Those are the numbers that the jury comes up with; the judge generally knocks them down. Generally the formula is punitive damages have to be a single digit multiplier of compensatory or restitutionary damages. I can't remember the exact case that established it, but I can look it up if you're seriously interested.
You can get a full list of bills passed on http://www.senate.gov. Considering how many major pieces of legislation are voted mainly among party lines, it seems quite obvious that there are huge differences between the two parties. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise; how are they the same?
I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic. Both parties have a wide spectrum in their members, far more than the political parties you find in other countries. People didn't vote for Perot because he was obviously unfit to fulfill his duties, they didn't vote Nader because they don't believe in his policies, and they don't vote libertarian not because they haven't heard of it but because the vast majority of the people in this country don't believe in the libertarian positions.
courtesy of Kerry's media connections, then yeah, you're right.
Wait, you're actually accusing Kerry of actively reaching out to journalists and asking them to replay the tape over and over again? How exactly does this occur? Does he like call them up and ask them point blank, and trust that none of them will let leak that he asked them?
I'm not a Dean supporter at all, i'm a Republican, but this is disturbing nonetheless. Dean had some serious support that completely eroded away due to a single sound bite.
Ahhh, now I get the anger. You boys were counting on facing Dean in the general election, and are furious that it's Kerry.
My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents.
That's not how democracy works. Democracy has ALWAYS been about trying to effect change through your vote. Voting for a fringe candidate doesn't effect anything.
For example, I personally think Bush should be voted out of office, and I'd rather vote for someone who has a chance of winning than trading my vote for a little personal satisfaction.
So the question becomes, do you want to put barriers up that will prevent people from suing? Like let a magistrate look over the papers and decide whether they can go on or not?
The problem with that is you may get some magistrate with an agenda ("violation of EPA regulations? damn communists, I'm not letting this go through"). You put barriers up that people with legitimate complaints might often be unable to surmount.
My point is it's simply a balance between giving people access to the justice system and preventing frivolous lawsuits, and not a question of horrible evil conspiring lawyers. At the moment the main check is at the judge level, which means people can file suit easily (leading to the hysterical anti-lawyer rants) but it's hard to get it to trial.
I guess you are unaware about this lawsuit between SCO and IBM in tune of 5 billion dollars? How about all those silly patent lawsuits?
Alright, now you're switching the subject away from medical malpractice. But fine, let's look at those cases.
Has the court decided on SCO v. IBM? What the hell does it matter what the damages they're seeking are, they get to pick whatever they want. I could file suit against you for 90 trillion dollars if I wanted to. You can't just criticize the system because someone just decided to ask for a lot of money.
Haven't you heard? Doctors never make mistakes, and anyone who sues over a botched operation is just an evil, money-grubbing parasite who only cares about getting his or her ill-gotten gains. It's all a vast conspiracy by those eeeeeevil lawyers against the hardworking, honest insurance companies. That's why doctors pay so much in malpractice insurance that the average physicians salary in the United States is $14.00 per annum.
It's all about the malpractice insurance costs. Blame the lawyers.
Oh god, here we go again.
Why not blame the juries? You know, the people who actually determine the verdicts?
Or why not the insurance companies? They're the ones who determine the rates.
Those cases you're complaining about, did the people actually win? I'm so goddamn sick of people whining about the legal system without knowing anything about it. You know how easy it is to sue someone? You just go down to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork. It's much, much harder to actually win a case. Hell, it's hard to even get a case to trial. Judges can (and often do) throw frivolous cases right away.
Blame the AMA. They've been trying to keep the number of doctors down for years to keep salaries up. It's a shame, too, I think most doctors in your situation would prefer to make less money if it meant they could, you know, sleep sometimes.
Drugs are tremendously expensive, and doctors (and nurses and other medical personnel) make healthy wages, and even small hospitals have a lot of them.
Plus, many hospitals tend to be for-profit, so they charge as much as they possibly can for even minor procedures.
Of course they say that thinking about how a doctor can make and not on how important and honorable (at least it was) to be a doctor.
I don't think that's it, there's also a great deal of prestige that comes with being a doctor. "My son the doctor" sounds better to them than "my son the investment banker", even though the latter might be making a lot more.
AHHH! It's OFF-TOPIC, QUICK I better MOD IT DOWN WHILE I WEEP over it's INAPPROPRIATENESS! Mod this down while you're at it you neurotic little headcases.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who don't get appealed. A lot of multi-million dollar judgments DO stand, but for some things a few million dollars really is fair damages.
Those are the numbers that the jury comes up with; the judge generally knocks them down. Generally the formula is punitive damages have to be a single digit multiplier of compensatory or restitutionary damages. I can't remember the exact case that established it, but I can look it up if you're seriously interested.
You can get a full list of bills passed on http://www.senate.gov. Considering how many major pieces of legislation are voted mainly among party lines, it seems quite obvious that there are huge differences between the two parties. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise; how are they the same?
I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic. Both parties have a wide spectrum in their members, far more than the political parties you find in other countries. People didn't vote for Perot because he was obviously unfit to fulfill his duties, they didn't vote Nader because they don't believe in his policies, and they don't vote libertarian not because they haven't heard of it but because the vast majority of the people in this country don't believe in the libertarian positions.
I'd also have eliminated "punitive damages" in this field thus eliminating most outrageous awards
Punitive damages are already generally capped under common law.
For the same reason they continue with political attack ads and the like even though nobody likes them: Everybody else is doing it, so why not?
Political attack ads work, that's why they use them.
courtesy of Kerry's media connections, then yeah, you're right.
Wait, you're actually accusing Kerry of actively reaching out to journalists and asking them to replay the tape over and over again? How exactly does this occur? Does he like call them up and ask them point blank, and trust that none of them will let leak that he asked them?
I'm not a Dean supporter at all, i'm a Republican, but this is disturbing nonetheless. Dean had some serious support that completely eroded away due to a single sound bite.
Ahhh, now I get the anger. You boys were counting on facing Dean in the general election, and are furious that it's Kerry.
Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!
Why would I want to vote for a party that manages to combine the worst elements of both the Democrats and Republicans?
Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks
My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.
I don't think his voting record looks that bad.
When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".
My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents.
That's not how democracy works. Democracy has ALWAYS been about trying to effect change through your vote. Voting for a fringe candidate doesn't effect anything.
For example, I personally think Bush should be voted out of office, and I'd rather vote for someone who has a chance of winning than trading my vote for a little personal satisfaction.
The bonus is that when transcribing your notes into a computer for safe keeping a filing
No, the bonus is notepads and penciles don't cost FOUR THOUSAND FREAKING DOLLARS.
So the question becomes, do you want to put barriers up that will prevent people from suing? Like let a magistrate look over the papers and decide whether they can go on or not?
The problem with that is you may get some magistrate with an agenda ("violation of EPA regulations? damn communists, I'm not letting this go through"). You put barriers up that people with legitimate complaints might often be unable to surmount.
My point is it's simply a balance between giving people access to the justice system and preventing frivolous lawsuits, and not a question of horrible evil conspiring lawyers. At the moment the main check is at the judge level, which means people can file suit easily (leading to the hysterical anti-lawyer rants) but it's hard to get it to trial.
The pitfall is, you lose out on the opportunity to make fun of people for caring about things you find boring and trivial.
Yes, that's the pitfall. That's why I DO click on these stories. Ha ha.
I guess you are unaware about this lawsuit between SCO and IBM in tune of 5 billion dollars? How about all those silly patent lawsuits?
Alright, now you're switching the subject away from medical malpractice. But fine, let's look at those cases.
Has the court decided on SCO v. IBM? What the hell does it matter what the damages they're seeking are, they get to pick whatever they want. I could file suit against you for 90 trillion dollars if I wanted to. You can't just criticize the system because someone just decided to ask for a lot of money.
I think I speak for the majority of people on slashdot when I say, in response to this momentous news, who cares?
Haven't you heard? Doctors never make mistakes, and anyone who sues over a botched operation is just an evil, money-grubbing parasite who only cares about getting his or her ill-gotten gains. It's all a vast conspiracy by those eeeeeevil lawyers against the hardworking, honest insurance companies. That's why doctors pay so much in malpractice insurance that the average physicians salary in the United States is $14.00 per annum.
It's all about the malpractice insurance costs. Blame the lawyers.
Oh god, here we go again.
Why not blame the juries? You know, the people who actually determine the verdicts?
Or why not the insurance companies? They're the ones who determine the rates.
Those cases you're complaining about, did the people actually win? I'm so goddamn sick of people whining about the legal system without knowing anything about it. You know how easy it is to sue someone? You just go down to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork. It's much, much harder to actually win a case. Hell, it's hard to even get a case to trial. Judges can (and often do) throw frivolous cases right away.
Blame the AMA. They've been trying to keep the number of doctors down for years to keep salaries up. It's a shame, too, I think most doctors in your situation would prefer to make less money if it meant they could, you know, sleep sometimes.
Drugs are tremendously expensive, and doctors (and nurses and other medical personnel) make healthy wages, and even small hospitals have a lot of them.
Plus, many hospitals tend to be for-profit, so they charge as much as they possibly can for even minor procedures.
There is no moral to this story except that everything you use and buy - except food - will get cheaper and cheaper.
Actually, the moral seems to be government subsidies work.
Of course they say that thinking about how a doctor can make and not on how important and honorable (at least it was) to be a doctor.
I don't think that's it, there's also a great deal of prestige that comes with being a doctor. "My son the doctor" sounds better to them than "my son the investment banker", even though the latter might be making a lot more.
Sure. If your HMO has their principle place of operation in the United States, you can sue them here even if the operation occurred in India.
Nice double standard.
Thank you, we try.
AHHH! It's OFF-TOPIC, QUICK I better MOD IT DOWN WHILE I WEEP over it's INAPPROPRIATENESS! Mod this down while you're at it you neurotic little headcases.
Awww, after seeing that symbol I thought it would be a dreamcast story...