Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (195016)	7/19/2004 6:29:10 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1588734

The courts and the just system are the methods. Joe argued that the jury system might not deal with malpractice cases well but he didn't say the jury system was going after the MDs. The plaintiffs and their lawyers are going after the MDs. They use the courts and the juries to do so. Yes, and that's why he criticized the jury system and questioned whether it should be allowed to continue. Yes that was why he criticized and questions the jury system. It is also why it isn't an argument of MD's vs. the little guy or the "lower classes". Juries aren't the little guy in some dispute. Tim, who's makes up most juries in this country? Do you think its all MDs, lawyers, dentists and CEOs? They're too 'busy' for jury duty. Its the little guy who makes the time. This is not news. How come you didn't know about it? They help settle the dispute. The conflict talked about in the whole conversation from the begining has been trial lawyers against doctors. Not according to Joe.........he sees the amt. of the awards provided by the jury as part of the problem. Sure poor people get involved as jurors or as plaintiffs or as people who pay higher medical costs or insurance premiums because of the lawsuits. Its not "the lower classes" vs. anyone because they are on both sides. In any case more of them are hurt by the actions of the plaintiffs and trial lawyers then benefit from the lawsuits. Its to some degree a class issue. Some juries of the little guy see it as an opportunity to level the money playing field; take from the rich and give to the poor. It a concept as old as, well, Robin Hood. You've heard of Robin Hood, haven't you? So are you suggesting that if people suspect malpractice but aren't sure, they shouldn't be allowed to sue? How does "Death or injury should not automatically equal good grounds for a lawsuit." equal not being allowed to sue without previously proving their case? First, it doesn't help that you answered a question with a question. Secondly, I don't understand the question. I also don't think that someone with some distant connection to the case and probably 1% of the blame should be found liable for 100% of the payout just because they have deep pockets. I think that anyone sued should be the person or group or organization that is primarily at fault or at least contributed signifigantly to the problem. Please elaborate........whose the 1%? It would depend on the case. But in many cases someone, or some company or organization that is found to have any minute amount of responsibility can be sued for the whole cost if the person, company or organization that is primarily response doesn't have the money to pay. There has been some move away from this idea; for example, I linked to a story about how PA you have to be at least 60% responsible to be forced to pay all the costs; but I think we need to continue and extend this type of reform. Frankly, I have never heard of such a case. Do you have a link to an example of such a case? ted