrelated to his injuries, eating pain pills untill the state declared his HMO to have abandoned him and gave him medicaid. his first surgery, repaiting a ruptured disk in his neck, that could have punctured his spinal cord, causing spinal menigities at any moment during those two years, was over 750,000 dollars.

that was his first surgery.

the penalty for the HMO? a 500,000 dollar fine and a slap on teh wrist.

the ONLY thing that keeps bussiness doing the RIGHT thing is to make the penalty for doing the wrong thing much greater than doing the right thing in the first place.

put a cap on liabilities? rofl, say a recall on a vehical will cost tens of millions, but the risk for not doing the recall will be mabe 3 or 4 deaths at 200,000 a pop? what to do, what to do...hmmmmm

your operation to remove a cancerious tumor will be 800,000, then months of rehab......tie it up in arbitration untill it is too late to operate, get slapped with a 500,000 dollar fine.....

the PEOPLE of this country are not pushing for this bill. your insurance WILL NOT go down f it is signed, just their payouts will. this WILL NOT reduce the cost of medical care, just the payouts for insurance companies.

the people are the loosers with this bil, big bussiness, namely insurance companies, are the big winners.

lawyer fees restricted? rofl, cut it to 25 percent, and that letter they faxed you just went from 100 dollars a page to 1000 dollars a page.

who wins? insurance companies.
who looses? the people

some day you idiots will read between the lines of the crap the republican party feeds you sheep, and come to understand, the republican party represents the top 2 percent of society at the EXPENSE of the bottom 80 percent of society.

yet 51 percent of you voted republican even though their policies will harm atleast 80 percent of the population of this country.

we will get what YOU deserve.

Wow! Amazing stramwan hat you're wearing there.

Where exactly in that article did anyone say this was about saving tax dollars? While that may be true in a very third-hand way (Settlements in class actions come out of profits, and reduced profits mean lower taxes paid by corporations, which then have to be made up elsewhere), but that's a really really far flung side issue here. Irrelevant much?



No. What it does is force class action suits to either be held in the state where the bulk of the victims are (and presumably where the company is located) or in federal court. Did you even read the article? Or just make stuff up?



Eh? Again. The words "legitimate" and "Illegitimate" never once appear in that article. They do mention that some may be thrown out, but that's because of the venue restriction. What was happening before is that they'd shop around for some small county judge who'd allow the case to proceed and hold it there. So there could be 100,000 people involved, in 100 counties spread across 10 states, and the plaintifs would hunt around for the one county that would hear the case even if the other 99 tossed it out.




Um... did you read the article? Even a little bit? This does not cap final rewards at all. What it does is require that lawsuits with a sought after reward of 5 Million or more, must be held in the state where the primary defendant and 2/3rds or more of the plaintiffs are. Otherwise it's held in federal court.

There's no capping of rewards here. It's just putting more requirements on cases with higher rewards. So you can't find some judge in bumbletown USA who'll award 200 million dollars to people spread across the US, only maybe one of which lives in his county, purely because he doesn't like the company.

How about you actually read the article before commenting on it?

That's fine. But instead of just tossing in conclusions based on some external debate, how about you share your source(s) of information so that we can discuss the issue more fully.

I was responding to the article that was posted. If you want to bring in additional information for dicussion, feel free to do so. But don't just toss around conclusions without producing any sort of source or support for what you are saying. Doing that is meaningless since anyone can say anything about any subject if they aren't constrained to actually prove they aren't just making stuff up.

Heck. You posted twice in response to me. Why still not produce a source? If there's such a lively debate about this, there shouldn't be any problems producing some information about how this is alledgely about tax reduction as you claim. Dunno. It just seems really simple. If you're going to make a claim, either argue it logically, or produce a source for the claim. When you do neither, it's kinda hard to take anything you say seriously.

Hahaha, we cant have a dialogue about Bush without bringing up how much of a mistake Iraq was eh?

News Flash, Sunni leaders are coming out and saying they wish they voted.

News Flash, the world will never be secure so long as despotic leaders continue to build twenty palaces and leave their countrymen out in the desert starving..

News Flash, WMDs were NOT the only reason given to go to war with Iraq.

News Flash, we're not the United States of Haliburton...

Did I stutter?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/27/211021.shtml

*cough* Looks like not all those weapons were destroyed in the nineties after all..

If you were the leader of a nation, would this convince you that Saddam could be holding out?

I would certainly hope so.

You're better off not wasting your time ThePalace. Gbaji will defend "sources or your argument is invalid!" to his death (how do you do in speaking debates Gbaji? Do you randomly say "See <blahblahblah> for more info."?), and shadowrealm is just generally stupid with his "debates".



Edited, Mon Feb 28 19:11:08 2005 by CBD

Yes. As opposed to someone insisting that someone else is lying, but who can't actually show that the other person ever said the thing they claim they're lying about.

Got it. That makes so much more sense...