... we need to play fair. If scores of good doctors should not pay for a bad one through insurance, scores of halthy people should not pay for the sick ones through insurance.
Make health insurance illegal, and let everyone pay out of pocket. This way these who are seriously sick will die off quickly, and the population as a wholee will become healthier. It will be a better system than one we have today.
I'd say the problem for the doctors is with greedy lawyers; the problem for the policies purchasers is with more expensive treatments and more people requiring them.
This is a sad payoff for a non-holistic state of medicine where psychosomatic deseases are not treated with psychological methods and more and more patients are hooked onto the prescription drugs being unable to live without them.
The ugliness of the situation for doctors is that when agreeing to work with a healthplan, they agree to a certain compensation schedule that can be done two ways - per procedures performed or capitation.
Whatever upkeeps his office has does not bother the insurance company. So, raising mlpractice premium hits the practice pretty hard.
As for bankrupcy, certain doctors close thier no longer profitable practice or at least stop providing services that carry heave premiums (such as delivering babies).
You want an insurance company just foot the bills, right?
Then think about hundreds of million people and their employers who will need to pay even more to
Even now medical insurance is not affordable (I pay about 200$/month, and it does not have dental that is usually covering some miniscule portions of dental bills), what will happen if sick get free reign?
I do not respect a system that does not have any accountability from these who use it (patients), and the Western medical system is pretty much like that. Eat crap, do not exercise, be fat, have a subconscious program of getting attention through getting sick - and these who exercise, eat helthy food, are fit and have a healthy psyche will pay for your endless source of pills, doctor visits and surgeries through their insurance premiums.
... a new boss/PResident/leader is worse than the old one because he has not stolen enough for himself yet;-).
Thus, to some extent Administration of richer folks might be less obsessed with enriching themselves.
BTW, telling about last 5 Presidents getting into 1%, you probably should distinguish former actor Reagan and a son of a nurse Clinton from certain family of descendants of the Pilgrims who had been rich for generations (I don't know much about Carter and Reagan families).
However, looking at it from a spiritual/psychological point of view, I can say that it is a good idea to drop them anyway.
Why? Because according to the point of view I share, everything that happens to you is a function of the state of your psyche (or, as spiritual Masters would put it, outside world is just a reflection of your inner world).
So, these "victims" do actually represent a "Victim" archetype, and shit just will continue to happen with them because it is their psyche that wants them to be victims. You've probably known such people in your life.
I had a manifestation of that once when I felt really wronged after getting unfairly stopped by cops, and an hour later I was rear-ended - the only time in my life. And it was not the only episode when I was wronged, just the most blatant one.
Since then I have changed myself a lot, and the amount of "encounters of a shitty kind" has decreased dramatically.
So, building a bridge between your well-being and practice and these who can potentially ruin it is a proper way of dealing with the "freeloaders".
Why I call them freeloaders? I do it because they use legal system (powered by greedy lawyers) and general compassion towards victims in order to avoid changing themselves. I say it because in a socialized system of insurance (be it health insurance or a business insurance) I am the one who pays premiums as part of me being a customer in order for them to collect millions when they are sick or feel themselves wronged.
So, no pity on bastards; they need to deal with their issues by going to psychologists or spiritual Masters and actually changing themselves instead of whining and demanding compassion and compensation for their hardships.
He is not talking about "medical insurance premiums" that are going through the roof mostly because more and more Americans gobble more and more prescription drugs as well as get sick.
He is talking about malpractice insurance that is making doctors' practices less and less profitable. Doctors in the US work like crazy, but these malpractice rates, especially in the high-risk specializations (ob-gyn, neurosurgery, et al), cause a lot of grievances since these money come straight from the doctors' pockets.
This is because ...
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
... he is Russian. So, he has actually studied English;-).
>SFWA has allocated $5000.00 to help combat Internet infringement. Approximately 25% of this was paid to the attorney for the Heinlein estate who traveled to Russia in May and attempted to shut down some of the pirate archives established there which infringe on the works of many authors, including Harlan.
Now I understand why some of the Russian-language literature is disappearing from the Internet libraries... This happened because Heinlein's widow studied Russian (he even travelled to Soviet Union with her in 50-es or 60-es and wrote a short story about that), and was able to find these libraries on her own.
I think the copyright laws need to be changed into protecting just fresh written works. I can understand that. However, claiming that you need to be paid for a 70 years after your death is just ridiculous.
As other/.-er noticed, Eolas had a soft side because there were no money to make from free browsers.
I'd give another reasoning: if they'd sue everybody (including non-free Opera), they would never be awarded that much against MS.
You see, jurors in such type of lawsuits are idiots or even degenerates (here is the reasoning why: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99223&cid=8461 132 - read links from that message).
They award "damages" based not on what the actual damages are, but on defendant's worth (their distortion of guilty/not guilty is not a subject of this argument). In order to convince them to award these huge damages, one just needs to represent himself as a "little guy wersus evil billion dollar corporation" (unfortunately, I see a lot of left-leaning/.-ers who see the world in such a manner too).
If they would sue everyone, it would not be the case, it would be seen more like "greedy bastards got a chance", and they wouldn't be given that much.
>Because the plaintiffs' lawyers found a legal justification for doing so. Do you honestly think that the corporations they sue don't do the same exact thing?
What exactly is "a justification"? Isn't it an exercising the possibility to choose the most sympathetic place out of all possible?
And don't forget, it is the defendant who need to spend extra money and effort to get the trial moved, and it is he who does not always succeed. Plaintiff enjoys the advantages that come with a "first strike".
>I'm not sure exactly who you're talking about here, I think you lost control of your sentences.
If YOU can't understand ME, it is MY problem?;-)
>If you can name specific things about tort liability that you disagree, then bring them up.
1) "Jury shopping" - undemocratic (I already told about this).
2) Punitive damages as a concept - it is just pure robbery, and who pays? The public does since corporation does not work for salary, it just transfers the extra costs (legal ones) to its customers - I mean ones that are not absorbed by its business insurance that spreads these payouts to all businesses (I told about this in the old thread, and you stopped answering).
3) I hate the idea of a private sharks doing essentially what the state regulators are supposed to be doing - enforcing products quality. The percentage they suck for themselves is too high, the system's bang for the buck is too low.
4) I hate what all of this crap does to people's psyche and mentality - some details are in my article about victims, others - some abuse the system in order to enrich themselves. Lawyers'a ability to form the dumbest jury (read my earlier links about Florida tobacco trial and California Chevrolet trial somewhere in this thread) allows for this abuse.
>My friend Nader? Why do you assume I know him, or even agree with him?
Nader is the trial lawyer disguised as human being; he is a PR front for the trial bar. This was what I meant.
Many of your views are the way trial lawyers would like everyone to see the world. It (as well as previous altercation with you: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=96895&threshol d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=8290221#8290404 ) makes me think you're a trial lawyer or at least a "victims' advocate" brainwashed by Naderites.
>Venue shopping isn't allowed; you have to have a good (legal) reason for getting a case moved.
Oh yeah? Why the hell do we have counties that hear tons of cases on asbesto et al?
>And Reason and the Manhattan Institute are incredibly biased sources. I wouldn't trust them on this issue.
I am not Manhattan Institute, but I agree wholehartedly with their assesment of the tort field.
I can say even more, as you could read from my articles.
>They have a tendency to start with a conclusion then twist an argument into supporting it, instead of starting neutral and arriving at a conclusion in a more intellectually honest way.
Say this to your friend Nader who has all of his ideas inherited from a base class of "All corporations are evil and exist only to screw people in every possible way".
As for your argument, it is crap (honestly). How can one expect that someone who works as a researcher in a certain field for 20 years will write all of his works in a manner suitable for the "Product liability for dummies" series?
Their work in the field brought them to certain conclusions, and they have a lot of data to confirm their conclusions and prove their point.
And I don't think someone short of Nader-like paranoia can claim them to be too wrong.
I've taken a long hard look at myself in the last 3 years (not that I don't work all this time, but the jobs are short and sporry in the last 2.5 years).
This free time of mine was used not only to waste it in the net, but to work on my personality, motivations et al. Using the methods provided by spiritual disciplines (qigong, internal martial arts et la) I transform an arrogant, mental and computer-chained geek who had lost his motivation into a human - healthy, relaxed, sassy, strong and motivated as well as diversified in terms of knowledge and interests.
A couple more steps, and I'll get rid of my Internet addiction (it will go away the way the addiction to computer games went) and a couple other limitations.
Then I'll be able to return to the field with the new desire to work and ACHIEVE.
>In other words, they are getting that advantage because the bush administration, and the clinton one before it, have been inflating the US dollar like crazy to pay for wasteful government spending....
Nope. The real reason for that is that if dollar weakens, it will cause sharp rise of the import prices and thus unhappiness of the population.
You see, democracy might be a good system, but it makes the government kind of a prostitute that needs to "sell" its decisions to the public. Thus, any unpopular decision that is needed for a long-term survival at the expense of causing the short term grievances can be very hard to embrace.
If you look at the postings of several/.-ers, they argue the line of "with this job outsorced and costing less, the general population will save money in the end". When this line of thinking is repeated by a millions of brain-dead egotistic consumers, only a benevolent dictator at helm can stop this juggernaut.
>So, we're the ones giving them that "unfair" advantage.
It is also their policy. I have heard that US Govt tried to push China on yuan, but to no success.
>Socialism has triumphed to the point that the vast majority of socialists think they "oppose socialism".
"Capitalism - man exploits man. Socialism - the opposite" (C);-).
Then you'll understand that it is the ability to do not only venue shopping, but also a jury shopping that is the real offender. I have read that it does not exist in the British law, and allows forming the most sympathetic jury possible.
This is the real culprit behind companies caving in and coughing huge sums to settle.
In my opinion, it directly undermines the democratic foundation of the entire jury trial system by allowing lawyers to create a "controllable subset" of the jury pool that reflects the population as a whole.
I am not a lawyer, but is it possible that this practice is somehow unconstitutional and can be legally challenged and defeated? Can it be killed through the ballot initiatives that exist in about half of the states?
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part01.html - the research on the subject.
It is about 2% of the GDP and is estimated to cost people about 5% of all their wages.
I know that the numbers are not exact because it is really hard to count this crap, but it is worth reading.
Also, read a couple of my short articles (and don't judge bad grammar, English is not my first language): http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/victim.h tml http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/barbar.html
Slashdot Mirror
... we need to play fair.
If scores of good doctors should not pay for a bad one through insurance, scores of halthy people should not pay for the sick ones through insurance.
Make health insurance illegal, and let everyone pay out of pocket. This way these who are seriously sick will die off quickly, and the population as a wholee will become healthier. It will be a better system than one we have today.
Don't blame insurance for everything.
I'd say the problem for the doctors is with greedy lawyers; the problem for the policies purchasers is with more expensive treatments and more people requiring them.
This is a sad payoff for a non-holistic state of medicine where psychosomatic deseases are not treated with psychological methods and more and more patients are hooked onto the prescription drugs being unable to live without them.
http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/victim.html
And here is one of the culprits: http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/barbar.html
Just don't forget to blacklist all lawyers - they are always bad ;-).
The ugliness of the situation for doctors is that when agreeing to work with a healthplan, they agree to a certain compensation schedule that can be done two ways - per procedures performed or capitation.
Whatever upkeeps his office has does not bother the insurance company. So, raising mlpractice premium hits the practice pretty hard.
As for bankrupcy, certain doctors close thier no longer profitable practice or at least stop providing services that carry heave premiums (such as delivering babies).
You want an insurance company just foot the bills, right?
Then think about hundreds of million people and their employers who will need to pay even more to
Even now medical insurance is not affordable (I pay about 200$/month, and it does not have dental that is usually covering some miniscule portions of dental bills), what will happen if sick get free reign?
I do not respect a system that does not have any accountability from these who use it (patients), and the Western medical system is pretty much like that. Eat crap, do not exercise, be fat, have a subconscious program of getting attention through getting sick - and these who exercise, eat helthy food, are fit and have a healthy psyche will pay for your endless source of pills, doctor visits and surgeries through their insurance premiums.
Yuk, and fuck them!
... a new boss/PResident/leader is worse than the old one because he has not stolen enough for himself yet ;-).
Thus, to some extent Administration of richer folks might be less obsessed with enriching themselves.
BTW, telling about last 5 Presidents getting into 1%, you probably should distinguish former actor Reagan and a son of a nurse Clinton from certain family of descendants of the Pilgrims who had been rich for generations (I don't know much about Carter and Reagan families).
Not all of these lawsuits are frivolous.
However, looking at it from a spiritual/psychological point of view, I can say that it is a good idea to drop them anyway.
Why? Because according to the point of view I share, everything that happens to you is a function of the state of your psyche (or, as spiritual Masters would put it, outside world is just a reflection of your inner world).
So, these "victims" do actually represent a "Victim" archetype, and shit just will continue to happen with them because it is their psyche that wants them to be victims. You've probably known such people in your life.
I had a manifestation of that once when I felt really wronged after getting unfairly stopped by cops, and an hour later I was rear-ended - the only time in my life. And it was not the only episode when I was wronged, just the most blatant one.
Since then I have changed myself a lot, and the amount of "encounters of a shitty kind" has decreased dramatically.
So, building a bridge between your well-being and practice and these who can potentially ruin it is a proper way of dealing with the "freeloaders".
Why I call them freeloaders? I do it because they use legal system (powered by greedy lawyers) and general compassion towards victims in order to avoid changing themselves. I say it because in a socialized system of insurance (be it health insurance or a business insurance) I am the one who pays premiums as part of me being a customer in order for them to collect millions when they are sick or feel themselves wronged.
So, no pity on bastards; they need to deal with their issues by going to psychologists or spiritual Masters and actually changing themselves instead of whining and demanding compassion and compensation for their hardships.
That's all, folks!
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part01.html
He is not talking about "medical insurance premiums" that are going through the roof mostly because more and more Americans gobble more and more prescription drugs as well as get sick.
He is talking about malpractice insurance that is making doctors' practices less and less profitable. Doctors in the US work like crazy, but these malpractice rates, especially in the high-risk specializations (ob-gyn, neurosurgery, et al), cause a lot of grievances since these money come straight from the doctors' pockets.
... he is Russian. So, he has actually studied English ;-).
>SFWA has allocated $5000.00 to help combat Internet infringement. Approximately 25% of this was paid to the attorney for the Heinlein estate who traveled to Russia in May and attempted to shut down some of the pirate archives established there which infringe on the works of many authors, including Harlan.
... This happened because Heinlein's widow studied Russian (he even travelled to Soviet Union with her in 50-es or 60-es and wrote a short story about that), and was able to find these libraries on her own.
Now I understand why some of the Russian-language literature is disappearing from the Internet libraries
I think the copyright laws need to be changed into protecting just fresh written works. I can understand that. However, claiming that you need to be paid for a 70 years after your death is just ridiculous.
... is to legally change his name to RIAA.
;-).
Oops, they will sue him for copyright infightement then
Lawyers just made themselves a lot of money because of this stupidity.
You need to think who makes the rules in this country, and you'll understand.
As other /.-er noticed, Eolas had a soft side because there were no money to make from free browsers.
1 132 - read links from that message).
/.-ers who see the world in such a manner too).
I'd give another reasoning: if they'd sue everybody (including non-free Opera), they would never be awarded that much against MS.
You see, jurors in such type of lawsuits are idiots or even degenerates
(here is the reasoning why: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99223&cid=846
They award "damages" based not on what the actual damages are, but on defendant's worth (their distortion of guilty/not guilty is not a subject of this argument). In order to convince them to award these huge damages, one just needs to represent himself as a "little guy wersus evil billion dollar corporation" (unfortunately, I see a lot of left-leaning
If they would sue everyone, it would not be the case, it would be seen more like "greedy bastards got a chance", and they wouldn't be given that much.
Have /. crowd heard about art of negotiation?
Just look at lawyers - sue someone for a 100 million and then settle for 100 thousand.
Him asking 300,000 is nothing more than starting point. What sucks big time is the sheriff refusing to come up with a reasonable agreement at all.
>Because the plaintiffs' lawyers found a legal justification for doing so. Do you honestly think that the corporations they sue don't do the same exact thing?
;-)
l d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=8290221#8290404 ) makes me think you're a trial lawyer or at least a "victims' advocate" brainwashed by Naderites.
What exactly is "a justification"? Isn't it an exercising the possibility to choose the most sympathetic place out of all possible?
And don't forget, it is the defendant who need to spend extra money and effort to get the trial moved, and it is he who does not always succeed. Plaintiff enjoys the advantages that come with a "first strike".
>I'm not sure exactly who you're talking about here, I think you lost control of your sentences.
If YOU can't understand ME, it is MY problem?
>If you can name specific things about tort liability that you disagree, then bring them up.
1) "Jury shopping" - undemocratic (I already told about this).
2) Punitive damages as a concept - it is just pure robbery, and who pays? The public does since corporation does not work for salary, it just transfers the extra costs (legal ones) to its customers - I mean ones that are not absorbed by its business insurance that spreads these payouts to all businesses (I told about this in the old thread, and you stopped answering).
3) I hate the idea of a private sharks doing essentially what the state regulators are supposed to be doing - enforcing products quality. The percentage they suck for themselves is too high, the system's bang for the buck is too low.
4) I hate what all of this crap does to people's psyche and mentality - some details are in my article about victims, others - some abuse the system in order to enrich themselves. Lawyers'a ability to form the dumbest jury (read my earlier links about Florida tobacco trial and California Chevrolet trial somewhere in this thread) allows for this abuse.
>My friend Nader? Why do you assume I know him, or even agree with him?
Nader is the trial lawyer disguised as human being; he is a PR front for the trial bar. This was what I meant.
Many of your views are the way trial lawyers would like everyone to see the world. It (as well as previous altercation with you: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=96895&thresho
... Michael Dell has nothing to do with it.
;-).
Godzilla will retire from making movies in order to serve MPAA as an enforcer, to scare movie downloaders
>Venue shopping isn't allowed; you have to have a good (legal) reason for getting a case moved.
Oh yeah? Why the hell do we have counties that hear tons of cases on asbesto et al?
>And Reason and the Manhattan Institute are incredibly biased sources. I wouldn't trust them on this issue.
I am not Manhattan Institute, but I agree wholehartedly with their assesment of the tort field.
I can say even more, as you could read from my articles.
>They have a tendency to start with a conclusion then twist an argument into supporting it, instead of starting neutral and arriving at a conclusion in a more intellectually honest way.
Say this to your friend Nader who has all of his ideas inherited from a base class of "All corporations are evil and exist only to screw people in every possible way".
As for your argument, it is crap (honestly). How can one expect that someone who works as a researcher in a certain field for 20 years will write all of his works in a manner suitable for the "Product liability for dummies" series?
Their work in the field brought them to certain conclusions, and they have a lot of data to confirm their conclusions and prove their point.
And I don't think someone short of Nader-like paranoia can claim them to be too wrong.
I've taken a long hard look at myself in the last 3 years (not that I don't work all this time, but the jobs are short and sporry in the last 2.5 years).
This free time of mine was used not only to waste it in the net, but to work on my personality, motivations et al. Using the methods provided by spiritual disciplines (qigong, internal martial arts et la) I transform an arrogant, mental and computer-chained geek who had lost his motivation into a human - healthy, relaxed, sassy, strong and motivated as well as diversified in terms of knowledge and interests.
A couple more steps, and I'll get rid of my Internet addiction (it will go away the way the addiction to computer games went) and a couple other limitations.
Then I'll be able to return to the field with the new desire to work and ACHIEVE.
Come on, man, use Java, it is automated there! ;-)
>In other words, they are getting that advantage because the bush administration, and the clinton one before it, have been inflating the US dollar like crazy to pay for wasteful government spending....
/.-ers, they argue the line of "with this job outsorced and costing less, the general population will save money in the end". When this line of thinking is repeated by a millions of brain-dead egotistic consumers, only a benevolent dictator at helm can stop this juggernaut.
;-).
Nope. The real reason for that is that if dollar weakens, it will cause sharp rise of the import prices and thus unhappiness of the population.
You see, democracy might be a good system, but it makes the government kind of a prostitute that needs to "sell" its decisions to the public. Thus, any unpopular decision that is needed for a long-term survival at the expense of causing the short term grievances can be very hard to embrace.
If you look at the postings of several
>So, we're the ones giving them that "unfair" advantage.
It is also their policy. I have heard that US Govt tried to push China on yuan, but to no success.
>Socialism has triumphed to the point that the vast majority of socialists think they "oppose socialism".
"Capitalism - man exploits man. Socialism - the opposite" (C)
> So we should throw out 900 years of legal development because you don't like some of the people who file lawsuits?
w sj-fla_t obacco_jurors.htmw o.courting.shtml
Read these:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_
http://www.reason.com/0301/fe.
Then you'll understand that it is the ability to do not only venue shopping, but also a jury shopping that is the real offender. I have read that it does not exist in the British law, and allows forming the most sympathetic jury possible.
This is the real culprit behind companies caving in and coughing huge sums to settle.
In my opinion, it directly undermines the democratic foundation of the entire jury trial system by allowing lawyers to create a "controllable subset" of the jury pool that reflects the population as a whole.
I am not a lawyer, but is it possible that this practice is somehow unconstitutional and can be legally challenged and defeated? Can it be killed through the ballot initiatives that exist in about half of the states?
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part01.html - the research on the subject.
h tml
It is about 2% of the GDP and is estimated to cost people about 5% of all their wages.
I know that the numbers are not exact because it is really hard to count this crap, but it is worth reading.
Also, read a couple of my short articles (and don't judge bad grammar, English is not my first language):
http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/victim.
http://sqft87.pisem.net/tiger/barbar.html
1) Rambus;
2) Eolas and other "inventors";
3) The biggest and baddest: http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part01.html