Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
~~~COMPX 11/13/2002~~~~~
Previous Close 1349.56
1318 AKvetch
1325 JXM
1329 timhyma
1335 WTMHouston
1355 SagDec15
1369 Phil
1376 MM
Troy
And I'm sure that grub had nothing in common with Betty boobs, huh?
Troy
What's the skinny on Vegas?
Shouldn't that be "What's the fatt on Vegas?"
Troy
~~~COMPX 11/12/2002~~~~~
Previous Close 1319.13
1298 WTMHouston
1301.02 SagDec15
1305 JXM
1326 AKvetch
1329 timhyma
1335 Phil
1345 MM
1298 worked well a couple weeks ago, might as well try it again, even though it might be a day or two early.
Troy
would you like to add something?
How about....the [grand] master of understatement....
Is that what you had in mind?
Troy
NITE moving the bid and ask is not the least bit surprising. They are not required to fill ANY size order at the current price and when there is an order imbalance, as there would be if someone places an order to buy more than 10 percent of the outstanding stock, the bid and ask should and will move quickly.
Thinking more about how your situation played out, that would have been a neat way to get a much better price for stock you wanted to sell -- although it might not be legal. Some government bean counter might just construe that as manipulation. Even though you did not sell, I bet there are some folks out there who are quite happy to have bee in the right place at the right time.
Just out of curiosity, what happened to the bid and ask after you canceled your order, which I am assuming you did?
Although I am sure you already know this, if you are thinking about acquiring a large block of a publicly traded company, you need to remember that there are serious legal reporting requirements. You cannot just buy that much stock without disclosing it in filings and without disclosing the purpose you are buying it for. This is particularly true if you are trying to acquire or take over a controlling interest in the company. It "may be," and I would sure find a good securities lawyer to make sure, that your buy order today, even though it did not get executed, triggered some kind of reporting requirement, especially now that you have publicly stated your intentions.
I am not certain of the answers to the questions I raise, but I would be very certain if it were me. This ain't exactly the right time in history to be playing fast and loose with reporting.
You might also want to try and have your broker make some inquiries without formally placing the order. The formal order hitting the market for that much stock has all kinds of adverse price consequences, as you found out, unless you have prearranged a block sale. At its core, the markets still are about supply and demand, especially when they get out of whack to a significant degree.
Troy
Matt:
As to dividends:
I have not looked at the legalities of this since shortly after law school, which was many years ago, so this is all as best I recall. Do not rely on this information to make any kind of buying, selling, or other decision regarding your legal rights.
The short, direct answers to your questions are that it depends. If it is common stock, dividends are generally not guaranteed and are payable only if declared by the company. Even if the company (or someone acting for it) claimed to expect the company to pay dividends when the stock is sold, it is seldom (if ever) guaranteed on common stock. The promise to pay dividends may amount to some kind of fraud if they knew (or recklessly disregarded) that there was little realistic chance of dividends and made the promises solely to induce others to buy the stock. But, it sounds like from your facts like they just made some bad business decisions after the fact: it is unlikely that this would turn the initial offer into something fraudulent.
Preferred stocks that carry a dividend can be cumulative (and that is not the right legal word, but I am drawing a blank on the proper word): that is, the dividends continue to accumulate, even if not paid each quarter (or whatever time period they are supposed to be paid). Thus if there is a $1 dividend each quarter and it is not paid during that Q, it remains due until paid. The precise terms of the preferred stock will be in the corporate charter, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, and-or the terms of the prospectus offering the preferred stock.
Undeclared dividends are not carried on the books because there is no obligation to pay them. Declared and unpaid dividends will be carried on the books, but I am not sure precisely how. I suspect that there are some special accounting rules for this, especially since dividends are not tax deductible.
Bottom line, however, the promise to pay a dividend, like the promise to pay any other debt, is only as good as the liquidity of the person making the promise. If they ain't got it, they ain't got it.
Troy
Always the master of understatement....
Troy
If it holds, you may get it.
Of course, that is what everyone else (one exception, guess who) from the open on down has thought as well.....<g>
If if and buts were.....oops wrong thread for the rest of that.
Troy
From the devilish grub to the porno site grub (a sixy sexty-nine)....quite a streak (pun intended) there.
Troy
A rather devilish grub there.....
Troy
Pretty neat looking...
This has always been my favorite.
http://www.moller.com/skycar/
Troy
~~~COMPX 11/11/2002~~~~~
Previous close 1359.21
1326 timhyma
1332 JXM
1345 WTMHouston
1350 Muell
1354 SagDec15
1370 shao
1379 Phil
1386 MM
Troy
As my wife is hollering, "get off that damn computer and come to bed," I think I'll leave this one for tomorrow.....<g>
Bad karma to do otherwise, don't ya know.
Troy
There is one point in the movement of that graphic that comes close -- at least with a little imagination.
Troy
I think that dual points of view are more than sufficient to satisfy most inquiries. In this case, however, while only nine points were clearly visible, I am sure there were really 10.
As far as them being equally held or held equally, well, I suppose that is in the hands of the (be)holder.
Troy
I thought that unwrapped looked a whole lot better...
Troy
Better late than never.
Funny thing is I did a search for "wiggly" and found nothing responsive: but it is not Christmas yet is it?
Troy
The better one is at arse covering, the less one has to worry about arse kissing......right?
Troy
You can get the same maps on mapquest without the branding getting in the way of the picture.
www.mapquest.com
GlobeX also sells maps with much better resolution and color, but they can get pretty expensive.
Troy
Another great (unintended) IHub benefit.
The auto refresh feature allows IHub to work well as a anti-timer on AOL. Just open the web page, set it to the favorites page with a short refresh time, and then minimize it.
Every time IHub auto refreshes, AOL thinks the session is active and the nasty session timer stays away.
Troy
excel...
Although I cannot put my fingers on one at this moment, I know that there are other public, free sites that let one upload pictures for others to see. Once a picture has been uploaded to that site, and thus has a url, you should be able to then include it in a post here.
It is obviously not as easy as just posting it here, but unless or until Bob adds that function here, it is a solution that accomplishes the same thing.
Edit: try http://www.photopush.com
There are others too.
Troy
To think that malpractice insurance would not be cheaper by a good bit with tort reform is to deny the evidence in states where awards have been limited.
Just what evidence would that be? The evidence, take a look at my other posts, is that "tort reform" has had NO meaningful affect on malpractice premiums (or any other insurance premiums for that matter) which nationwide are far lower than the $200K number you tossed out. In fact, in California, a State that has had some of toughest reform for the longest, the evidence is that malpractice premiums have risen at a rate twice that of the national average.
Who punishes the lawyer who sues the stepladder company because some bozo fell off while standing on top?
Who punishes the lawyer who sues MacDonalds because his client got fat? Who punishes the lawyer who sues a doctor because his client had a baby that wasn't perfect?
There are some more of your one-line sensational, fact deficient, anecdotes -- assuming that they in fact exist and are not just posited for the sake of making a point. Lawyers who bring lawsuits found to be frivolous get sanctioned, as they should; thus, the short answer to your question is that the courts punish the lawyers and the money goes to those they wrongfully sued. Lawyers also get punished by loosing their time and money in the suit. Lawyers who repeatedly do so either do not remain lawyers very long (they go out of business just like any other business) or get further sanctioned by local and state grievance committees.
Your profession reminds me of the hired guns in the old west. We need them sometimes, but they don't care who they work for so long as the money is good. Right or wrong is not a problem to lawyers, or prostitutes for that matter, but then I repeat myself.
Let me see if I have this right: you claim to not want to make this personal and then you compare lawyers to prostitutes? Me thinks you speak with forked tongue.
Your description, the ad hominem attack notwithstanding, is another of those straw man arguments. Last I checked, teachers, mechanics, carpenters, as with most professions, professionals, and other workers and businesses, ply their trade for those who pay for the goods or services. They get hired to perform a service or to provide a good and so long as the other party to the transaction pays the requested fee, the service or good gets provided.
When was the last time teachers, as a group, refused to continue to teach because the students came from bad families, because they disagreed with the content being taught, because their parents did bad things, or because too many of the kids were snotty little shits that needed their butts busted more than another math lesson? Teachers, like others, do not care who they work for so long as they get paid and earn a living. There is a cost to society for a bad teacher, just like a bad lawyer, (and a pretty good case could be made that a bad teacher has a far greater negative impact on society in the long run than a bad lawyer), but we don't see folks running around trying to stop all teachers from teaching because their are some bad teachers.
I will be happy to discuss the merits of these issues if that is what you want to discuss. If you want to simply sling mud, then perhaps you should not have responded in the first place. I have provided a great deal of evidence in support of my position: where is yours?
Troy
In the interest of the IHub community, I have thought long and hard about how to responsibly reply to your post.
There is much I could (and probably should) say, but I won't. Suffice it to say, your premises are as wrong as your conclusions. You actually make my ultimate point far better than I ever could have without your "contribution." I appreciate the help. Mark Twain put it quite well:
"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."
Have a great weekend.
Troy
Here is a doctor's take -- pretty even handed it seems and it deal with several issues.
------------------
Friday, September 20, 2002
THE BIG MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE POST
As you may have noticed, we here at The Bloviator have done a good deal of posting over the last few months about the Medical Malpractice Insurance crisis. You'll find similar discussions taking place at RangelMD, Medpundit, and Medrants.
In pulling together materials for a health policy elective I'm currently running, I rediscovered an excellent 1993 Office of Technology Assessment report titled Impact of Legal Reforms on Medical Malpractice Cases. It comes in at a hefty 128 pages, and gives great insight into past efforts to contain malpractice insurance rates, and their relative successes. I encourage everyone who is really interested in this stuff to read it.
While the numbers may be slightly dated, the logic number crunching that underlie the findings remains valid. But I won't bore you with statistical methods, since this post is rather long, I'll focus on the findings.
A few of the study findings:
1. The rising cost of care has an impact on the size of payouts, but is not the driving factor. According to the report, only about 22% of the total awards from 1975-1984 were for associated medical expenses. I have a sense that the percentage would be even lower today.
2. From footnote 1 in chapter 1 of the report:
Malpractice insurers make part of their income from premiums and part from investing those premiums in income-producing assets. The price of malpractice insurance (i.e., the premium) reflects the investment potential of the premium as well as the need to cover expected future losses. Thus, the premium in any year approximates the amount that must be invested (at the expected interest rate) to pay off losses as they occur in the future, meet operating expenses, and repay the investors in insurance companies for the risks they bear. As the interest rate expected from capital investments rises and falls, premiums are adjusted accordingly to assure a competitive rate of return to the investors. Because expected interest rates vary over time, premiums will too, for reasons that often have nothing to do with the number or kinds of malpractice suits.
(See below for more discussion of this aspect of the equasion.)
3. "Based on the six empirical studies reviewed in this chapter, only caps on damage awards and collateral source offsets appear to consistently reduce one or more of the malpractice cost indicators." (from the conclusion, p. 73)
In addition to the OTA report, I have found indispensable three articles that are either authored or co-authored by the Urban Institute's Randall R. Bovbjerg (two of the three are cited in the OTA Report). The PubMed abstracts, when available, are included:
1. Zuckerman S, Bovbjerg RR, Sloan F. Effects of Tort Reforms and Other Factors on Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums, Inquiry, 1990 Summer;27(2):167-82
THE ABSTRACT: We use state-level data on physician malpractice premiums, claims, and awards, provided by insurance companies for the years 1974 to 1986, to evaluate the effectiveness of the various tort reforms that have been legislated during the 1970s and 1980s. In addition to the tort reforms, our analysis of premiums considers insurers' anticipated losses, returns on investments, the type of insurer, and premium regulation. Our results suggest that the only reforms that significantly lower premiums are those that either impose a cap on the amount of physician liability or reduce the amount of time a plaintiff has to initiate a claim. We also find that premiums are lower when states regulate rates by requiring prior approval of premiums. In addition, it appears that the observed cyclicality in premiums is due, in part, to fluctuations in the real interest rates available to insurers as returns on investments. Unfortunately, we did not find as strong a link between the determinants of premiums, claims, and awards as might be expected.
With regard to that second to last line, I'd like to follow up with more of the findings from this study:
Insurers appear to be sensitive to returns on investments in setting premiums. For each 1% increase in real interest rates, premiums fall by 1.2%. Since interest rates are themselves cyclical, this finding provides evidence as to why premiums may move in cycles.
Ok, so what are "real interest rates", and what are they in the United States? The real interest rate is calculated by subtracting the Consumer Price Index from the nominal interest rate. I don't have the exact "real interest rate" numbers from the past several years, but I do know that the Fed has cut interest rates by 4% over the past two years alone (and had cut them pretty dramatically for a time in the late ‘90s as well). And while inflation has not been out of control, it has generally been between 2 and 3.5% over the last few years. This means that "real interest rates" over this period have been falling pretty dramatically. (You can see some discussion of the real interest rate here.) Much of the damage of inflation and a higher interest rate during the 1990s was disguised by the Dot Com boom. But with the bubble bursting on the stock market, and the Fed making drastic cuts in interest rates, the Insurance Companies have been slammed by an inability to make money anywhere. So if the real interest rate has continued flat or (now) negative over the last couple years, obviously, the insurance companies are going to increase rates.
More findings from the report:
One variable that significantly affects premiums but is difficult to explain is the percentage of the population over 65 ….t is not clear why this result is as strongly positive as we observe.
….
The degree of competition in the insurance market…is not related to premiums. [NOTE: Not being an economist or a statistician, I can't really refute this, nor can I make any statements about the effect of having no competition in the insurance markets on rates.]
Finally,
The most important tort reforms, in terms of lowering physician premiums, impose a cap on the dollar amount for which physicians can be held liable. General surgery premiums are reduced by about 13% the year after these caps are established…. We find that imposing a cap on physician liability…lowers premiums substantially. [Similar long-term findings appear in the study below, which found a significant long-term reduction in real premiums.]
2. Sloan FA, Mergenhagen PM, Bovbjerg RR. Effects of tort reforms on the value of closed medical malpractice claims: a microanalysis, J Health Polit Policy Law 1989 Winter;14(4):663-89.
Tort reforms enacted by state legislatures mainly seek to reduce the rate of increase in medical malpractice insurance premiums and other costs of the professional liability system, such as "defensive medicine." We examine the effects tort reforms enacted during the 1970s have had on the probability that a claim will be paid, the amount of payment, and the speed with which the claim is resolved. Claims frequency is not used as a variable in this analysis, but findings from other studies pertaining to frequency are noted. This study uses two closed claims databases--one from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and one from the U.S. General Accounting Office. We merged the two data sets for purposes of this analysis. The observational unit was the individual claim. Data on tort reforms came from our own analysis of statutory changes by state. Dollar ceilings on recoveries ("caps") are shown to be the strongest reforms in terms of their impact on paid claim size. Most caps limit recovery for noneconomic loss, though some limit dollar awards. Other reforms that reduced payments per claim were costs awardable provisions and mandatory collateral offsets.
3. Randall R. Bovbjerg, Book Review: Medical Malpractice: Research and Reform: A Measure of Malpractice: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation. By Paul C. Weiler, Howard H. Hiatt, Joseph P. Newhouse, William G. Johnson, Troyen A. Brennan & Lucian L. Leape. Harvard University Press, 1993. Pp. xiv, 178. $ 29.95. 79 Va. L. Rev. 2155 (1993).
From the article:
Many complaints about medicine (and law) are more folklore than fact. The legal system is not totally irrational. Nor are doctors terribly careless or incompetent. Accumulating evidence points to three main problems. First comes legal performance: although the system is more accurate than some critics allege, the vast majority of negligent injuries go unfound. The cases that are brought could be better resolved. I do not agree with A Measure of Malpractice that the legal system is completely "erratic," but it is hampered by a lack of predictability in standards for care and for determining damages. It is also very slow to resolve cases, costly to administer, and unpleasant for parties to endure.
The second problem is medical performance. As again documented by the New York study, our current system of liability fails to address most avoidable medical injuries. Given the high cost of resorting to law (especially for small disputes) and most people's distaste for the process, more litigation seems no answer. Medical peer review suffers from many of the same problems of high cost and unpredictable, inconsistently applied standards - not to mention litigiousness. Ironically, doctors whose professional livelihoods are threatened by peer review seem even more litigious than injured patients.
Third, the liability regime seems to promote "defensive medicine" along with "careful medicine." To an uncertain and disputed extent, "positive" defensiveness leads to extra tests and procedures of limited value and perhaps extra risk to patients. The fear of suit can lead to the "gold plating" of production in any field, but especially in medicine. Doctors have much more power to define what care is "medically necessary," while other purveyors of goods and services are less able to force gold plating on consumers.
Most writing about defensiveness focuses on the "positive" kind, normally lamenting how much it costs. But extra services are at least visible to patients and payers and can be addressed through changes in health coverage, monitoring, and payment. "Negative" defensiveness - omitting medically desirable care that physicians see as unduly risky - seems more troublesome because it is much harder to track. The current liability system also appears to produce some level of what might be called "resistive" defensiveness. That is, some providers are reluctant to cooperate in innovative approaches to health care, such as accepting case management of services or conducting medical outreach to uninsured pregnant women in the inner cities or rural areas. (citations omitted)
Bottom line from this research:
* Claim frequency and the size of noneconomic damages have a significant impact on the cost of insurance, and those numbers are on the rise (I haven't covered this in this post, but that information is readily available elsewhere).
* Interest rates also have a significant impact on malpractice premiums, and with the severe downturn in the stock market and in real interest rates (which are currently running in the negative), insurance companies need to raise premiums in order to continue to maintain profits.
* Physicians may think they're always being sued, but they're not. And given the number of negligent acts leading to patient harm that occur every day in the practice of medicine, they aren't being sued anywhere near as often as they legitimately could be.
* Suing more often won't solve the problems with patient safety.
* Exaggerated fear of lawsuits has led to defensive medicine, which can both increase costs of care and can lead to a decrease in willingness to take on challenging or risky cases.
* Caps on recoveries, especially noneconomic damages, has a significant impact on premiums and appears to be the best short-term approach, aside from improved patient safety measues, to reducing premiums.
http://bloviate.blogspot.com/2002_09_15_bloviate_archive.html
Troy
A study in Georgia says no crisis.
Sitting in judgment
Runaway juries and outrageous awards? Debunking the myths of tort reform
Proponents of tort reform cite an avalanche of tort filings and outrageous fortunes awarded by juries as prime reasons to overhaul the entire system. But an interdisciplinary study by law professor Tom Eaton and political science professor and criminal justice studies director Susette Tala-rico refutes those premises. Eaton and Talarico discussed their new study with Columns.
By Kathy R. Pharr
pharr@uga.edu
Columns: Was the widespread perception of a tort system gone awry the impetus for your study?
Eaton: This began in the mid-1980s when Gov. Harris's tort reform task force asked me to give them information about tort filings and awards. I told them I couldn't answer their questions because that information wasn't maintained by the state. Several years later, Susette and I were awarded a grant to conduct a study of tort litigation for 1990-93 for the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation. The same foundation asked us to expand the study for 1994-97. So we now have data for an eight-year period.
Columns: What counties are represented?
Talarico: We selected study sites that reflected variation in the social and economic sense. In our first study, we looked at suburban Atlanta (Gwinnett) and used some of the data that others had collected on metro Atlanta (Fulton), and then we included a mid-sized city in the central part of the state--Macon (Bibb); a smaller, very rural jurisdiction in South Georgia--Irwin County; and one nearby in Oconee, a traditionally rural area in transition. When we started the second study, we wanted more data from metro Atlanta so we added another suburban county--Cobb. Now we have data from six counties. We collected data from Fulton County in this research and didn't rely on that collected by others, as we did initially.
Columns: Do your findings suggest a tort system out of control?
Eaton: To the extent that the calls for tort reform are grounded on an image of litigation explosion and runaway juries, our research tends to refute that. We found absolutely no indication of an explosion in tort litigation; in fact, filing rates have been quite stable throughout the entire 1990s, and in many places the number of filings actually is declining. When adjusted for population, the filing rate has decreased in every jurisdiction we studied. We also found very little to support the notion that you have runaway juries. Less than one-half of 1 percent of the cases that went to trial resulted in a verdict of $1 million or more. When you look at the percentage of cases that the plaintiffs win and the median damage awards in all types of cases, our conclusion is that the jury awards are quite modest. About two-thirds of all of these cases are automobile accidents. High-profile products-liability and medical-malpractice cases, when combined, account for maybe 6 percent of the total number of tort filings. More than 50 percent of all the tort cases are settled and less than 5 percent go to trial, so the trial is the very small tip of the larger iceberg. When the cases actually go to trial, we have surprisingly predictable, rational results. Overall the plaintiffs win just a little bit more than half, and plaintiffs lose more frequently than they win in the products-liability and medical-malpractice trials.
Talarico: This does not mean that there is no reason to look at existing rules about how our civil-
justice system is run. But it does demonstrate that if we are going to consider proposals for change, we ought to have systematic evidence. In short, we shouldn't just rely on the occasional case that makes the newspaper headlines.
Columns: Do other studies support your findings?
Talarico: The patterns we call attention to are pretty much reflected in other state and national studies.
Columns: Did any of the findings surprise you?
Talarico: The public needs to appreciate that our civil courts are really inundated with domestic-relations litigation; torts occupy a very small proportion of civil litigation. So it's the divorce, child-custody and child-support cases that are clogging the civil courts.
Eaton: Fifty percent of all the civil filings are domestic-relations cases. We found that the tort filings accounted for only 7 percent. I was most surprised by how small the median award was: half the jury verdicts were for less than $6,000. There is the occasional big hit, but those are few and far between.
Columns: Does your study make recommendations?
Eaton: There were two things that I especially wanted people to get out of this. First is my continued cry that the state ought to be in the business of collecting these data. There is a bill pending in the General Assembly that, if enacted, would require more systematic public record-keeping so that it would not take a privately funded grant to generate this sort of information in the future. The second is that policy decisions about our civil-justice system should be decided on a more accurate picture of what actually happens in the courts, and we need to move away from making policy by anecdote.
Talarico: Our basic argument is if you are advancing proposals based on empirical assumptions, you ought to have some decent evidence--because it's really just fallacious to assume that a high-profile, sensational case actually reflects the everyday work of the courts and justice.
http://www.uga.edu/columns/000221/campnews3.html
Troy
Litigation and Insurance Costs
The Truth about Insurance and Litigation Costs
The U.S. economy is booming, corporate profits and executive salaries are at record levels, most injured Americans do not file lawsuits, liability costs for businesses are minimal, and the premium-gouging practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed. With these facts in mind, it may be hard to understand why "tort reform" remains on the national agenda.
One major reason is the large number of industry-sponsored "think-tanks," PR and lobbying firms driving this cruel effort. They are backed by multi-millions of dollars from the same insurance, tobacco, pharmaceutical, oil, HMO and other corporate interests wanting to escape liability for wrongdoing. Their message, which often focuses on anecdotal "oddball" cases, has created a false perception that the system is overflowing with frivolous consumer lawsuits. Here are the facts:
Contrary to popular myth, very few injured Americans file lawsuits.
Only 10 percent of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation, which includes informal demands and insurance claims. Only two percent file lawsuits. Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United States, Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1991).
Between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year (and 300,000 are injured) due to medical errors just in hospitals. Yet eight times as many patients are injured as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human, (1999); Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990).
The number of personal injury ("tort") lawsuits is steadily dropping, while "contract" suits (businesses suing businesses ) are on the rise. Tort suit filings dropped 9% between 1989 and 1997; contract suits went up 9% between 1995 and 1997. Tort suits now comprise only 7.5% of all cases filed in U.S. state courts. National Center for State Courts (1997).
Liability costs for businesses are miniscule and dropping.Annual insurance and claims costs for U.S. businesses were only $5.25 for every $1,000 in revenue in 1997. Moreover, these costs have been declining significantly -- down 37% over the last five years. Ernst & Young and the Risk & Insurance Management Society (1998).
Products liability insurance costs, per $100 of a retail product, are only 16¢ -- a tiny fraction equaling less than 2/10 of 1 percent. Adjusted for inflation, products liability insurance costs have fallen about 75 percent over the last decade. Consumer Federation of America (1998).
Tort law limits do not reduce insurance rates. The only study ever conducted of the impact of tort restrictions on insurance rates in every state in the country finds absolutely no correlation between enactment of "tort reform" and insurance prices. Some states without "tort reform" have experienced low rate increases while other states with major "tort reform" laws have seen very high rate increases relative to national trends. Premium Deceit --the Failure of "Tort Reform" to Cut Insurance Prices, Citizens for Corporate Accountability & Individual Rights (1999).
http://www.consumerrights.net/insurance_myths.html
Troy
Here is one that always hits some raw nerves. McDonalds revisited.
------------------------------
Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case
In 1994 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive- through McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
This infamous case has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and in an instant, the media and legal community were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as "Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million," or "Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million" painted the picture of a "runaway jury," an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers' legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a "legal myth" or a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers.
The Facts A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds' actions, the awards were justified:
By its own corporate standards, McDonald's sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. Likewise, a scientist testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees.
During trial, McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's received at least 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks. In addition, many of these claims were settled for up to $500,000.
Witnesses for McDonald's testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company's required temperature. McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.
McDonald's countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.McDonald's had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck's attorney offered to settle for $300,000. In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000. McDonald's refused all attempts to settle the case.
The Findings The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.
Based on its finding that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily.
Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person. Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy corporations, means the signal they are designed to send will not be heard. The trial court refused to grant McDonald's a retrial, finding that its behavior was "callous." The judge, however, announced in open court a few days after the trial that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000. Both sides appealed the decision.
Before the appeals could be heard the parties reached an out-of-court agreement for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of this settlement, McDonald's demanded that no one could release the details of the case.
Based on the facts, Corporate America's and much of the media's trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a "legal horror story" when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing.
11/30/99NOTES (The nature of the private settlement and lack of public court documents resulted in the use of primarily newspaper sources.)
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
Troy
A Department of Justice Study.
Department of Justice Study Disproves Tort "Reform" Myths
A report recently released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics deflates many of the myths that so-called "tort reformers" use to condemn our civil justice system. The August 2000 report, "Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996," is the third in a series of reports based on a survey of the 75 largest counties in the United States. Report highlights include the following:
Tort "Reform" Myth: Punitive damages are awarded too often and are too high, resulting in a plaintiff's lottery tort system.
Study Says: Wrong! Punitive damages are very rare, and when awarded they are small. Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3% of the tort trials won by plaintiffs. According to the report, the median punitive damage award in 1996 was only $38,000, not the millions awarded in rare but highly publicized cases covered by the media. The likelihood of a punitive damage award varied with the kind of tort alleged. Of the cases studies, only 3 asbestos trials, or 3.2% of asbestos trials, resulted in a punitive damage award, and those plaintiffs received only $1,100 each in punitive damages. Only 3, or 1.1%, of the medical malpractice cases resulted in punitive damage awards. Of the products liability trials (excluding asbestos) studied, only 11, or 12.5%, resulted in punitive damage awards.
Tort "Reform" Myth: Damage awards are escalating out of control.
Study Says: Wrong! The amounts awarded to plaintiffs for economic, non-economic, and punitive damages are decreasing dramatically. Juries are awarding smaller amounts to winning plaintiffs, particularly in automobile tort cases. Between 1992 and 1996, jury awards declined by 47%, from $57,000 to $30,000. This is strong evidence that juries are being polluted by media reports and the tort "reformers'" message that punitive damages are only a "lottery win" for prevailing plaintiffs. This study shows the need to educate the public, and therefore potential jurors, of the valuable deterrent effect of punitive damages on dangerous and harmful products and conduct.
Tort "Reform" Myth: Juries get caught up in the emotion of a trial, ignore the law and find for sympathetic plaintiffs.
Study Says: Wrong! The "Runaway Jury" theory is a myth. Judges are more likely than juries to decide in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs win in tort trial cases 48% of the time. Moreover, they are more likely to win tort trials decided by a judge (57%) than a jury (48%). The likelihood of a plaintiff winning varies among the kinds of torts. Generally, plaintiffs fare best with bench trials in premises liability, product liability (excluding asbestos), and medical malpractice cases. In premises liability trials, verdicts are in favor of the plaintiff 52% of the time when decided by a judge, compared to 38% of the time when decided by a jury. Plaintiffs won 63% of automobile tort trials before judges but only 57% before juries. In medical malpractice trials, plaintiffs won 38% of bench verdicts but only 23% of jury verdicts. An even more profound difference is found in product liability torts (excluding asbestos), where plaintiffs win 70% of trials decided by a judge and 31% decided by juries.
Tort "Reform" Myth: Juries are more likely then judges to award punitive damages.
Study Says: Wrong! In fact, plaintiffs seeking punitive damages fare better with judges than with juries, according to the study. In 1996 tort trials decided by a judge, punitive damages were awarded in 8% of the trials, compared to 3% of jury trials.
Tort "Reform" Myth: The tort system has been turned into a lottery system favoring plaintiffs.
Study Says: Wrong! Awards -- both compensatory and punitive -- are much smaller than is commonly perceived, whether they are handed out by judges or juries. The median final award to plaintiffs who won their tort trials in 1996 was $31,000 -- far less than the millions awarded in the few cases reported in the popular press. Damages of over $250,000 (including compensatory and punitive damages) were awarded to only 17% of plaintiff winners of all tort trials in the 75 largest counties. Only about 6% were awarded $1 million or more.
Tort "Reform" Myth: Tort plaintiffs are using the courts to cripple American businesses.
Survey Says: Wrong! Most lawsuits do not involve an individual suing a business. Only 39% of tort claims involved an individual suing a business. Most tort cases, 42%, were individuals suing each other.
Tort Reform Myth: Product liability and medical malpractice litigation is overloading our courts and federal legislation is needed to stem it.
Survey Says: Wrong! Product liability and medical malpractice litigation is not overloading our courts. Only 11% of tort trials were for medical malpractice and 2.3% were for defective products (not including asbestos cases, which were another 1.8%.) In contrast, automobile accident cases accounted for 49% of all tort trials, with three-fifths of those cases being one individual suing another.
As this Department of Justice report shows, there is no litigation crisis or punitive damage explosion or "runaway jury" problem as tort "reformers" claim. The legal system is actually remarkably restrained and juries are stingier than judges when it comes to financial awards.
DOJ report http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ttvlc96.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=5671
Troy
Myths and Facts -- not just my take, but ones with supporting material.
http://www.abota.org/archive/mythsandfacts.html
----------------------------
[Myth] - The civil jury system is a uniquely American Institution.
[Fact] - The origins of the jury system have been traced to ancient Egypt (c. 2000 B.C.).[]1 The right to trial by jury was guaranteed to English citizens by the Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215.[]2
[No] freeman shall be seized, imprisoned, or dispossessed... excepting by the judgment of his peers.
- Magna Carta (1215)
[Myth] - The United States Constitution does not guarantee a jury trial in a civil case.
[Fact] - The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, a key component of the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all Americans the right to trial by jury in any controversy involving more than twenty dollars.
[Myth] - The right to trial by jury was not important to the Founding Fathers.
[Fact] - Among the principle abuses of the English monarchy which led to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution were the suspension of the right to habeas corpus and the denial of the right to trial by jury.[]3 The determination of liability and the assessment of damages are both questions which the common law reserved to the jury.[]4
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson (1788)
"Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the preexistent rights of nature."
- James Madison (1789)
[Myth] - The unemployed and illiterate make up juries and are not a true representation of the American populace.
[Fact] - Juries are typically chosen from voter and driver lists, which provide a fair representation of the population. A recent study indicates that the average prospective juror is educated, is employed, has a reasonable income, is somewhat older and is married.[]5
[Myth] - Juries have their own agendas when deciding cases and reach bizarre results.
[Fact] - As former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stated, the jury is the only agency of the government with no ambition and no political gain to be had from their verdicts.[]6 In a recent poll, 82% of former jurors believed that the civil jury on which they served reached a fair conclusion in the case.[]7
"The jury system has come to stand for all we mean by English justice, because so long as a case has to be scrutinized by twelve honest men [and women], defendant and plaintiff alike have a safeguard from arbitrary perversion of the law."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1956)
[Myth] - People dislike serving on juries.
[Fact] - A National Center for State Courts survey revealed that 81% of those who served n juries had a favorable attitude toward jury service.[]8
[Myth] - The use of the jury system causes unwarranted delay in the administration of justice.
[Fact] - Although the vast majority (97-98%) of cases filed are resolved before trial, the average time elapsed from the filing of a lawsuit to a jury verdict is 2 1/2 years.[]9 For those cases going to trial, most litigants would prefer to have their cases decided by a jury than solely by a judge.[]10 The availability of a civil jury trial may actually aid a pretrial conclusion of the matter.
[Myth] - In civil cases, jurors often arrive at wrong or misinformed decisions, usually finding for the plaintiff.
[Fact] - A recent Department of Justice study shows that out of all cases decided by a jury, the plaintiff was favored in 52% of such cases.[]11 A University of Delaware study found that jurors were generally favorable toward business and committed to holding down awards.[]12
[Myth] - Punitive damage awards are out of control.
[Fact] - Punitive damages were awarded in only 6% of the cases in which the plaintiff was successful, according to the same Department of Justice study. The median punitive damage award was $50,000.[]13 The overwhelming majority of plaintiffs who received punitive damages suffered catastrophic injury or death.[]14
[Myth] - Premiums for medical malpractice insurance and medical malpractice verdicts are driving up health care costs.
[Fact] - Malpractice insurance premiums for physicians account for less than 1% of the overall costs of health care in America.[]15 Furthermore, patients win fewer than one-third of the suits filed against doctors and hospitals.[]16
[Myth] - Personal injury awards are excessive.
[Fact] - In 1994, juries awarded compensatory damages of less than $100,000 in 59% of all cases tried.[]17 The amounts awarded correlate closely with the severity of the personal injury.[]18
[Myth] - Product Liability awards are out of control.
[Fact] - Compensatory damage awards in product liability cases actually declined during the period 1985-1994.[]19
[Myth] - America has too many lawyers - more than any other country.
[Fact] - The United States has 9.4% of the worlds lawyers and ranks 35th in number of lawyers on a per capita basis. Among those ranked ahead of us are Japan, France and Italy.[]20 The majority of American Lawyers are not involved in civil litigation.
[Myth] By reducing the number of lawyers, the cost of litigation and the number of lawsuits will drop.
[Fact] - Without the presence of lawyers in our society, the right of the people would be unprotected. Products are safer, health care is improved, and the environment is cleaner due in part to the efforts of lawyers. Reducing the number of lawyers diminishes the benefits produced by lawyers to protect the rights of all Americans.
[]Notes
[] 1. Moore, The Jury: The Tool of Kings, Palladium of Liberty (W.H. Anderson 1975), p. vii
[] 2. Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples I (Dorset Press 1956), p. 254
[] 3. Boyd v. Budala, 672 F 2d 915, 918-19 (W.D.Va 1987)
[] 4. Id.
[] 5. "The Relationship of Juror Fees and Terms of Service to Jury System Performance," National Center for State Courts (March 1991), p. 26-27
[] 6. Guinther, The Jury in America (Roscoe Pound Foundation 1988), p. xiii
[] 7. Yankevich/Talmey-Drake, National Survey on Tort Reform (January 1995)
[] 8. National Center for State Courts, supra, p.6
[] 9. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 (July 1995)
[] 10. National Law Journal (February 22, 1993), p. S2
[] 11. Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 (July 1995)
[] 12. Hans and Lofquist, Jurors' Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implication for the Litigation Explosion Debate (1992), p.93
[] 13. Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 (July 1995)
[] 14. Statement of Lucinda M. Finley, SUNY-Buffalo Professor of Law, to Senate Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice (March 15, 1994)
[] 15. Testimony of Robert Reischauer, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to Committee on Ways and Means (March) 4, 1992)
[] 16. Jury Verdict Research, Inc., 1994 Study of Medical Malpractice Verdicts
[] 17. Jury Verdict Research, Inc., as reported in The Wall Street Journal (March 24, 1995)
[] 18. Taragin, "The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims," Annals of Internal Medicine (November 1, 1992), pp. 780-784
[] 19. Jury Verdict Research, Inc., as reported in The Wall Street Journal (March 13, 1995)
[] 20. August, "The Mythical Kingdom of Lawyers," ABA Journal (September 1992), pp. 72-74
Troy
DATE: November 14, 2001 Attached please find a new spreadsheet of medical malpractice closed claims data, which updates point #2 (average closed claim payouts) in the October 13, 2001, analysis conducted by the Consumer Federation of America's Director of Insurance, J. Robert Hunter. (Letter from J. Robert Hunter to Joanne Doroshow, October 13, 2001.) Based on this new recalculation of data and after discussions with Mr. Hunter, we conclude as follows:
Average payouts have stayed virtually flat for the last decade. Between 1991 and 1998, payouts averaged around $30,000 per claim.
Payouts in the most recent years, 1999 and 2000, appear to be following the same pattern, although they are now extremely low as smaller claims tend to settle first. It remains to be seen how these claims will develop, but we do not anticipate any major change in this overall flat pattern of average payouts. Medical Malpractice Experience Spreadsheet prepared by J. Robert Hunter (November 14, 2001)
Letter from J. Robert Hunter to Joanne Doroshow (October 13, 2001.)
http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/011114.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/docvoices.doc.pdf
The Problem with Malpractice is Malpractice
Troy
Insurance Industry Admits: Don't Expect "Tort Reform" To Reduce Insurance Rates
New York - In a startling admission, the American Insurance Association (AIA), a major insurance industry trade group, says lawmakers who enact "tort reform" should not expect insurance rates to drop. Specifically, a March 13, 2002 AIA press release, evidently issued to critique the Center for Justice & Democracy's 1999 study Premium Deceit - the Failure of "Tort Reform" to Cut Insurance Prices, leads with an astounding face-saving pronouncement: "[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings."
Said CJ&D Executive Director Joanne Doroshow, "We would like to thank the insurance industry for finally admitting what is already obvious: that they have not cut, and have no plans to cut, insurance premiums for doctors, hospitals or other businesses as a consequence of ‘tort reform' - restrictions on consumers' rights to sue wrongdoers in court. AIA's friends at the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) said this nearly three years ago following Premium Deceit's release. Now that we're all in agreement, can we please recognize ‘tort reform' for what it is - an insidious movement that has had terrible consequences for many innocent people, while doing nothing to improve the affordability of liability insurance for businesses or professions."
A medical malpractice insurance "crisis" for doctors is currently driving a national movement to restrict patient's rights to sue malpracticing doctors, on the grounds that these restrictions will reduce doctors' insurance rates.
In 1999, ATRA President Sherman Joyce told Liability Week (July 19, 1999), "We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates." Victor Schwartz, ATRA's General Counsel, told Business Insurance (July 19, 1999) that "[M]any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and ‘I've never said that in 30 years.'"
Premium Deceit is an exhaustive look at the impact of "tort reform" on nationwide insurance costs between 1985 and 1999. It finds that tort law limits enacted since the mid-1980s have not lowered insurance rates in the ensuing years. States with little or no tort law restrictions have experienced approximately the same changes in insurance rates as those states that have enacted severe restrictions on victims' rights. For a copy of CJ&D's full response to AIA's critique of Premium Deceit in pdf format, click here.
http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/020319.htm
Contact: Joanne Doroshow
212/267-2801
Troy
California Restrictions On Malpractice Victims Have Not Affected Malpractice Premiums
Premium Data Shows California Law Is No Model For The Nation
Los Angeles, CA -- Data released today by two consumer groups show that California's 22-year experience with the nation's most draconian limits on the rights of medical malpractice victims has failed to slow premium increases for doctors and hospitals. In fact, over the last decade, the average malpractice premium in California has grown more quickly than it has in the nation overall.
The California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and New York-based Center for Justice & Democracy (CJ&D) hired nationally recognized actuary J. Robert Hunter, former Texas Insurance Commissioner and Federal Insurance Administrator under Ford and Carter, to compare national malpractice premium trends to those in California. Hunter found that from 1991 to 2000, malpractice premiums in California have stayed close to national premium trends. The 2000 average premium per doctor in California was only 8.2 percent below that of the nation ($7,200.61 vs. $7,843.75) while the average malpractice premium in California between 1991 and 2000 actually grew more quickly (3.5 percent), than it did in the nation overall (1.9 percent.) According to Hunter, "there is not much difference in the rates or the rate of change between California and the nation based on the latest decade of experience."
In the mid-1970s, California enacted severe laws restricting the rights of patients who have been injured by malpractice, allowing them to recover no more than $250,000 in noneconomic compensation no matter how egregious the malpractice or serious the injury. The medical establishment is campaigning to spread this severe cap on damages not only to other states, but to the entire nation in recently introduced federal legislation (H.R. 4600), arguing falsely that this cap has kept premiums dramatically downward.
"If there are savings to limiting the rights and recovery of innocent victims of dangerous and culpable doctors, then insurers have not passed them on to physicians," said Jamie Court, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "California is a failed model for the national restrictions being proposed on patients. California patients have been denied adequate compensation and representation for their injuries, and California doctors have seen almost no premium savings. Only the insurers have gotten rich in the good times."
"This study disputes one of the most sensationalized fictions driving the movement to limit lawsuits against malpracticing doctors and hospitals --the notion that California's brutal restrictions on patients' rights, enacted in the mid-1970s, have slowed the growth of malpractice premiums," said CJ&D Executive Director Joanne Doroshow. "In fact, the opposite has happened. Over the last 10 years, California's premiums have grown faster
than the nation's.
"This analysis has, for the first time, exposed as an insidious public relations scam the notion that California's cruel law has controlled the growth of malpractice insurance premiums. This law has had terrible consequences for many innocent people, while doing nothing to improve the affordability of liability insurance for doctors."
Year
California number of Doctors in State
U.S.A. Number of Doctors
California Med Mal Premium Earned (in thousands)
U.S.A. Med Mal Premium Earned (in thousands)
Average Med Mal Premium per Doctor in California
Average Med Mal Premium per Doctor in U.S.A.
1991 76043 631400 529056 4862170 6957.33 7700.62
1992 76367 652100 526496 5138395 6894.29 7879.77
1993 76411 670300 563004 5174055 7368.10 7719.01
1994 77311 684400 576771 5931898 7460.40 8667.30
1995 78169 720300 597660 6080639 7645.74 8441.81
1996 79048 737800 610003 5992394 7716.87 8121.98
1997 80341 756700 628858 5917038 7827.36 7819.53
1998 81762 777900 652601 6195047 7981.72 7963.81
1999 82872 797600 611785 6155241 7382.29 7717.20
2000 84675 812800 609712 6375401 7200.61 7843.75
1991 to 2000 percent change 3.5 1.9
1991 to 2000 percent change (annualized) 0.4 0.2
Sources:
Doctors USA: Statistical Abstract of the United States;
Doctors CA: California Department of Consumer Affairs;
Earned Premiums: NAIC Report On Profit By Line By State
http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/020529.htm
Troy
I notice you don't address my comment as to "who pays." We consumers do. The amount of money in society is more or less constant, of course dependent upon the vagaries of the government injecting supply, etc. When a practitioner has to pay an award, no matter whether or not it is justified, that money comes from someplace. Insurance companies don't have the right to print money, so they must reclaim what they pay out in the form of premiums. If a doctor's premiums increase, he does not have the ability to print money either, so he must raise prices.
If I didn't, I should have. Your point above is literally correct. People who buy goods or services always pay for the expenses of the business from whom they obtain the goods or services -- or the business stops doing business because the costs exceed what they are able to charge. Stated differently, businesses price their goods and services based on the costs of doing business. These same things are true of doctors.
Of course, we as consumers should not support those who cause the damage and thus have higher costs. Our option is not to do business with those who have to charge more because their costs are higher than everyone else because they have harmed others and have been made to pay for it.
I agree with the express point you make, but not with what I think is further implied; that is, with the net result.
If your point is that medical costs would be less if no doctor had to carry malpractice insurance or pay victims of his malpractice from his own pocket because it raises his costs of doing business and therefore what he must charge for his services, then you are literally correct. Such a state of affairs would reduce the costs of health care, although very little, but would not be very desirable in my view. People, doctors included, trend to be just a bit more careful about what they do when their are consequences to their actions.
If your point is that the savings would be substantial, then you are mistaken. For example, the average malpractice premium for a doctor in the United States in 2000 was about $7800. If the average doctor sees 1000 patients a year (20 patients a week, 50 weeks a year), that works out to about $8 per patient a year, on average. Not very significant. The average malpractice premium nationwide has risen a whopping 1.9 percent over the past decade. Hardly what the popular myth portrays.
http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/020529.htm
For the past 22 years, California has had some of the toughest malpractice tort reforms in the country -- including caps on non economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering). Over the last decade, its malpractice premiums have risen faster (almost twice as fast) than those of those of doctors in the rest of the country.
I will post more of the specific stuff separately.
Now, I will not get into questions like, "define the word, is."
How about just defining (or explaining or defending) the word you used, "many?" It was pretty unclear in the manner in which you used it. To avoid further uncertainty, I addressed every potential meaning in the context in which you used it. If there was some other meaning that I missed (and that is very possible), let me know and I'll address it too. Far from nit picking, my response was far more precise than your initial use of the word. I simply want to compare apples to apples.
One of the problems with discussions such as these is that people use words that mean one thing to them and something else to everyone else. Words such as many, few, most, and some (to just name a "few" <g>) are not very specific and leave a lot of room for interpretation and misunderstanding.
One frivolous lawsuit is too many. I don't wish to deny the right to redress to a person who has been wronged. I simply don't think that because a mistake was made, that entitles someone else to get rich. I know. You will now castigate me for demeaning the value of a human life.
I agree that one frivolous lawsuit is one too many which is why EVERY State has laws against them. Just what, other than what it already does, would you have the legal system do to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
I certainly do not think that anyone should get rich just because someone else has made a mistake. There is no question that there are instances in which that has happened, BUT, they are few and far between. Out of the millions of lawsuits filed each year, there are some on the extreme -- ones where the result either seems or is out of whack. It always has been that way and always will be that way because neither people nor the system has ever been, is, or will ever be perfect all of the time.
There are also some large awards that are justified because the damages are significant and severe. It is not a question of making someone rich. It is a matter of people or companies who have caused damage paying for that damage -- sometimes that damage is small and the payment should be small. Sometimes the damage is large and the payment should likewise be large. Sometimes, the conduct is not just a mistake. Sometimes, people or companies know that their conduct may seriously injure or kill others and chose to ignore it because it is cheaper to pay millions in damages than to change it (does a certain fuel tank ring a bell?). Those people and companies ought to be financially punished for their conduct to deter them from doing it again in the future. Sometimes, people intentionally harm others. Just like those who chose to consciously ignore a serious risk to others, those folks should likewise be financially punished.
When it is companies who do this, consumers do have a choice to paying more for those companies goods or services: do business with someone else.
BTW, I would never castigate someone for demeaning the value of human life unless I was certain that they actually believed that human life had little value. Having a discussion about issue such as these does not come close to providing a basis for such an allegation.
Further, we need to limit jury awards to realistic levels. Monetary damages are one thing. EXcess is another. In my opinion, many jury awards are nonsensical. . . .
Jury awards should be realistic, but what is "excess" or "nonsensical" is not a uniform level. There cannot be a one size fits all, but because neither we nor our damages are one size. Some folks are hurt very little and deserve very little. Some folks are hurt severely and serve significant compensation.
Many things for which people sue should rightly fall under the hat of personal responsibility.
When folks sue because they have been hurt by their own carelessness or stupidity, rather than what someone else has done to them, I agree. But, that said, surely, you do not mean that folks who cause damage to others should not have to be responsible for the damage they cause? This personal responsibility argument is the proverbial straw man. Those who are hurt by someone else's conduct have nothing to take personal responsibility for. On the other hand, those who have caused the damage are the ones who need to take a look in the personal responsibility mirror.
Enough for one post.
Troy
Indubitably.
Troy
~~~COMPX 11/08/2002~~~~~
Previous close 1376.71
1343 timhyma
1356 WTMHouston
1359 JXM
1393 MM
Troy
Think I missed the cut-off, but I would have wagged 1401. I wanted 1398 as a memory of 1298, but it was covered.
Troy
Let me try again then.
When you are on the favorites page and want to read all of the new messages on a thread, you left click on the number representing the number of new messages posted on that thread. When you click on this number it takes you to the thread and it also tells the code to zero out the new message count that appears on the favorites page.
Thus, if you want to zero out the listed message count without going to the posts on the thread, click on the number but rather than waiting for your browser to switch over to the window that displays the posts on that thread, just hit the stop button on your browser. This will clear the massage count (even though it will currently still display the number that was already there).
This is a functional way to clear the count on some but not all threads without having to actually load the first page of each thread and then go back to the favorites page for each one. Ultimately, in order to see a zero, however, you will have to reload the favorites page.
Make any more sense?
Troy
Bob suggested:
Click the number of new messages, then click Favorites.
The quicker way is to click on the number of new messages and then quickly click on your browser's stop button. Even with the DSL connection, I am usually (95+%) able to stop the opening of the window for the thread (the screen remains on the favorites window), but the server has already received and recorded (probably not the right word but you know what I mean) the command to clear the message count. Dial up success is 99.9 percent since it is so much slower. The next time that the favorites are loaded the new message count will be at 0 or at whatever number of messages have posted since you cleared it.
Troy
Having been a Republican my entire life, there was a time when I would have thought that the Republicans winning control of Congress was good for not only the market but the country as a whole. Too bad this is not one of those times. On the other hand, maybe this will force Dub-ya a bit closer to the center where he rightfully belongs.
Troy