For Dems only.

[iamshack]

Right. See, though, I think a major issue of "punitive" (read: the tort area of the law) carries over and drives up costs on things greatly, and the biggest area on this is health care. Medical mistakes happen, and the financial reprocussions and damages should be accurate, but some lady getting $50 million from McDonalds because she spilled coffee on her lap is ridiculous (of course that's THE outrageous example, but it's the point and it's there).

 

Should people be reimbursed REASONABLY? Yes. And in this case, the Exxon judgement should be reasonable for actual damages, not punitive, which is what Justice Roberts was questioning. And then, he also doesn't have the means to "prevent it from happening again" like Balta was leaning toward, IMO.

 

See, you're only looking at the cases you see that get publicized.

 

Sometimes these companies or organizations need to be punished financially to stop them from acting completely irresponsibly. The healthcare industry, for all the advancements in treatment, drastically needs advancements in organization. Filling the wrong prescriptions, failing to write down or read notes correctly, improper surgical procedures...there is technology to fix all of these things, but the healthcare industry failed to invest in them when the money was actually flowing.

[iamshack]

They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on.

 

And why do you think they did that? A few reasons...

 

1) In anticipation of paying a huge punitive award;

 

2) In an attempt to mitigate punitive damages;

 

3) Public outcry.

Edited February 28, 2008 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on.

 

It was all reactionary after they did immense damage, though. Without the threat of these large penalties, why should they be proactive?

[kapkomet]

It was all reactionary after they did immense damage, though. Without the threat of these large penalties, why should they be proactive?

ok, that's fine. But let's just pile on MORE threats and costs...

 

Punitive damage awards are a fine line. It's ok, but to a point.

[iamshack]

ok, that's fine. But let's just pile on MORE threats and costs...

 

Punitive damage awards are a fine line. It's ok, but to a point.

 

Are you really concerned about an award that equals only 3 weeks of profits? In my view, that isn't anywhere near high enough. I would quadruple it- make it an entire quarter's worth of profits....

[StrangeSox]

ok, that's fine. But let's just pile on MORE threats and costs...

 

Punitive damage awards are a fine line. It's ok, but to a point.

 

I'll admit that I don't fully understand the precedents/ implications of awarding them punitive damages as opposed to whatever alternative there would be.

[kapkomet]

Are you really concerned about an award that equals only 3 weeks of profits? In my view, that isn't anywhere near high enough. I would quadruple it- make it an entire quarter's worth of profits....

The "X weeks of profits" isn't the point. And that's exactly what the author of that article wanted to suck you into.

[iamshack]

The "X weeks of profits" isn't the point. And that's exactly what the author of that article wanted to suck you into.

 

What do you think punitive damages are about then?

[Balta1701]

From Subscription only roll call, I'd just like to note how dastardly it is that those lousy Dems are sacrificing national security for the sake of their trial lawyer friends, and thank Jesus that the Republicans have such honorable motives.

In a reflection of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and an apparent recognition that they would undermine their own messaging by appearing to be motivated by fundraising concerns, Republicans on and off Capitol Hill declined to comment on the record.

 

But several confirmed the griping in GOP leadership ranks over the phone companies' shifting donations.

 

"When those numbers are made evident, it causes some angst," one Republican lobbyist said. "Leadership are told by staff, who look through this. There's communication back and forth" between GOP leadership and downtown.

 

"There's no question that from time to time staff, and maybe some Members, say to fellow travelers: 'Are you giving us some air cover? Are you helping us help you?'"

 

Added another K Street Republican: "There's a growing frustration that a lot of these guys getting screwed by Democratic leadership are continuing to load their coffers."

 

Republican leaders, this lobbyist said, "sit there and scratch their heads and say, 'We've always been very supportive of free markets and our opponents haven't, so why do they keep feeding the beast?'"

[kapkomet]

From Subscription only roll call, I'd just like to note how dastardly it is that those lousy Dems are sacrificing national security for the sake of their trial lawyer friends, and thank Jesus that the Republicans have such honorable motives.

But they couldn't have passed it without Democrat help. Just remember that.

[Balta1701]

A good piece on how the consensus view on Global Warming is almost certainly underestimating the true magnitude of the problem in order to create a consensus view.

 

And some fun with billboards.

[Balta1701]

The Republicans today rejected another 30 day extension of the Protect America Act, aka the most important law ever and if we don't pass it immediately we'll all die.

 

The Attorney General also has refused to act on contempt citations that teh Congress finally issued in the Attorney purge scandal.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on.

By the way...I actually did some of the requested Googling tonight...turns out Exxon is actually still running single-hulled ships on the Alaska route. Did not know that. Learn something surprising every day. Hopefully at least they're keeping their captains' sober these days.

[Balta1701]

Great little graph stolen from a couple places showing the rate of increase of various programs under the Bush Administration...showing how virtually all the nasty growth of the government has been either in defense spending or in health care spending. All those earmarks, all those wasteful programs...barely increased at all.

 

Note: The largest domestic discretionary programs (in order of size) are: education, highways and other ground transportation, housing assistance, biomedical research, federal law enforcement, public health services, air traffic and related transportation, and space flight

 

If you want to cut the size of government or balance the budget...either you need to reform the health care system or you need to cut defense spending. There is no way around it.

[mr_genius]

Great little graph stolen from a couple places showing the rate of increase of various programs under the Bush Administration...showing how virtually all the nasty growth of the government has been either in defense spending or in health care spending. All those earmarks, all those wasteful programs...barely increased at all.

 

If you want to cut the size of government or balance the budget...either you need to reform the health care system or you need to cut defense spending. There is no way around it.

 

The free health care plan the Dems want will increase costs dramatically, so there will have to be major tax increases. Especially if we have an open border and pay for half of Mexico's health care as well. Thats gonna be REAL expensive, so plan on jacking everyones income tax dramatically.

[Balta1701]

The free health care plan the Dems want will increase costs dramatically, so there will have to be major tax increases. Especially if we have an open border and pay for half of Mexico's health care as well. Thats gonna be REAL expensive, so plan on jacking everyones income tax dramatically.

I'd buy that argument...if the country wasn't already paying through the teeth for health care as it is. Medicare pays more per capita to cover the elderly than some countries spend to cover everyone.

[mr_genius]

I'd buy that argument...if the country wasn't already paying through the teeth for health care as it is. Medicare pays more per capita to cover the elderly than some countries spend to cover everyone.

 

Medicare is a US government run health care program, go figure.

[Balta1701]

Medicare is a US government run health care program, go figure.

If private run systems were actually cheaper or weren't driving up the cost of Medicare by trying to make sure that Medicare has to cover the sickest and most expensive people, your argument would have some validity.

[mr_genius]

If private run systems were actually cheaper or weren't driving up the cost of Medicare by trying to make sure that Medicare has to cover the sickest and most expensive people, your argument would have some validity.

 

Government controlling health care isn't going to lower costs. Health care is going to cost just as much, if not more, once big government corruption gets involved. The only difference is it will be a socialized pooling of money.

[Balta1701]

Government controlling health care isn't going to lower costs. Health care is going to cost just as much, if not more, once big government corruption gets involved. The only difference is it will be a socialized pooling of money.

If it cost just as much but also insured everyone, isn't that a step upwards?

[NorthSideSox72]

Government controlling health care isn't going to lower costs. Health care is going to cost just as much, if not more, once big government corruption gets involved. The only difference is it will be a socialized pooling of money.

I'd suggesting that you can't look at privatizing, or public-izing, health care en masse. You need to break it down and look at the goals of those units. Here is what I mean. Look at these categories in the field...

 

--Hospitals and other care providers

--Insurance companies

--Drug companies

--Consumers

 

Now as consumers are not changeable, let's look at each unit from a perspective of goal alignment. How do you get each party to be motivated to act in a way that helps people, efficiently?

 

--Hospitals and care providers, I'd suggest, can never be more than partially private. Hospitals and major facilities should be public facilities. The reason is simple - business is in the business of making money. Usually, consumers are the check against that by choosing on quality, right? Except in this case, because of the insurance company intermediary and the dictated cost levels, that check doesn't exist. So you simply cannot expect the highest quality healthcare from private providers and institutions, as long as insurance exists. And there is no getting rid of health insurance.

--Insurance companies act to keep costs down. That is good, and they should stay private, as much as possible. Plus, if you change the rules around them a bit to allow people to CHOOSE a health care company, all the better. So insurance providers being private is good.

--Drug companies are regulated in pretty heavily, plus they sell what works, so again, private works well there. You just have to make sure that you balance carefully between patent protections (to encourage innovation) and encouraging competition (to keep drug costs down).

 

So basically, I'd suggest that major providing institutions should be public, smaller providers of non-emergent care can be either/or, insurance companies and drug companies should remain private.

 

One more thing though. Its key to keep a close eye on the relationship between the three groups, to ensure that collusion isn't going on. That could be very harmful for consumers.

 

[mr_genius]

If it cost just as much but also insured everyone, isn't that a step upwards?

 

We'll see. I have a feeling it's going to cost a lot more than the Dems are letting on. I can see universal health coverage in the US being a massive money pit.

[Balta1701]

We'll see. I have a feeling it's going to cost a lot more than the Dems are letting on. I can see universal health coverage in the US being a massive money pit.

The problem right now is that the insurance industry isn't any better and it doesn't have any motivation to get any better than being a massive money pit.

[mr_genius]

--Hospitals and care providers, I'd suggest, can never be more than partially private. Hospitals and major facilities should be public facilities. The reason is simple - business is in the business of making money. Usually, consumers are the check against that by choosing on quality, right? Except in this case, because of the insurance company intermediary and the dictated cost levels, that check doesn't exist. So you simply cannot expect the highest quality healthcare from private providers and institutions, as long as insurance exists. And there is no getting rid of health insurance.

--Insurance companies act to keep costs down. That is good, and they should stay private, as much as possible. Plus, if you change the rules around them a bit to allow people to CHOOSE a health care company, all the better. So insurance providers being private is good.

--Drug companies are regulated in pretty heavily, plus they sell what works, so again, private works well there. You just have to make sure that you balance carefully between patent protections (to encourage innovation) and encouraging competition (to keep drug costs down).

 

People that choose private insurance should not have to pay into the government system if they do not want to. I would like limiting insurance costs for doctors by limiting malpractice rewards.

 

So basically, I'd suggest that major providing institutions should be public, smaller providers of non-emergent care can be either/or, insurance companies and drug companies should remain private.

 

people should be able to decide where the go for care, not be dictated where they must go by the government. Again, if people want to buy into the government system they should be able to. People that do not, should not be forced into going into a system they do not like. If the government system is so great people will go there by choice.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

people should be able to decide where the go for care, not be dictated where they must go by the government. Again, if people want to buy into the government system they should be able to. People that do not, should not be forced into going into a system they do not like. If the government system is so great people will go there by choice.

People don't have the right to decide where they go for care now. In virtually all cases it's limited/dictated by an insurance company.