[michealb]

So that's my idea. Now... how do I go about presenting it to law-makers?

Currently you have to buy a congressman and from what I hear they aren't cheap.

[ETWolverine]

excon,

I don't want to take away someone's right to sue. What I want to do is eliminate frivolous lawsuits by screening them before they ever get to a judge.

And no, I don't trust judges. Especially those in the 9th Circuit. I'd rather trust 12 lay men and women than 3 judges. Wouldn't you?

As you are a libertarian, I wonder why you disagree with that. Certainly taking power away from the government and putting it back into the hands of the people would appeal to you as a small-government supporter. So I'm just wondering exactly why you don't agree with this idea.

Elliot

[tomder55]

We all pay out of the pocket for frivilous suits in higher premium rates . If judges are determining it then they need to go back to school and learn what is or isn't frivilous.

The lawyers game the system and make such outrageous claims that more often than not the insurance company make a determination to cut bait and settle .This is true in both medical and in auto insurance.

What does that mean?. $30,000 dollars awarded for a parking lot fender bender in a case we were involved in. It was originally a multi-million dollar case.

The lawyers for both parties take their slice and meet at the watering hole to celebrated their scam and I took the earliest possible opportunity to dump them and find new coverage.

[excon]

I don't want to take away someone's right to sue. What I want to do is eliminate frivolous lawsuits by screening them before they ever get to a judge.

Hello again, Elliot:

I love juries. I trust my peers. But, the way the system works NOW, is that a party to a lawsuit can request a jury trial ifin he wants. We don't need TWO juries, now do we?

Wolverine, as a conservative, I wonder why you want to make new law that requires a new bureaucracy and new taxes to support? Right now, the ONLY part of government that works IS the judicial system. We shouldn't tinker with it. Mandatory sentencing was bad enough...

excon

[excon]

You clearly DIDN'T READ MY POST!!!

Hello again, El:

Yeah, I missed that part.

excon

[BABRAM]

Let me throw out a proposition. We get car insurance not to pay for oil changes and 1 year maintainance checks but for more major work . Perhaps the same principle should apply to medical insurance. Maybe only catastrophic or higher expense procedures should be covered as a basic plan. Do you think that would help control the costs ?

Tom-

I accidentally hit a key that finished my rating before I could finish my comment. The rating comment when finished should had read, "BABRAM agrees: Good point. I'll add to the subject."

Anyway concerning your post above: Yes, I do think that would help. In fact it might get two birds with one stone. For example, I 've seen people use the insurance frivolously, usually in trying to find something wrong to get out of work, and the Doctors oblige, of course, since it's a business. Those same people, IMO for the most part are lazy, are the ones that as Elliot mentioned, need to be dealt with in Tort reform.


Bobby

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

I love juries. I trust my peers. But, the way the system works NOW, is that a party to a lawsuit can request a jury trial ifin he wants. We don't need TWO juries, now do we?

Apparently we do... the grand jury system has been in place for over a century in criminal cases. Apparently TWO juries works just fine there.

Wolverine, as a conservative, I wonder why you want to make new law that requires a new bureaucracy and new taxes to support? Right now, the ONLY part of government that works IS the judicial system.

That's where we disagree... I think the tort system is VERY broken. Tom's post above illustrates that pretty well. As for needing a new bureaucracy and new taxes... why? Why would that be necessary? We already have the system in place. As I said, the grand jury system has been in place in criminal law for over a century. I'm just talking about expanding it to include civil cases. The cost of such an expansion would be minimal.

We shouldn't tinker with it. Mandatory sentencing was bad enough...

Excon

I'm a big believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But I'm also a believer that "if it is broke, then it needs fixin'". And our tort system IS broken. It is costing us --- you and me--- huge money in insurance costs, healthcare costs, etc. Not to mention that it is driving practitioners out of the industry, which limits choice within the industry.

Short story long, a civil-court grand-jury system is a libertarian's wet dream. It limits government interference, gives that power back to the people, lowers costs of insurance and healthcare, increases freedom of choice, allows cases with merit to go through the system without capping awards, and eliminates the majority of frivolous lawsuits, with little to no cost or bureaucracy involved in expanding the already existing criminal grand-jury system. What's not to like?

Elliot

[tomder55]

Update :

According to the Politico web site an internal White House memo from the Clinton reign was discovered . Hillary's staff saw programs like SCHIP as a precursor to universal care if she could not get her full program accepted.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

Battle of sound bites reaches health care - Martin Kady II - Politico.com

As we have seen many times ;if a comprehensive plan is not palatable often times law makers will administer it to us a little at a time (with a spoon full of sugar if necessary but utilizing a suppository if necessary) .