The documentary about the woman who sued over getting scalded by hot coffee,tort reform, and our legal system. I always wondered about these seemingly crazy lawsuits we always hear about, I mean it seemed there had to be another side to those stories, and it turned out there was. Watch the show, and then tell me if you still feel the good about the far right and their never ending assult on everyday Americans.
anyone watch hot coffee?
- Thread starter piper
- Start date
You would have to watch the show, its an eye opener on how corporate influence is eating away at the justice system, how tort reform is really meant to work,what its done to some people, and who its meant to save money for. Jamie Leigh Jones and her employer KBR industries, see that one, Or the severely retarded twin, It was clearly the doctors fault, yet taxpayers get to foot the multi million dollar bill because of a cap on malpractice.
caelkhnter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,526
It pains me to write this, but I generally agree with Piper on his point. I am an attorney who specializes in representing policyholders in disputes with insurance companies. It can be any type of insurance, and any dispute where the insurance company is not providing the benefits the policyholder purcahsed.
One perfect example of tort reform is in the health insurance area. Years ago Federal legislation was passed, E.R.I.S.A., which limits a person's ability to sue health insurance companies, who issue health insurance in the context of employment benefit packages. In the normal situation, if an insurance company wrongfully denies benefits to which the policyholder was entitled, it can be held liable for the lost benefits, emotional distress casued by the denial, attorney fees, and punitive damages if the act of withholding benefits was egregious. These potential damages provide a pretty good hammer to compel insurance companies to think twice before wrongfully denying a claim. I am not saying they don't still wrongfully withhold benefits, but there is a substantial hammer to smash them with if they do.
In the health iunsurance context that hammer is gone because of the Federal legislation. So health insurance companies are much more agressive in denying and withholding benefits. No question in my mind, this tort reform has worked to the detriment of the policyholders. This is particularing true in the relativley small claim, say $10k-20k. Although that would be a tremendous burden on the average person, it is very difficult for that person to get an attorney to help when their claim has been wrongfully denied. Most attorneys would not handle such dispute on a contingency, because there is simply no upside as a result of the limits imposed by the Federal legilsation, and the attorneys fees required to fight such a matter would equal or exceed the amount of beneifts being sought.
One perfect example of tort reform is in the health insurance area. Years ago Federal legislation was passed, E.R.I.S.A., which limits a person's ability to sue health insurance companies, who issue health insurance in the context of employment benefit packages. In the normal situation, if an insurance company wrongfully denies benefits to which the policyholder was entitled, it can be held liable for the lost benefits, emotional distress casued by the denial, attorney fees, and punitive damages if the act of withholding benefits was egregious. These potential damages provide a pretty good hammer to compel insurance companies to think twice before wrongfully denying a claim. I am not saying they don't still wrongfully withhold benefits, but there is a substantial hammer to smash them with if they do.
In the health iunsurance context that hammer is gone because of the Federal legislation. So health insurance companies are much more agressive in denying and withholding benefits. No question in my mind, this tort reform has worked to the detriment of the policyholders. This is particularing true in the relativley small claim, say $10k-20k. Although that would be a tremendous burden on the average person, it is very difficult for that person to get an attorney to help when their claim has been wrongfully denied. Most attorneys would not handle such dispute on a contingency, because there is simply no upside as a result of the limits imposed by the Federal legilsation, and the attorneys fees required to fight such a matter would equal or exceed the amount of beneifts being sought.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
CAelkhunter,
Are you sure ERISA applies to all group insurance contracts? Or does that loop hole only exist on the Federal Level for self funded group benefits?
I think there are a couple deeper issues than finding single cases in regards to tort reform. I am not a proponent of Tort Reform because it does zero to the overall cost of care, if docs truly are practicing "defensive medicine" to avoid lawsuit, that is a misuse of resources as there is no proof that lawsuits are reduced based on the number of tests and procedures done. In fact the reverse is true. As long as we pay providers for the number of times they treat a patient rather than for outcomes then we will have these problems.
I don't believe Hot Coffee is without a huge bias as well. In fact it is difficult to believe that an attorney who has spent 26 years making their living as a medical malpractive attorney would believe that any limits are a good thing. Susan Saladoff is such a person.
Having watched the program with my liberal mother it is interesting to listen to her perspective. She is alot like Piper, rapid anti Republican, everything from the right side of Aisle is evil and vile and all the right wants is for the rich to get richer, they hate everyone but the rich yada, yada, yada.
Seems to be that during those 25 years described in the film as "waging war on the civil justice systems" that Democrats controlled either the White House or Congress or both. Have they moved to strengthen the Civil Justice system during their time in power? President Clinton signed a number of bills that included tort reform that reduced the liability that corporations would have to pay. How can that be that the saviour all liberals loved would sign a bill the everyone knows only the rightwing would vote for? Well it seems that Democrats figured out that corporate America could help finance campaigns and Clinton cozied up to Corporate America in a big way.
So anyone who believes that the right side of the political spectrum holds 100% of the responsibility for how our current system is shaped is smoking crack, ignoring fact and being willfully ignorant of what actually happened. While Hot Coffee is a good wake up call to believe that it is not also propaganda for the Trial Lawyers is also stupid. One can find cases of unjust things every where.
Nemont
Are you sure ERISA applies to all group insurance contracts? Or does that loop hole only exist on the Federal Level for self funded group benefits?
I think there are a couple deeper issues than finding single cases in regards to tort reform. I am not a proponent of Tort Reform because it does zero to the overall cost of care, if docs truly are practicing "defensive medicine" to avoid lawsuit, that is a misuse of resources as there is no proof that lawsuits are reduced based on the number of tests and procedures done. In fact the reverse is true. As long as we pay providers for the number of times they treat a patient rather than for outcomes then we will have these problems.
I don't believe Hot Coffee is without a huge bias as well. In fact it is difficult to believe that an attorney who has spent 26 years making their living as a medical malpractive attorney would believe that any limits are a good thing. Susan Saladoff is such a person.
Having watched the program with my liberal mother it is interesting to listen to her perspective. She is alot like Piper, rapid anti Republican, everything from the right side of Aisle is evil and vile and all the right wants is for the rich to get richer, they hate everyone but the rich yada, yada, yada.
Seems to be that during those 25 years described in the film as "waging war on the civil justice systems" that Democrats controlled either the White House or Congress or both. Have they moved to strengthen the Civil Justice system during their time in power? President Clinton signed a number of bills that included tort reform that reduced the liability that corporations would have to pay. How can that be that the saviour all liberals loved would sign a bill the everyone knows only the rightwing would vote for? Well it seems that Democrats figured out that corporate America could help finance campaigns and Clinton cozied up to Corporate America in a big way.
So anyone who believes that the right side of the political spectrum holds 100% of the responsibility for how our current system is shaped is smoking crack, ignoring fact and being willfully ignorant of what actually happened. While Hot Coffee is a good wake up call to believe that it is not also propaganda for the Trial Lawyers is also stupid. One can find cases of unjust things every where.
Nemont
caelkhnter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,526
NeMont, it is true for government employees ERISA does not apply. However for employees of private businesses, if they are provided health insurance from their employer, even if the employee personally pays for most of the insurance themselves, it would fall under the ERISA program.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,498
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-11 AT 11:02AM (MST)[p]Having seen many B.S. lawsuits and greedy attorneys who make their living off of filing them. I have a very quick remedy for tort reform that will get rid of the thousands of bogus lawsuits filed every year.
When a plaintiff files a lawsuit it must be done with the understanding that if the plaintiff loses his/her case against the defendant, the plaintiff must pay attorney and court costs for both parties. This would put a screeching halt to bogus B.S. lawsuits that are filed hoping the defendant will settle out of court for a lesser amount then it would take to fight the case in court.
It would encourage defendants to fight the case in court if they feel they are not responsible for any damages. If a plaintiff had a good case they would still file knowing that their chances to win would very good and they walk away with a big settlement awarded by the jury or judge.
The attorneys would not want this as it would put alot of the ambulance chasing ones looking for a new source of income.
I have seen too many ambulance chasing shysters make their living by filing frivious or unjustified lawsuits for several hundred thousand dollars knowing that the goverment agency or insurance agency that covers the plaintiff will settle for 30-40 thousand dollars instead of spending 50 thousand in court to fight the lawsuit. Even if they win the case, it took more money to win it then if they had settled out of court.
Then the attorney rakes off his 33% for just filing the court papers. Do that a few times each year and you have a very good steady income at the expense of the business or insurance company who passes the lost on to their clients which is us everyday citizens.
Piper you have a point about the cap limit with the medical field, but the real problem with the medical field is that the AMA does a very piss poor job of getting rid of bad doctors by pulling their license to practice medicine. Just as the American Bar Assoc. does a piss poor job of getting rid of bad attoneys.
RELH
When a plaintiff files a lawsuit it must be done with the understanding that if the plaintiff loses his/her case against the defendant, the plaintiff must pay attorney and court costs for both parties. This would put a screeching halt to bogus B.S. lawsuits that are filed hoping the defendant will settle out of court for a lesser amount then it would take to fight the case in court.
It would encourage defendants to fight the case in court if they feel they are not responsible for any damages. If a plaintiff had a good case they would still file knowing that their chances to win would very good and they walk away with a big settlement awarded by the jury or judge.
The attorneys would not want this as it would put alot of the ambulance chasing ones looking for a new source of income.
I have seen too many ambulance chasing shysters make their living by filing frivious or unjustified lawsuits for several hundred thousand dollars knowing that the goverment agency or insurance agency that covers the plaintiff will settle for 30-40 thousand dollars instead of spending 50 thousand in court to fight the lawsuit. Even if they win the case, it took more money to win it then if they had settled out of court.
Then the attorney rakes off his 33% for just filing the court papers. Do that a few times each year and you have a very good steady income at the expense of the business or insurance company who passes the lost on to their clients which is us everyday citizens.
Piper you have a point about the cap limit with the medical field, but the real problem with the medical field is that the AMA does a very piss poor job of getting rid of bad doctors by pulling their license to practice medicine. Just as the American Bar Assoc. does a piss poor job of getting rid of bad attoneys.
RELH
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-11 AT 11:27AM (MST)[p]
CAElkhntr,
ERISA applies to Self Funded ie self insured plans. If the state can regulate your health plan then ERISA does not apply in areas that state law goes beyond Federal. Including the fact that in State Court pain, suffering and punitive damages can be awarded. There is no such provision in Federal. So if your plan is fully insured you can indeed pursue your carrier in State court for recovery of pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.
Interesting that ERISA, which reduces those covered under ERISA plans was written by and passed by a congress controlled by Democrats. House 291-144 in favor of the Democrats, Senate 61-38 in favor of the Democrats with 1 independent.
Piper would never admit that democrats reduced the rights of people to sue and recover because that would make him spend 30 seconds thinking something other than how much he hates people who don't blindly follow their party.
Nemont
CAElkhntr,
ERISA applies to Self Funded ie self insured plans. If the state can regulate your health plan then ERISA does not apply in areas that state law goes beyond Federal. Including the fact that in State Court pain, suffering and punitive damages can be awarded. There is no such provision in Federal. So if your plan is fully insured you can indeed pursue your carrier in State court for recovery of pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.
Interesting that ERISA, which reduces those covered under ERISA plans was written by and passed by a congress controlled by Democrats. House 291-144 in favor of the Democrats, Senate 61-38 in favor of the Democrats with 1 independent.
Piper would never admit that democrats reduced the rights of people to sue and recover because that would make him spend 30 seconds thinking something other than how much he hates people who don't blindly follow their party.
Nemont
caelkhnter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,526
NeMont
I am not use where you are getting your information, but if you work for a non government employer, and get your health insurance from a group health insurance policy, the policy and Insurance company will be governed by ERISA.
The fact is when it was passed, I do not believe it was ever intended to provide the insurance companies with the immunity from emotional distress and punitive damages that it has been interpreted to apply by the Federal courts. I think the original idea was to provide that protection to the employers, as an incentive to provide group health insurance for their employees, but over the years the courts have expanded that protection to the insurance complaines.
So it has essentially become a form of Judicial Tort Reform.
I am not use where you are getting your information, but if you work for a non government employer, and get your health insurance from a group health insurance policy, the policy and Insurance company will be governed by ERISA.
The fact is when it was passed, I do not believe it was ever intended to provide the insurance companies with the immunity from emotional distress and punitive damages that it has been interpreted to apply by the Federal courts. I think the original idea was to provide that protection to the employers, as an incentive to provide group health insurance for their employees, but over the years the courts have expanded that protection to the insurance complaines.
So it has essentially become a form of Judicial Tort Reform.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
I will spell it out slowly for you. There is no pain or suffering allowed under ERISA however if you are on a fully insured plan, ie the Insurance company is carrying the risk, therefore the plan is subject to what every state you are in State dept of insurance you can sue your carry for pain and suffering as well as punitive damages.
If you are on a self funded or self insured plan you cannot because state laws do not govern self funded plans. In self funded plans there is not generally an "insurance product" rather it is a funding mechanism. There usualy is a specific and aggragate stop-loss policies to protect the plan from bad claims years. If you covered on such a plan ERISA governs that fully. If you are on a fully insured plan then there is protection from the dept. of Insurance of the several states.
I get my information directly from the source. So ERISA applies but with fully insured plans there is a layer of state protection that allows you to successfully sue your health carrier.
Nemont
If you are on a self funded or self insured plan you cannot because state laws do not govern self funded plans. In self funded plans there is not generally an "insurance product" rather it is a funding mechanism. There usualy is a specific and aggragate stop-loss policies to protect the plan from bad claims years. If you covered on such a plan ERISA governs that fully. If you are on a fully insured plan then there is protection from the dept. of Insurance of the several states.
I get my information directly from the source. So ERISA applies but with fully insured plans there is a layer of state protection that allows you to successfully sue your health carrier.
Nemont
BrowningRage
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,471
It's about as accurate and relevant as a Michael Moore "documentary"...
One-sided and biased...
"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
One-sided and biased...
"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
NO WAY, that stuff couldn't be true, American heath care is the greatest on earth,all we have to do is put a cap on damages, then it will be real inexpensive also, and that lady with hot coffee, she is a fake, why me and BrowningRage we know thats just a put on.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-11 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]Piper,
I was not claiming that the lady did not get badly burned. The questions is what is reasonable compensation? I find it surprising that for all your hatred of successful people that you side with trial lawyers and take their propaganda as gospel.
You do realize that the main emphasis of this film is pro trial lawyer. Of course they almost are all democrats and donate heavily to the democrat party so maybe your reasoning is that anything against republicans has to be good.
Riddle me this, if this were just a rightwing thing how come it has not mattered which party controls congress or the White House? Seems to me that in the past 30 years liberals were in control just as much as the rightwing.
Do you believe that lawsuits are cost free? Remember the lady in the hot coffee suit against McD's was paid from a health insurance policy it was from a liability policy that McD's held. This type of lawsuit has almost zero impact on the cost of health care in this country.
Nemont
I was not claiming that the lady did not get badly burned. The questions is what is reasonable compensation? I find it surprising that for all your hatred of successful people that you side with trial lawyers and take their propaganda as gospel.
You do realize that the main emphasis of this film is pro trial lawyer. Of course they almost are all democrats and donate heavily to the democrat party so maybe your reasoning is that anything against republicans has to be good.
Riddle me this, if this were just a rightwing thing how come it has not mattered which party controls congress or the White House? Seems to me that in the past 30 years liberals were in control just as much as the rightwing.
Do you believe that lawsuits are cost free? Remember the lady in the hot coffee suit against McD's was paid from a health insurance policy it was from a liability policy that McD's held. This type of lawsuit has almost zero impact on the cost of health care in this country.
Nemont
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-11 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]
it seems like reality doesn't really measure up to what hot coffee's main premise is. Maybe there is more to the story than just one trial lawyers take on the tort system. 10 of the 50 largest verdicts ever occured in 2010. How do you explain that? The rightwing must be sucking at stacking juries and killing off the little man because objective sources say the opposite of what Hot Coffee argue.
I know you don't care because anything protraying republicans as bad fits into your already highly warped view of the world. So the narrative in Hot Coffee feeds your delusions that one side is better than the other while facts argue the exact opposite. Perhaps you need to a take a media literacy class at a local center of higher learning so you can detect bias in the media.
Defective-Product Verdicts Against Companies Increase
By Margaret Cronin Fisk - Jan 18, 2011 3:33 PM MT .
Cybex International Inc. , a fitness equipment maker, lost a $66 million jury verdict in New York last month to an assistant physical therapist who was paralyzed.
Cybex International Inc., a fitness equipment maker, lost a $66 million jury verdict in New York last month to an assistant physical therapist who was paralyzed when an exercise machine fell on her at work.
For Cybex, whose chief operating officer said he has no idea what the company did wrong, timing may have played a role. The state court jury?s Dec. 7 decision in Buffalo illustrates the most prominent trend in U.S. court verdicts in 2010: a surge in awards against companies accused of putting defective products on the market.
The stalled economy and a surfeit of negative corporate news, such as the BP Plc oil spill, sudden-acceleration suits against Toyota Corp. and bank foreclosure practices, has fueled public anger, affecting lawsuits against companies in unrelated cases across the country, legal experts said.
?Jurors are more willing to believe that there was corporate wrongdoing that was intentional,? said Ophelia Camina, a lawyer at Susman Godfrey LLP in Dallas who won a $246 million verdict last year in a breach-of-warranty and fraud case against JDA Software Group Inc. ?It's easier to get people angry when they're already brooding.?
The Cybex verdict, which was more than twice the company?s market value, sent its shares down 37 percent. The accident was unprecedented and not the result of a faulty product, the Medford, Massachusetts-based company said. Cybex said it plans to appeal.
?We?ve never had something like this,? President and Chief Operating Officer Arthur W. Hicks Jr. said in an interview. ?What we did wrong, I have no idea.?
Year to Year
Ten of the 50 largest jury verdicts last year came in product-defect cases, compared with five in 2009 and one in 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. There were 15 such verdicts of $25 million or more in 2010, compared with seven in 2009.
The largest jury verdict of the year of any kind was for $1.3 billion in a copyright-infringement action against SAP AG. That was also the largest copyright jury award in U.S. history, almost 10 times higher than the second-biggest, according to Bloomberg data.
The top product-defect verdict was for $505.1 million against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Israeli drugmaker, and its U.S. distributor, in a Nevada case over a claim that packaging of its anesthetic propofol created a risk of contamination and led to the plaintiff?s hepatitis. Three of the top 10 were in smokers? suits against tobacco companies, led by a $152 million award against Lorillard Tobacco Co. in Boston in December.
Largest Verdicts
The total of the largest five product-liability verdicts was $1.1 billion, up from $620 million in 2009 and $408 million in 2008. The 77 percent growth from last year accelerated a trend from the previous year, when the biggest five product verdicts rose 52 percent from 2008.
?There hasn't been any radical change in product-liability law to cause this,? said Victor E. Schwartz, a Washington attorney and litigation expert who represents companies. ?It's more atmospheric than legal.?
Attorneys for corporations facing product-defect claims are finding it harder to weed out bias during jury selection, said Schwartz, who is general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association and a Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP partner.
?The old form of bias was when a juror may have had a personal interest in the case or a bias for a plaintiff or against a particular defendant,? he said.
Prejudice today ?is more subtle and not always conscious,? he said. ?It's a blue-collar feeling that corporate America doesn't really care, and that's difficult to eliminate in voir dire,? the jury selection process.
it seems like reality doesn't really measure up to what hot coffee's main premise is. Maybe there is more to the story than just one trial lawyers take on the tort system. 10 of the 50 largest verdicts ever occured in 2010. How do you explain that? The rightwing must be sucking at stacking juries and killing off the little man because objective sources say the opposite of what Hot Coffee argue.
I know you don't care because anything protraying republicans as bad fits into your already highly warped view of the world. So the narrative in Hot Coffee feeds your delusions that one side is better than the other while facts argue the exact opposite. Perhaps you need to a take a media literacy class at a local center of higher learning so you can detect bias in the media.
Defective-Product Verdicts Against Companies Increase
By Margaret Cronin Fisk - Jan 18, 2011 3:33 PM MT .
Cybex International Inc. , a fitness equipment maker, lost a $66 million jury verdict in New York last month to an assistant physical therapist who was paralyzed.
Cybex International Inc., a fitness equipment maker, lost a $66 million jury verdict in New York last month to an assistant physical therapist who was paralyzed when an exercise machine fell on her at work.
For Cybex, whose chief operating officer said he has no idea what the company did wrong, timing may have played a role. The state court jury?s Dec. 7 decision in Buffalo illustrates the most prominent trend in U.S. court verdicts in 2010: a surge in awards against companies accused of putting defective products on the market.
The stalled economy and a surfeit of negative corporate news, such as the BP Plc oil spill, sudden-acceleration suits against Toyota Corp. and bank foreclosure practices, has fueled public anger, affecting lawsuits against companies in unrelated cases across the country, legal experts said.
?Jurors are more willing to believe that there was corporate wrongdoing that was intentional,? said Ophelia Camina, a lawyer at Susman Godfrey LLP in Dallas who won a $246 million verdict last year in a breach-of-warranty and fraud case against JDA Software Group Inc. ?It's easier to get people angry when they're already brooding.?
The Cybex verdict, which was more than twice the company?s market value, sent its shares down 37 percent. The accident was unprecedented and not the result of a faulty product, the Medford, Massachusetts-based company said. Cybex said it plans to appeal.
?We?ve never had something like this,? President and Chief Operating Officer Arthur W. Hicks Jr. said in an interview. ?What we did wrong, I have no idea.?
Year to Year
Ten of the 50 largest jury verdicts last year came in product-defect cases, compared with five in 2009 and one in 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. There were 15 such verdicts of $25 million or more in 2010, compared with seven in 2009.
The largest jury verdict of the year of any kind was for $1.3 billion in a copyright-infringement action against SAP AG. That was also the largest copyright jury award in U.S. history, almost 10 times higher than the second-biggest, according to Bloomberg data.
The top product-defect verdict was for $505.1 million against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Israeli drugmaker, and its U.S. distributor, in a Nevada case over a claim that packaging of its anesthetic propofol created a risk of contamination and led to the plaintiff?s hepatitis. Three of the top 10 were in smokers? suits against tobacco companies, led by a $152 million award against Lorillard Tobacco Co. in Boston in December.
Largest Verdicts
The total of the largest five product-liability verdicts was $1.1 billion, up from $620 million in 2009 and $408 million in 2008. The 77 percent growth from last year accelerated a trend from the previous year, when the biggest five product verdicts rose 52 percent from 2008.
?There hasn't been any radical change in product-liability law to cause this,? said Victor E. Schwartz, a Washington attorney and litigation expert who represents companies. ?It's more atmospheric than legal.?
Attorneys for corporations facing product-defect claims are finding it harder to weed out bias during jury selection, said Schwartz, who is general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association and a Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP partner.
?The old form of bias was when a juror may have had a personal interest in the case or a bias for a plaintiff or against a particular defendant,? he said.
Prejudice today ?is more subtle and not always conscious,? he said. ?It's a blue-collar feeling that corporate America doesn't really care, and that's difficult to eliminate in voir dire,? the jury selection process.
Nemont, I have no doubt that there is an increased general bias against corporate America, it makes sense, but the value in Hot Coffee was showing the seldom heard, other side of reality. From the late Paul Harvey and Ronald Reagan, to the rock stars of rightwing talk radio, all I have ever heard about were these amazing cases where poor corporations were sued for millions over nothing. A classic example was the fact that the old lady that got burned only wanted to have her medical bills paid for, (not unreasonable in my view). I do not like the current rightwing assumption that capping medical liability will lower medical costs, even the state of Wyoming rejected that claim when the facts came out. Our health care and liability problems go far deeper than that.
huntindad4
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,655
So I buy hot coffee because I like HOT COFFEE and proceed to spill it on myself and YOU don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect my medical bills to be paid by the company that sells me the coffee?
I may not know the facts here, I mean maybe the brain surgeon in the drive up window didn't secure the lid or the bottom of the cup fell out etc. etc.......
Guess what if you can't handle a coffee cup with hot coffee in it then the state is probably already paying for your retarded azz with my money.
Be responsible for yourself. When YOU fugg up YOU pay the bill.
Bill
Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
I may not know the facts here, I mean maybe the brain surgeon in the drive up window didn't secure the lid or the bottom of the cup fell out etc. etc.......
Guess what if you can't handle a coffee cup with hot coffee in it then the state is probably already paying for your retarded azz with my money.
Be responsible for yourself. When YOU fugg up YOU pay the bill.
Bill
Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Piper,
How come liberal rags like the NYT and others carried the same kind of headlines about the McDonalds case? Or Larry David who is a huge liberal made fun of the verdict on Seinfeld?
It is not a rightwing thing only, period. Liberals like David Letterman used it as a prop to make fun of our system. I don't advocate for tort reform because it doesn't do anything to reduce medical costs.
I don't have an issue with the lady getting her medical bills paid for. My issue is that anyone believes tort reform is a rightwing conspiracy against the little man. That is not even supportable with evidence that is at anyone fingertips who has a key board and an internest connection. Hot Coffee is just propaganda for trial lawyers to attempt to say they support the little man. They support trial lawyers.
Nemont
How come liberal rags like the NYT and others carried the same kind of headlines about the McDonalds case? Or Larry David who is a huge liberal made fun of the verdict on Seinfeld?
It is not a rightwing thing only, period. Liberals like David Letterman used it as a prop to make fun of our system. I don't advocate for tort reform because it doesn't do anything to reduce medical costs.
I don't have an issue with the lady getting her medical bills paid for. My issue is that anyone believes tort reform is a rightwing conspiracy against the little man. That is not even supportable with evidence that is at anyone fingertips who has a key board and an internest connection. Hot Coffee is just propaganda for trial lawyers to attempt to say they support the little man. They support trial lawyers.
Nemont
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,498
Piper I am sure you are possibly intelligent enough to decide that members of congress that are lawyers will enact laws that benefit their fellow lawyers by protecting their income and jobs.
If you had used that grey matter between your liberal ears you would have reseached this prior to laying the blame on the GOP as being the evil ones concerning tort reform.
There is 201 members of Congress that list themselfs as being a attorney. Of those 201 members in the Senate and House, 78 are members of the GOP party and a WHOPPING 123 members are listed as Democrats. Almost twice the number of Democrats passing laws to aid their fellow brother lawyers in having a lucative paying job.
Are you now beginning to get the feeling that your liberal Democrats may be screwing you coming and going, but bright enough to get your peabrain to accept the screwing and to blame it all on the the other evil side of the aisle.
RELH
If you had used that grey matter between your liberal ears you would have reseached this prior to laying the blame on the GOP as being the evil ones concerning tort reform.
There is 201 members of Congress that list themselfs as being a attorney. Of those 201 members in the Senate and House, 78 are members of the GOP party and a WHOPPING 123 members are listed as Democrats. Almost twice the number of Democrats passing laws to aid their fellow brother lawyers in having a lucative paying job.
Are you now beginning to get the feeling that your liberal Democrats may be screwing you coming and going, but bright enough to get your peabrain to accept the screwing and to blame it all on the the other evil side of the aisle.
RELH
