I would like to thank J and K for saving me. I was on the fence on who to vote for but now since they spoke so eloquently and explained the facts regarding the candidates I have no choice but to vote for the obvious choice. Kerry!
Really BC? I quote the bush-tastic poster to whom you responded first…
w did Kerry and Edwards get elected as
Sentors. Are the people of Massachusetts
and North Carolina so stupid that they
would put the likes of these two in office. I think Massachusetts is because
they have Kennedy too. I certantly hope
there is not enough of these same STUPID
PEOPLE to put them in the White House.
I just hope God doens’t let this happen.
Thanks. I now realize I am just childish and unrealistic. Please vote Republican, its easier than thinking!
I thought the intent of the article was to showcase the difference between the candidates on this issue. I favor tort reform but i also favor much stromger controls over doctors who are not competent to perform certain procedures. Doctors have to agree to do a better job of policing themselves or get someone else to do it for them. If insurers took stronger underwriting views of doctors, in concert with tort reform, we would all be better for it. No insurance, no practice, just like driving a car.
I have to agree with you there; of course it will take legislation to hold them to the “no insurance, no practice” rule. There are unfortunately many physicians who pracitice “bare”. I’ve had to pay more than our share on several claims just to get them settled because the “bare” docs wouldn’t kick in their portion (and the pltfs attorney knows he can’t tell his client to let us out early, lest the bare docs point fingers at the empty chair!).
There are big holes in both candidates’ plans. I would liken it to the retoric surrounding “education”. The federal government never educated one child. Never will. Only local policies will have an effect on that. THe latest education plan is known in my neighborhood as “no child left untested”…
While I agree the system needs reform I think that there are instances where limits are outrageous and insulting to the offended parties. I was widowed last year at the age of 28 due to a hospital error and the fact that someone wants to tell me that I can only sue for a limited amount of damages when my husband should have had at least another 30-35 years to live is a complete insult to me.
The limits suggested most often are on “non-economic” damages, better known as general damages or pain and suffering. I work in a state which already has a cap on these.
In other words, awards of money over and above that derived from medical expenses and future earnings would be limited. Bush favors a limit of $250,000; my state’s cap is almost double that at this point. most states have no cap; I would point to a terrible case in Illinois reported a couple months ago which involved the death of an infant. Terrible yes, but non-economic damages (all there are for an infant for the most part) were awarded by the jury in the amount of $30 million!
Limiting the entire damages (I think that’s W’s intent) to $250,000 is ludicrous, but there has to be some middle ground!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
OH NOOOOOO I forgot!!! I’ve been brainwashed into free speach by Michael Moore….
signed,
another apparently un-American Army Vet.
K = Kerry J = John? Sorry but I find your ability to act like mature adults and actually discuss the issue amusing.
I would like to thank J and K for saving me. I was on the fence on who to vote for but now since they spoke so eloquently and explained the facts regarding the candidates I have no choice but to vote for the obvious choice. Kerry!
Really BC? I quote the bush-tastic poster to whom you responded first…
w did Kerry and Edwards get elected as
Sentors. Are the people of Massachusetts
and North Carolina so stupid that they
would put the likes of these two in office. I think Massachusetts is because
they have Kennedy too. I certantly hope
there is not enough of these same STUPID
PEOPLE to put them in the White House.
I just hope God doens’t let this happen.
Thanks. I now realize I am just childish and unrealistic. Please vote Republican, its easier than thinking!
I thought the intent of the article was to showcase the difference between the candidates on this issue. I favor tort reform but i also favor much stromger controls over doctors who are not competent to perform certain procedures. Doctors have to agree to do a better job of policing themselves or get someone else to do it for them. If insurers took stronger underwriting views of doctors, in concert with tort reform, we would all be better for it. No insurance, no practice, just like driving a car.
I have to agree with you there; of course it will take legislation to hold them to the “no insurance, no practice” rule. There are unfortunately many physicians who pracitice “bare”. I’ve had to pay more than our share on several claims just to get them settled because the “bare” docs wouldn’t kick in their portion (and the pltfs attorney knows he can’t tell his client to let us out early, lest the bare docs point fingers at the empty chair!).
There are big holes in both candidates’ plans. I would liken it to the retoric surrounding “education”. The federal government never educated one child. Never will. Only local policies will have an effect on that. THe latest education plan is known in my neighborhood as “no child left untested”…
Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the grown up world. I agree with you whole heartedly.
While I agree the system needs reform I think that there are instances where limits are outrageous and insulting to the offended parties. I was widowed last year at the age of 28 due to a hospital error and the fact that someone wants to tell me that I can only sue for a limited amount of damages when my husband should have had at least another 30-35 years to live is a complete insult to me.
Sorry for your loss.
The limits suggested most often are on “non-economic” damages, better known as general damages or pain and suffering. I work in a state which already has a cap on these.
In other words, awards of money over and above that derived from medical expenses and future earnings would be limited. Bush favors a limit of $250,000; my state’s cap is almost double that at this point. most states have no cap; I would point to a terrible case in Illinois reported a couple months ago which involved the death of an infant. Terrible yes, but non-economic damages (all there are for an infant for the most part) were awarded by the jury in the amount of $30 million!
Limiting the entire damages (I think that’s W’s intent) to $250,000 is ludicrous, but there has to be some middle ground!
Very well written article. Thank you.