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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (13417)	2/12/2010 2:22:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Not if you are on the plaintiff side... then the government is regulating a limit to compensation for what could be far greater economic harm. Setting up the procedure for you getting the compensation in the first place is government action, and broadly speaking regulation. Without government intervention you would either get nothing, have to use private dispute resolution (if their are provisions for it in your contract), or try to steal or extort compensation yourself. If an intersection didn't have a stop sign and the government put in a new stop sign it would be new regulation, wouldn't it Tim? Broadly speaking yes, but in this case the lawsuit, the courts, the whole tort system, is the stop sign. Tort reform is a limit on the stop sign. A better analogy in real world signs would be a "no right turn on red" sign as the tort system, than tort reform is the addition of a "when pedestrians are present" qualifier than sometimes occurs.