Part of the problem is what tw touched on... how the legal system operates.
There is a real need for people to seek redress for injuries from those responsible. That must not be downplayed because of abuses by some.

That said.....the television ads for personal injury lawyers, ruffle my feathers, big time. They're blatantly appealing to the get rich quick, money for nothing, quick buck, scumbags.
They're offering a commission, a piece of the action, for the use of your name/story, in fleecing somebody. It's as if they were soliciting screenplays for a docudrama. :(

You are assuming a world where everyone has same perspective. Value of that child to you makes zero difference from a perspective called society. Society values that child's life completely different. And society is paying the compensation. Again, you are quantitatively measuring using emotions. That cannot be accomplished. Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.

What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.

I understand the purpose of the compensation completely. My point again is that
1) I cannot put a value on such things and
2) Society feels it MUST put a value on such things.
Its a paradox, I realize that. But limiting the amount of compensation is simply telling a corporation that if they put out an inferior product or behave in an unsafe way, that it will cost X in compensation, no more - no less. Said corporation simply factors this "price of business" into their product. That doesn't benefit anyone other than the corporations.

Human life cannot have a known dollar value - that is, simply put, the value of life. - That everything has a monetary value or can be measured in dollars and cents. The mentality that you can factor out some dollar figure to equal a life is the real problem. Once that mentality is allowed to pervade, the society as a whole is doomed. Holding something so precious as a human life and quantifying it into a monetary unit or value cannot be tolerated.

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem. Its as useful as putting oil into a car with leaking seals - the system doesn't need oil, it needs an overhaul.

There is no amount of money that can explain what my son's life is to me & that is exactly the amount I would make his life about.
Those who say that they are trying to make a point to a corporation are just greedy. They know statements like that are a lie, both to themselves and the court. Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them... just greed & a sick legacy for their loved ones unless used ONLY to help other victims of a similar fate/crime and not for family profit if part of an existing policy that had to litigated.

Corporations are business entities that are concerned with being profitable. Losing money is losing profit. Nobody here has stated an intention to "make them feel bad" by suing them. Corporations will change their business practices in order to avoid losing money through lawsuits. It's a "check and balance" against their ingrained purpose to generate more and more money. Remove the ability to punish them financially, and then you would be left with appealing to their non-existent conscience as your only option.

As stated previously, they are the ones putting prices on people's heads, not you.

So, you don't realize they are insured against such suits? The most it will cost them is a slight increase in premium that the company passes on to the consumer. Like a shoplifter, a person looking to cash in beyond their policy payout or settlement is only harming other consumers.
There is no "they".

So why don't premiums go down after Tort Reform is passed? Oops! The insurance companies just keep the money! What I can't figure out is how people are so goddamn naive that they think the insurance companies won't take Tort Reform as a windfall profit, like they demostrably do, every time it gets passed. What do we expect "them" to do, just give the money back voluntarily? Ha! The "harming other consumers" rhetoric does not conform to what actually happens. It's bullshit.

They won't go down because the number of frivolous suits will go up. Ambulance chasers will go for quantity over quality. The option of making less will NOT be an option.
Believe it or not, if you like, not all insurance companies are just out to bleed everyone for everything they can.
I was told, often, to do the right thing for my clients, and always did what was right for my clients. If someone tried to buy too much insurance for their needs or for what they could afford, I told them not to. I did this on a weekly basis. I was present for several sessions where claims adjusters told clients not to sue because they had been indemnified.
The "evil, blood sucking, soulless insurance companies" is a myth. The profit margin for most insurance companies is tiny compared to retail and other businesses.
When looked-at for what it is, it is one of the most altruistic forms of business out there.
The company assuming risk for the individual by investing for them and taking a loss in case something happens to the many in the short-term... that is the business plan. The rates are controlled by the state, "they" do not just raise rates as they like, your elected officials do that. Most companies only put in for a rate change when they have to, if they raise rates and are not competitive people & businesses leave to go to more competitive/cheaper companies... it is not like we get to charge what we want. There is no OPEC of insurance. No one company knows how another underwrites or has their prices like they do and those secrets are held VERY tightly. (This is why Progressive's ad campaign is such a huge lie and joke)
Urban myths fuel the common idea of what insurance companies are.

Well go back to the 1970s when killing people was acceptable. Cited previously was the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds of victims were blamed for their own death. Reasons for those deaths and resulting judicial actions were reported deep inside the New York Times because human life was not important. Where we only learned how to maybe save your life because of lawyers filing suit against everyone involved in that building construction.

Same time was the Ford Pinto - a two dollar solution that was not implemented because it cost too much. People burned to death inside a car because the problem and solution was understood long before the first Pinto was ever sold. A lawsuit filed by State of Indiana that also remained buried deep inside the NY Times because human life had so little value - until lawyers started taking on these issues big time.

Same time was the Firestone 500 - a well known problem that was creating paraplegics and quadriplegics all over America. Firestone was paying off these people if they remained silent. Firestone refused to fix the Firestone 500 design because it was cheaper to pay off victims rather than fix a tire design. When government did a study, radial tire failure rates were on the order of 50%. House subcommittee determined that 13 million of 23 million Firestone tires needed immediate recall. So tire companies went to the Supreme Court to have that study quashed. Clarence Ditlow of Center for Auto Safety photocopied (a new high tech machine) and distributed the report to every reporter as fast as possible until handed a copy of the Supreme Court order. Ditlow is why we know how aggressively Firestone tried to kill Americans. That report was buried inside the NY Times. But something radical and new – Consumer Reports – told us including that seven of their own tested tires failed catastrophically. Still Firestone kept selling the 500. Financial damages were minimal.

Meanwhile you do remember the Firestone Wilderness tire that also was defective, Firestone knew it was defective, Ford then demanded Firestone recall all those tires, Firestone refused, and many reading this never learned the complete story. Ford got stuck paying $billions to fix Firestone's intention and MBA inspired murder. A problem that could be fixed only by lawsuit had Ford not been so responsible.

You know each story? You had better before deciding whether lawyers are a problem or a solution.

Tell me about the Macdonald’s coffee. If you have woefully insufficient facts, then you have believed the commonly acknowledged myth. I leave it to you to learn facts in that case - or do you quickly blame lawyers only because you read about it in a tabloid (too much summary and too few details)? After hundreds suffered, finally lawyers sued to get MacDonald’s to fix a well known problem.

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Is this long? Yes, because logical thought it not found in Daily News tabloid type reasoning. Provided are four examples. You knew each or did you simply fall for highly hyped tabloid propaganda?

Super fucking busy at work. Let me refine my position to say: I think Tort Reform is bullshit, and I think the rhetoric used to support it is bullshit.

BTW... if my posts seem like they are conflicted on this point. They are not.
I am not for Tort Reform as it is currently presented. Across the board caps will simply make for more suits.
Nor are insurance companies the problem. They are the safety-net. Without them, no one would get anything.
We need more, and more strict, guidelines for the lawyers that bring the suits.
There is the source of the problem... not only the source, but The Problem itself.

Lets just say that you have left us with a long dissertation without actually discussing THE ISSUE. You simply went on about a few notable cases where wrongs were rectified. There are countless cases on both sides of this argument both for and against.

I never said that lawyers were or weren't the problem - YOU did! Hmmm.

I believe we were trying to do that before getting sidetracked on another tangent again. Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with. I simply offered alternatives - not absolutions. I expressed my point of view only to be ridiculed and disparaged. Now you want to challenge me with a statement like that? I don't think I'll bite on that one, no thanks - I maintain my position on the value of a human life. I NEVER said that cap limits were the answer. I am wholly in favor of QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.

"Intelligent design" means imposing religion on all others. “Choose life” is spin for anti-abortion. "Tort reform" means blaming lawyers. Politically correct expressions do not change reality. PC expressions are for confusing humans. Apparently you have not separated reality from the politically correct expression. “Tort reform” means blame lawyers. And so some would solve this lawyer problem by capping jury awards?

You were not ridiculed. Points made by you were shredded. Are those points you? Of course not. Those points are not the entity called yesman065. Separate yourself from ‘trial balloons’ that you have posted.

'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. Lawyers are not the problem. As each previous example demonstrates, attack reasons for those failures. Obviously tort reform would only protect those who performed intentional criminal actions. Do you also approve of ‘blaming the victims’? ‘Tort reform’ advocates that – even though ‘tort reform’ spin promoters will not admit it. Beverly Hills Supper Club - if you grasp the points of those examples.

Obviously, solution goes right back to empowering and requiring a jury to think logically. "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect and 'never irrelevant' example if you understood the target of that previous post. We are massacring American soldiers in a “Mission Accomplished” war that cannot be won only because the jury did not do its job AND because the jury was denied all testimony in the jury room.

So what would you do to avoid a future Iraq? ‘Tort reform’? Gag all politicians? Require every military operation be approved by public referendum? 'Tort reform' also promotes restrictions as a solution to lies and spin. 'Tort reform' is how Limbaugh type propagandists spin myths rather than address the problem. Previous post contained numerous examples of the problem. ‘They’ got away with it only because tort law was not a sufficient threat.

But again, you also were not "ridiculed and disparaged". You were challenged with numerous examples because you previously ignored the issue (ie juries denied facts), used a politically correct expression to cast blame elsewhere (‘tort reform’), and now avoid details of that problem (ie. entire court testimony not in that jury room). Exactly my point and why multiple examples were provided so that you could not avoid the point. Juries and logical conclusions ARE the issues of this thread. 'Tort reform' is a classic ‘cure symptoms’ solution. The "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect example of illogical decisions and why such decisions are made also in jury rooms.

It does not help when more Americans in each generation have less math and science education – therefore have too little 'dirt under their fingernails' – therefore have insufficient grasp of reality - are instead educated in MBA and communication degrees. Too many are trained to replace logic with emotion; trained to confuse facts with junk science speculation.

How to obtain a fact and the process of making logical decisions (both in a jury room) IS the subject. Not a solution is some silly political 'ping pong ball' called 'tort reform'. 'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. The issue is why juries cannot make accurate, logical, and monetary relevant decisions. That is not “an issue for another thread”. That is the issue right here – complete with reams of relevant examples in a previous post.

‘Show me’ where tort reform would have solved any of those previous and egregious miscarriages of justice. Show me how those quadriplegics created by Firestone would have been saved by ‘tort reform’.

I think there should be a large, mandatory financial penalty to both the plaintiff and their lawyer if a case is thrown out as frivolous.

Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, despite your strawman examples.
Layers can't be blamed more than the greedy people that misuse them.
Tort reform is simply changing the laws, the framework, that lawyers work under and we all live under.

The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so. That's all, everything else is smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the issue.:cool:

Those same laws in 1970s, well, provided are multiple examples including Firestone 500 and Beverly Hills Supper Club. Did tort laws change? No. What changed?

Tort reform believes we can legislate 'fair' by restricting lawyers. Yes laws could change. For example empower logical members of a jury at the expense of emotional ones. Fill a jury room with facts. Today a jury room is full only of perceptions found inside each brain. That is perfect for those who think emotionally. That is a recipe for unfair.

So where do restrictions on lawyers solve this problem? Where is this reform that would solve 'unfair'? Where are the specific examples? All I see are 'blame the lawyer' posts. Any attempt to restrict lawyers does not solve this obvious problem.

Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing.

I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well.

And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!

I agree 100% - that point was made earlier and it still holds true. Although it seems that those who have the most to lose (lawyers) are the only ones against reform. Just an observation.

And the ones who have the most to gain (corporations that make potentially dangerous products) are the only ones for reform. Just an observation.

Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?

How do you have a solution without first defining the problem? Do you also fix computers by assuming and then installing more fans? Do you see snow and therefore know 4 wheel drive is safer? Do you know a hurricane will not strike because previous predictions did not occur? Do you run stop signs because you did so previously and no one died? Do you "tort reform" using same logic?

Each example has a common factor. No need to read further if you understand such basics. If not, then continue reading.

Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.

From junior high school science: first a hypothesis that is consistent with current known reality. You did not do that. Then provide experimental evidence. You did not do that either. Instead you arbitrarily assume jury verdicts are too high (without doing what you were taught to define a fact). Even then you make assumptions by violating these basic concepts. Why is speculation (jury verdicts are too high) automatically a fact? Simple principles necessary to establish a fact are violated. Then you follow that speculation by 'curing symptoms'.

With safer products than we would otherwise have that cost more money* than they otherwise would.

*not counting any increase in medical or other costs resulting from defects

I did not start this post nor did I bring up the subject of Tort Reform - You did. I simply stated my opinion. I believe in an earlier post I asked you to define the problem. All you have done is assess blame and get defensive. Just like anything in life our system is not perfect and the amounts awarded in many cases are not representative of the "damages incurred." Unlike you, I am not trying to blame anyone.

Please don't lecture me on the scientific method of problem solving. I am well aware of it, thank you.
It seems to me that you have no real defense to some sort of systemic reform and are now trying to dodge the issue with irrelevancies and disparaging remarks.

Now lets try this like adults. You tell me:
Is there a problem with the tort system?
If so, what is the problem?
Is this problem, if any, fixable?
Does the system need to be reformed or modified?
What alternatives are there to rectify the situation?

Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?

I wouldn't mind sleeping with someone who is witty, charming, smart, liberal, and good-looking, which means I wouldn't ever consider sleeping with GDub!:p

Before you posted, others brought up tort reform, then a problem was defined AND a solution offered. Solution using basic logic as even taught in high school science. Do you read before jumping to conclusions? Instead Yesman065 later responded: Your own words say you have a problem performing basic logic. Use of the word “fuck” says you are a product of extremist conservative training where basic logic is replaced by bullying. So prove me wrong. Surprise me. Use logic. Demonstrate that you can still define a fact using what was taught in junior high school science.

Yesman065 has solutions for 'tort reform'. Impose dictatorial restrictions on all juries. Yesman065 was asked to first define the problem. Is it lawyers, juries, or the judge? How can Yesman065 post a solution when he cannot first define the problem? Did he really forget how to think logically? Or should we "fully expected the "knee-jerk" reaction" from him.

Yesman065 demonstrates a serious problem in America. Yesman065 somehow knows what should be imposed on juries. But Yesman065 cannot first define a problem. By posting Yesman065 uses a political agenda as a replacement for basic logic. Classic Limbaugh logic. Yesman065 forgot to also blame Hilary.

Demonstrated: some American citizens cannot even grasp junior high school science principles. How does a jury with too many Yesman make an informed and logical verdict? They don’t. So how do we legislate this Yesman problem?

Demonstrated by Yesman065 is another problem in juries. People using an extremist political agenda, the word "fuck", accusations based only in emotion, and total disregard for logical thought (as taught in junior high) ... somehow these people have all the answers. Problem first need not be defined. Apparently we don't need tort reform. Apparently we need laws that require one to define a problem before imposing dictatorial solutions. Once, people graduated from junior high school having learned how to form facts and perform basic logic. Laws were not necessary. Hypothesis and experimental evidence. Somehow simple science got lost on Yesman065. He need not even define a problem because he already has solutions – and four letter words to prove it.

Did you miss the above tw??? Or are you above answering others questions? You again come off as some "holier than thou" ass by acting like you are right and there is no other answer. You try again ands see if you can answer the simple questions without a dissertation on your opinions of me, especially since you don't know squat about me.

Long before Yesman065 posted a 'four letter word' emotional tirade, a problem was defined and a solution was proposed. Yesman065 - I shall make it simpler just for you.
Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. ...

See how it works? A problem is identified. Only then is a solution proposed.

So that Yesman065 need not remain so confused and for a third time: this question defines a problem long before any solution can be proposed: What is the problem? Juries, lawyers, or the Judge? What is the problem? Yesman065 - can you answer that one question?

So you as a juror know know that you were shorted facts. By whom? The judge, the lawyers or both? Again, you have not specified. Perhaps it is a design flaw within the system. That is not known as you did not address who "shorted you information." In your case it is possible and probable that the award was raised by this unclear withholding of information, but it is not known by whom.

That does not change the fact that most believe the compensation awards are ridiculously large in many cases and do not begin to prevent that for which they were intended. Overtly high awards have left many disenfranchised with "the system", creates an ever increasing number of cases and backlogs the system from concentrating on other cases that most likely deserve more time & attention.

Therefore, I believe that you have not given us all enough information to ascertain where the fault lies. You have only told us that you were "shorted information massively" without informing us by whom.

Yesman065 - apparently everything posted before your 'four letter word' emotional tirade has been forgotten. Read the post before replying to it.

Meanwhile you are wildly speculating again. You are again posting without first reading previous posts. How do you know - using principles taught in junior high science - that the jury awards are too high? Because Rush Limbaugh told you so? Why did Henry Ford sell Pintos with exploding gas tanks - knowing before the first Pinto was sold that those gas tanks would explode and knowing of a $2 solution to stop tank explosions? Why do you know awards are too high when Henry Ford knew it was cheaper to not install that $2 part? Firestone 500 ... did you read any of those examples or did your eyes glaze over after the first paragraph?

Read those previous posts. Then tell us why jury awards are too high. Yesman065 is wildly speculating without any supporting facts AND in direct contradiction to previous posts he did not bother to read.

More.
For every Firestone, there are hundreds (thousands?) of these. :rolleyes:

I reread EVERY post and you have still been unable to answer the simple direct questions put forth to you. You are getting very tiresome and pointless. Just because I refuse to follow your dribble, doesn't mean I am in any way inferior nor less intelligent than you. You have failed repeatedly to provide the necessary information to base an opinion upon. Therefore those of us who still read your posts are forced to guess. Just answer the simple question and lets move on - I've asked several times, yet you refuse to provide any information. I now wonder whether you even have the answers.

I stand by my "four letter tirade" as you put it. The more of your posts I read the more I agree with it. Sounds to me like you are the one getting emotional here as well - could it be that you are actually, dare I say, human?

Oh and YOU still haven't said WHO SHORTED YOU INFORMATION

Since the initial impression is that the four letters are T, O, R, and another T... well...

I hope you remembered to be offended when Georgie got the cod piece vote last time around.

Why not both?
Oh wait, thats an impeachable offense, isnt it...

...a/k/a, somebody's getting screwed out of a job. :cool:

Back to the title of this thread - Is he really gonna run?? Do you think he actually has a chance to win? What about Billary?

Hillary makes too many folks skin crawl. Edwards has a fair shot but I want divided government from here on out, so hopefully the GOP will get over the kook phase and start pushing conservatives.

BUMP ... found this wile looking for the other Edwards thread...

fun trip down memory lane ...

I loved Ibram as an early teen prodigy.

He didn't disappoint as a later teen.
Apart from a brief spell of not believing in formal education (because it's a huge regret from my teens).

And as a young adult he is now sexy and intelligent.

I just wish he was happy. Sigh.