OT: Republican Health Care Bill - Tort Reform
BillB
version of health care reform. You can read it here:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdfMy understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance companymasters.With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as hell made surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers at the expense oflegitimate victims.As I have said before, even though you often (always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort reform":s. 301 Reduces (compared to current law in most jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s. 302a) Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases ofmedical negligence.b) Eliminates joint and several liability for responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious, or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time, rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed, I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims, not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:8F7Jm.5851$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:8F7Jm.5851$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
<Hopefully this will fix it.>
As some of you may know, the Republicans have offered up their own
version of health care reform. You can read it here:
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdfMy understanding is that the CBO said tonight that this "plan" woulddo almost or absolutely nothing to reduce the number of uninsured inthe US. Reform to the Republicans apparently equates with "status quo"for the public, and lots of goodies for their insurance companymasters. With respect to so-called "tort reform", they sure as hellmade surethat was in there! Tort reform is primarily about reducing the damageawards that would otherwise go to the victims of the most egregiouscases of medical negligence. While the CBO has said tort reform willonly reduce national health care expenditures by one half of onepercent, it represents a cash bonanza for insurers at the expense oflegitimate victims. As I have said before, even though you often(always?) hearright-wingers use the phrase "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" inthe same sentence, most tort reform proposals have little or nothingto do with reducing "frivolous lawsuits" (which makes sense, becausecases that fit the legal definition of "frivolous lawsuit" areexceedingly rare). This Republican plan for reform is no different.Here is a summary of the provisions I've located in the Republicanplan with respect to "tort reform":s. 301Reduces (compared to current law in most jurisdictions) limitationperiods for victims, to as little as 1 year after the victim "ought tohave" discovered the injury.s.302a) Limits general damages to $250,000 for even the very worst cases ofmedical negligenceb) Eliminates joint and several liability for responsible parties.s.303Restricts the amount victims can contract to pay their attorneys torecover damages, making it harder to find counsel in difficult orcomplex cases (I am a little unclear how this fits into the coreRepublican principle of freedom of contract).s.304Reduces liability to negligent parties if the victim has so-called"collateral source benefits" (ex. private disability insurance, socialsecurity or workers' comp)s.305Limits scope of punitive damages for the very worst cases ofhigh-handed, egregious, or insidious medical negligence, and caps thataward at a mere $250,000.s.306For awards over $50,000 in future damages (ex. lost future income),gives insurance companies the right to pay over time, rather than inone lump sum. If, in the meantime, the insurance company goesbroke...well, that is the victim's tough luck.I have probably missed some provisions (I scanned it very quickly),so if anyone could point out any important provisions I've missed, I'dappreciate it. The point is, I have hit the highlights, and as you cansee, the "tort reform" proposals almost exclusively target *legitimatevictims of medical negligence*, and do little or nothing to reduce"frivolous lawsuits". So the next time you hear a right-winger use"tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuit" in the same sentence, press himfor specifics, and watch the horror wash over his face as he flailsabout for an answer. Not once have I heard a media commentatorchallenge one of these insurance company shills on this point. Tortreform is about reducing awards to legitimate victims, not eliminatingawards to fraudsters.
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:zl8Jm.5858$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
>
>
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:8F7Jm.5851$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
>
> <Hopefully this will fix it.>
I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I
fixed everything by hand, and it did it again.
Alim Nassor
Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer Pelosi's
plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by
imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:304d095f-8908-4c76...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer
> Pelosi's
> plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by
> imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
I was actually going to post on that too, but I held my tongue. It
astonishes me that the Republicans can be so brazen in their
misrepresentations and scare tactics.
If you are like most people, you heard about this through a headline
link on the Drudge Report. It linked to this page owned by the
Committee on Way and Means Republicans:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
The headline reads "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"
Did Pelosi say that? No
Does the bill say that? No
Is this patently dishonest politics and scare tactics of the very
worst sort? Yes
I could not support any party that was that blatantly dishonest. If
they are going to be that dishonest on this issue, what else are they
willing to lie to you about?
The potential jail sentence is for people who refuse to pay the ~2.5%
income *tax* imposed on people who refuse to obtain medical coverage.
It's no different than refusing to pay any other income tax. You can
go to jail for that eventually too.
As far as the "Pelosi Plan" goes, I think it sucks. I don't see how it
is going to do anything to reduce the upward spiraling cost of medical
care in the US in any significant way. In fact, it could make it
worse. It adds yet another layer of beaurocracy to a sector of the
economy that is already overburdened with beaurocracy (medicare,
medicaid, VA, CHIP, private insurers, HMOs, etc.). The only way to
save
health care in the US is to take the 30%+ profit and administrative
costs out of the equation. The Pelosi bill doesn't do that, largely
because it is not a politically tenable position. IMO a single payer
system is the only way to go for national healthcare, but it doesn't
look like the US will ever achieve that because mainstream Americans
are
too easily swindled to vote against their own interests.
da pickle
> I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I fixed
> everything by hand, and it did it again.
You definitely have a formatting problem that begins by the inclusion of the
"My" at the end of your link.
If you take off the "My" the link works fine.
I at least see that you have corrected your previous crank about "frivolous
lawsuits" by adding "the legal definition" to your rant ... because as
anyone knows that has a lick of sense, lay people use the term with a
different meaning than lawyers. Only someone with an intent to confuse and
push a political ideology would argue in a lay forum a legal nitpick.
As you know, Bill, in popular usage, lay persons typically call a lawsuit
"frivolous" if they personally find a claim to be without merit, regardless
of the legal intricacies of the evidence or nature of the proof offered and
the politics of the participants. Regular folks use the word frivolous for
political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the aisle.
If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with
your political opinions.
The same goes for "tort reform" which you cannot separate from your narrow
and bigoted world view. You vacillate between using words of art (not only
legal words but economic or scientific words as well) to facilitate your
political arguments and criticizing others for not using those same words in
their strictest legal, economic or scientific sense.
One could add statistics and many other disciplines to your "word abuse"
catalog. You insist not only of using words in an alternating
political-technical seesaw but also insist that YOUR sentences that contain
the words (either technical or colloquial) is FACT and anyone who seeks to
clarify which way you are using the words and what you might mean by their
inclusion juxtaposed against other similar words is reviled and discarded as
beneath contempt.
You have started a thread and it is a mess. You are too smart not to know
why your post is a mess. It is a mess for technical reasons and it is a
mess because of your political bias.
Please stop mixing legal concepts with your political desires. Stop being
such a twit. People will like you better and your legal arguments can be
evaluated on their merits and your political arguments can be discussed
rationally and reasonably as well.
Stop stating your opinion as fact. Stop being such a twit ... did I already
say that?
risky biz
It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused criticisms of
others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
---�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
BillB
"risky biz" <risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ff7gs6x...@recgroups.com...
> It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused
> criticisms of
> others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who
is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and
funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny? I started to get
suspicious the other day when one of them told me he had been
practicing law for 30 years and half his cases were frivolous
lawsuits. I laughed out loud.
A frivolous lawsuit is where your neighbor sues you for practicing
mind control over him by bouncing alpha brainwaves off the moon, or
when you sue your drycleaner for $56 million because he lost your
favorite pants. I don't think even Bumfuk, Louisiana (or wherever the
hell he's from) is backward enough for half a lawyer's cases to be
frivolous.
da pickle
>> It's humorous, FAKE pickle, how your dullwitted and confused criticisms
>> of
>> others are typically perfect descriptions of yourself.
>
> I'm getting confused.
Are you really confused, Bill? Really? Honestly?
> So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who is stalking me? Are all
> the stalking posts deliberately stupid and funny, or unintentionally
> stupid and funny? I started to get suspicious the other day when one of
> them told me he had been practicing law for 30 years and half his cases
> were frivolous lawsuits. I laughed out loud.
And yet, as used by the lay folks that you complain about ... true. You
remain confused.
> A frivolous lawsuit is where your neighbor sues you for practicing mind
> control over him by bouncing alpha brainwaves off the moon, or when you
> sue your drycleaner for $56 million because he lost your favorite pants. I
> don't think even Bumfuk, Louisiana (or wherever the hell he's from) is
> backward enough for half a lawyer's cases to be frivolous.
Here in Bumfuck and other communities in the USA (apparently you are not
aware of this problem because you live in a country that has no frivolous
lawsuits), sometimes someone gets bumped in the rear of their car and they
call up Attorney "Have you got your check yet" and visit Dr. Guaranteed
Opinion and run up a few thousand in medical expenses and they pick up tens
of thousands of dollars in general and special damages. No all communities
have this racket of frivolous lawsuits being filed day after day but the
number is growing and "tort reform" would certainly be welcomed by "the
people" if they understood what was going on.
The politicians, of course, are not interested in this sort of tort reform
because they are well supported by the very industry they would seek to
contain. (You, Bill, ascribe all sorts of nefarious motive to some
businesses but fail to acknowledge the motives of others.) The amount of
frivolous medicine being practiced in these frivolous lawsuits is mammoth
and growing every day.
I hate to pop your bubbles and continue to point out your misunderstandings,
but you keep teeing them up. (Sarchasm alert ... I really do not hate it at
all. That was a dig. My bad.)
da pickle
>> "BillB"
>>
>> > I'm stumped. It appears to have something to do with that link. I fixed
>> > everything by hand, and it did it again.
>>
>> You definitely have a formatting problem that begins by the inclusion of
>> the
>> "My" at the end of your link.
>>
>> If you take off the "My" the link works fine.
>
> It's humorous
Thank you.
Live (almost) from Bumfuck:
http://www.casttv.com/video/yunny4/sugar-ray-leonard-and-morris-bart-commercial-video
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:304d095f-8908-4c76...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Aw well. I read it ok, don't worry about it. Do you prefer
> > Pelosi's
> > plan that punishes people who don't or can't purchase policies by
> > imprisoning them for up to 5 years?
>
> I was actually going to post on that too, but I held my tongue. It
> astonishes me that the Republicans can be so brazen in their
> misrepresentations and scare tactics.
>
> If you are like most people, you heard about this through a headline
> link on the Drudge Report. It linked to this page owned by the
> Committee on Way and Means Republicans:
>
>
> The headline reads "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail"
>
> Did Pelosi say that? No
> Does the bill say that? No
> Is this patently dishonest politics and scare tactics of the very
> worst sort? Yes
>
> I could not support any party that was that blatantly dishonest. If
> they are going to be that dishonest on this issue, what else are they
> willing to lie to you about?
>
> The potential jail sentence is for people who refuse to pay the ~2.5%
> income *tax* imposed on people who refuse to obtain medical coverage.
> It's no different than refusing to pay any other income tax. You can
> go to jail for that eventually too.
Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be
15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal
freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you
want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something
they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if
they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have
about had it up to here with that shit.
>
> As far as the "Pelosi Plan" goes, I think it sucks. I don't see how it
> is going to do anything to reduce the upward spiraling cost of medical
> care in the US in any significant way. In fact, it could make it
> worse. It adds yet another layer of beaurocracy to a sector of the
> economy that is already overburdened with beaurocracy (medicare,
> medicaid, VA, CHIP, private insurers, HMOs, etc.). The only way to
> save
> health care in the US is to take the 30%+ profit and administrative
> costs out of the equation. The Pelosi bill doesn't do that, largely
> because it is not a politically tenable position. IMO a single payer
> system is the only way to go for national healthcare, but it doesn't
> look like the US will ever achieve that because mainstream Americans
> are
> too easily swindled to vote against their own interests.
No Bill many of us don't give shit about getting our place at the
trough. Maybe the rest of the fucking hogs should try it.
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5be50710-55c6-4b86...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be
> 15,000 dollar premiums you mean?
That's another lie. How can you possibly support a party that is
constantly and shamelessly lying to you?
>What has happened to personal
> freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now
> you
> want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something
> they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if
> they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have
> about had it up to here with that shit.
As long as you live in a society that is not going to let you let you
die even if you have no insurance, then anyone who does not have
hundreds of thousands of dollars handy to cover the worst case
scenarios, yet refuses to buy insurance, is simply a freeloader.
Almost everyone who does have that kind of money laying around is not
going to be stupid enough to not buy insurance. You are sticking up
for freeloaders.
> No Bill many of us don't give shit about getting our place at the
> trough. Maybe the rest of the fucking hogs should try it.
Then why are you defending freeloaders who refuse to buy insurance?
Beldin the Sorcerer
***
Yeah! Fuck paying taxes too!
And to hell with registering for the draft!
Fuck, why obey police officers either!
Damn straight!
(The above is hyperbole to show why Alim is a retard, and is not to be taken
seriously)
Abbey Johnsson
perfect descriptions of yourself.
>
> I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who
> is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and
> funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny?
i dont know who is who either. its hard to believe the real pickle would
be acting like such a child. but whoever it is, he is succeeding in making
a fool out of both pickles.
---�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
risky biz
> On Nov 7 2009 8:04 AM, BillB wrote:
>
> perfect descriptions of yourself.
> >
> > I'm getting confused. So is it the real pickle or the fake pickle who
> > is stalking me? Are all the stalking posts deliberately stupid and
> > funny, or unintentionally stupid and funny?
>
> i dont know who is who either. its hard to believe the real pickle would
> be acting like such a child. but whoever it is, he is succeeding in making
> a fool out of both pickles.
Believe me, this one is FAKE pickle. No one intelligent enough to be an
attorney would be posting insipid commentary like what you see here. Some
clever RGP member is engaging in ill intentioned imposturing and I think
it's despicable.
_____________________________________________________________________�
O-PGManager
> 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal
> freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you
> want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something
> they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if
> they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have
> about had it up to here with that shit.
>
Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't ever have
medical emergencies.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-----�
O-PGManager
> attorney would be posting insipid commentary like what you see here.
UNLESS he is trolling the fake Pickle.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
O-PGManager
> political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the aisle.
> If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with
> your political opinions.
DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking BillB
to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one using
the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's pointing
out the tort reform advocates who do.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-----�
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:br4ls6x...@recgroups.com...
> DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking
> BillB
> to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one
> using
> the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's
> pointing
> out the tort reform advocates who do.
He's trying to cover up the fact that, despite the fact he plays a
lawyer on the internet, he had absolutely no idea what the term
"frivolous lawsuit" actually means. He actually said half his cases
are "frivolous lawsuits". There is not a real lawyer on this planet
who would make such an absurd claim. It takes his idiocy to new
heights, which is really saying something.
He exacerbates his embarrassment here by asserting that lay persons
believe someone advancing a claim for injuries sustained in a minor
car crash is engaged in a frivolous lawsuit. Does anybody really think
that? I don't think so. Even if lay persons are not familiar with the
precise legal definition of the term, I think most people have a
general understanding of what the word "frivolous" means, even if he
doesn't. What he was trying to describe was fraud, not frivolity.
I'd further note that even if you use his ignorant definition of the
term, the Republican tort reform package does little or nothing to
address those kinds of fraudulent claims, which is what I was saying
all along. Medical liability tort reform is primarily about reducing
large awards to victims of egregious medical negligence. That's where
the lion's share of direct "cost savings" come into play, if you can
call reducing national health care expenditures by one half of one
percent real cost savings. The right-wing law makers and policy makers
you hear in the media pimping medical tort reform by saying it will
reduce "frivolous lawsuits" know full well that nothing could be
further from the truth. They are liars, plain and simple, preying on
the ignorant.
Double Down Now
"They are liars, plain and simple, preying on
the ignorant. "
That pretty much sums up the whole Repub Party.....
da pickle
>> Believe me, this one is FAKE pickle. No one intelligent enough to be an
>> attorney would be posting insipid commentary like what you see here.
>
> UNLESS he is trolling the fake Pickle.
Busted.
susan
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> Those people who "refuse" to pay what the CBO esitimates will be
>> 15,000 dollar premiums you mean? What has happened to personal
>> freedoms in this country. Their just about gone as it is and now you
>> want to tell my perfectly healthy sons that they must buy something
>> they don't want or they are penalized and threatened with prison if
>> they dont pay the penalty. Well fuck that. I and many others have
>> about had it up to here with that shit.
>>
>
> Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't ever have
> medical emergencies.
so what? is this my or your problem if they do?
da pickle
>> Regular folks use the word frivolous for
>> political effect, just like you do, but from a different side of the
>> aisle.
>> If you were an honest person, you would not mix your legal opinions with
>> your political opinions.
>
> DaPickle are you trolling us? It's kind of funny I guess... taking BillB
> to task for something the other side is doing. BillB is not the one using
> the term "frivolous lawsuits" to push a political angle. He's pointing
> out the tort reform advocates who do.
And yet he is using "his" definition, not theirs. You are correct that he
is not using the term to push his political angle, he is using his
definition of the term as their definition and he is in error.
He is in error about a lot of things. He seems to think that "tort reform"
is limited to med-mal cases. He seems to think that there is nothing
"broken" in the tort system in the USA. Included in that thought, he thinks
that the most egregious cases of medical malpractice result in someone not
getting enough money. He ignores the fact that in "almost" ... note the
qualifier ... all tort suits, including med-mal suits ... it is the lawyer
that is usually the "winner." Do you really think that the quadriplegic who
gets a thirty million dollar verdict and all of his medical paid for life
(and the attorneys that represent him get about fifteen million dollars out
of that amount) "feels" any better? And compare this quad to the quad that
is a quad because of a "bad result" from the same operation and the doctors
did everything exactly according to the book ... same wheelchair ... this
quad gets nothing by what his insurance will pay. And add in the fact that
there are a thousand of the later for every one of the former.
Who would not be in favor of a reformation of a system of compensation of
people who get horribly "bad results" from their medical care WITHOUT any
lawyers and without any fight and without any need to find out whether there
was "negligence" at all ... the few (who have attorneys like John Edwards)
might get a lot less and the many (many more than just many) will get
something and all will get their medicals paid for life. Unfortunately, the
political power in with Attorney Edwards PAC and THEY would get nothing out
of the "tort reform" ... not only in the med-mal practice that makes a few
lawyers multi-millionaires, but also in all aspects of "tort" which makes
many other lawyers multi-millionaires.
All these lawyers LOSE if there is "tort reform" ... a vanishingly few
deserving plaintiffs miss out on winning the lottery; however, millions of
others get reasonable compensation without a lawsuit ... even those who were
just victims of an "accident" ... a bad result ... noone negligent at all
... they still get compensated. The only losers are the lawyers and those
who feed at the litigation trough.
Those lawyers (perhaps like BillB) who are the losers are the only losers in
this sort of "tort reform."
[And if you, Opie, do not believe that regular folks use the term
"frivolous" and a synonym for "stupid" or "unjustified" or "ridiculous" ...
then you are just as disingenuous as BillB.]
NOTE: I make my living defending folks that have been sued by plaintiffs.
At this stage of my career, almost 100% are the result of an automobile
accident. I settle almost 100% of the cases. I would say that at least 30%
of the time, the claimant was not hurt at all in the accident and another
20% of the time, the claimant is going to the doctor long after he
"recovered" from his injuries. These lawsuits fit the term "frivolous" or
"unjustified" or "crazy" of "how did this system get into this state" ... or
even fraud ... but improvable fraud (if you do not think that lawyers do not
know "fraud" when they see it but know that it is improvable in the correct
"tort system" ... then you have no experience in the system).
We need tort reform. I have suggested a reasonable model (workers
compensation) for medical cases but no one wants to talk about the real
issues here (and that is understandable, because few have any understanding
of the problems) and those that chose to mention the subject at all have
political inclinations that make them unable or unwilling to carry on a
legitimate conversation.
BillB believes the government can spend the money that individuals earn in a
better manner than those individuals can. It is as simple as that.
Individuals are not to be trusted with the fruits of their own labor ... FOR
THEIR OWN GOOD. It is as simple as that.
I agree that there is a role for government to interfere in the freedom of
individuals in the society those individuals have chosen to live. I also
believe that our Constitution was written to prevent "too much" interference
by the federal government. The safeguards contained in that document have
been eroded one by one ... the current executive and legislature are engaged
in the most dramatic power grab since WWII.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:UwVJm.2915$dc2....@newsfe20.iad...
>> Fuck that indeed. Everyone knows perfectly healthy people don't
>> ever have
>> medical emergencies.
>
> so what? is this my or your problem if they do?
If it's a serious emergency, and you are a person of average means, it
is likely to become everyone's problem. Not that many people have the
cash laying around to pay for cancer treatment or emergency heart
surgery.
Bob T.
> "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
Exactly right - just like when somebody's house is on fire, it's not
my problem or your problem it's their problem.
That sounds pretty funny, but a century ago (IIRC) it was typical for
people to pay a premium to the fire department so that, if they had a
fire, the fire department would come and put it out. If you hadn't
purchased fire insurance, tough luck. Nowadays we as a society feel
that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
departments with taxes.
- Bob T.
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6IadnYkZbdw...@giganews.com...
>He seems to think that "tort reform" is limited to med-mal cases.
You are shameless fucking liar, and this is a perfect example.
He seems to think that there is nothing
> "broken" in the tort system in the USA.
More lies. I have never commented *at all* on the general tort system
in the US. All my comments on tort reform on RGP have been in the
context of the current debate on medical system reform. Again, you are
shameless fucking liar.
> NOTE: I make my living defending folks that have been sued by
> plaintiffs. At this stage of my career, almost 100% are the result
> of an automobile accident. I settle almost 100% of the cases.
A thirty your law career that culminated in settling minor car
accident claims in Dogpatch? You must be one hell of a lawyer. lol
>I would say that at least 30%
> of the time, the claimant was not hurt at all in the accident and
> another 20% of the time, the claimant is going to the doctor long
> after he "recovered" from his injuries.
You would say...but you are a proven liar and idiot, so what you would
say doesn't carry much weight, does it? If you can prove someone is
faking, do it. If you can't, shut the hell up. You are clueless.
susan
If they were making enough money to buy health insurance and opted not to -
tough shit.
If they were poverty level a different story.
I read somewhere, and I am not going to look it up, that more than half of
americans making more than $75,000 a year chose to self-insure. Good for
them - just don't expect me to bail you out when you run out of funds.
susan
"Bob T."
>Exactly right - just like when somebody's house is on fire, it's not
my problem or your problem it's their problem.
How does that have anything to do with what I said? Or are you implying
that I have a choice whether to live in a town with a fire department?
>Nowadays we as a society feel
that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
<departments with taxes.
yes? Guess I'm totally missing your point here.
Beldin the Sorcerer
unlikely to need it.
That's the point.
The 'mandate' people want them to start paying early so it's cheaper when
they do need it.
>
>
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qqWJm.9666$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
> I read somewhere, and I am not going to look it up, that more than
> half of americans making more than $75,000 a year chose to
> self-insure. Good for them - just don't expect me to bail you out
> when you run out of funds.
I'll said it before, and I'll say it again. If you make 75k a year and
think you are "self-insuring" against medical catastrophe, you are a
delusional freeloader.
What should be done when they run out of funds? Just let them die?
Horrible public policy. Just spread the risk of catastrophic medical
problems across society as a whole, pay for it through the tax system,
and nobody gets hurt.
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hd9c4q$oom$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> More than half the working people under 32 self insure... because
> they're unlikely to need it.
They are not self-insuring. They are freeloading by passing the risk
of serious medical problems off on society.
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:LzWJm.13901$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
> They are not self-insuring. They are freeloading by passing the risk
> of serious medical problems off on society.
Whoops...I just realized I responded to Beldin. That's why I don't
make prop bets.
susan
>
>
> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qqWJm.9666$gi1....@newsfe19.iad...
>
>> I read somewhere, and I am not going to look it up, that more than half
>> of americans making more than $75,000 a year chose to self-insure. Good
>> for them - just don't expect me to bail you out when you run out of
>> funds.
>
> I'll said it before, and I'll say it again. If you make 75k a year and
> think you are "self-insuring" against medical catastrophe, you are a
> delusional freeloader.
>
> What should be done when they run out of funds? Just let them die?
I wouldn't argue if this was the decision.
I view this as I do seatbelts and motorcyle helmets. Make it a law, if you
must, but don't enforce it. If someone is in an accident without a helmet -
tough shit. Auto Insurance is different - it effects others than the car
owner/driver himself. Health Insurance is an individual thing.
> Horrible public policy.
So what? I am so sick of *public policy* taking my money and giving to
others who have had just as many opportunities in life, are younger and
better abled than I am, just so I look politically correct.
mo_charles
have
> > > medical emergencies.
> >
> > so what? �is this my or your problem if they do?
>
> Exactly right - just like when somebody's house is on fire, it's not
> my problem or your problem it's their problem.
>
> That sounds pretty funny, but a century ago (IIRC) it was typical for
> people to pay a premium to the fire department so that, if they had a
> fire, the fire department would come and put it out. If you hadn't
> purchased fire insurance, tough luck. Nowadays we as a society feel
> that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
> departments with taxes.
let's give all our money to the government and let them protect us from
every risk known to man.
mo_charles
_____________________________________________________________________�
Bob T.
> "Bob T."
>
> >Exactly right - just like when somebody's house is on fire, it's not
>
> my problem or your problem it's their problem.
>
> How does that have anything to do with what I said? Or are you implying
> that I have a choice whether to live in a town with a fire department?
It's an analogy. A century ago, only the people who paid the fire
department in advance would have their fires put out. Those people
are analogous to the people that have health insurance. As a society,
we decided that putting out fires was so important that we would all
pay enough taxes to put out all the fires.
>
> >Nowadays we as a society feel
>
> that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
> <departments with taxes.
>
> yes? Guess I'm totally missing your point here.
We are contemplating making a similar changeover in our attitude
towards medical care as we made a century ago with fires. In Canada
and most of Europe, health care is treated like modern American fire
departments. They feel it is better for the society as a whole to pay
for everyone's health care with taxes, just as we feel it's better to
pay for fire departments with taxes.
- Bob T.
mo_charles
> > they're unlikely to need it.
>
> They are not self-insuring. They are freeloading by passing the risk
> of serious medical problems off on society.
because insurance companies lose lots of money? fucking idiot.
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9tls6x...@recgroups.com...
>> > More than half the working people under 32 self insure... because
>> > they're unlikely to need it.
>>
>> They are not self-insuring. They are freeloading by passing the
>> risk
>> of serious medical problems off on society.
>
> because insurance companies lose lots of money? fucking idiot.
What I said clearly flew right over your head. Is anyone surprised?
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m0tls6x...@recgroups.com...
>> That sounds pretty funny, but a century ago (IIRC) it was typical
>> for
>> people to pay a premium to the fire department so that, if they had
>> a
>> fire, the fire department would come and put it out. If you hadn't
>> purchased fire insurance, tough luck. Nowadays we as a society
>> feel
>> that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
>> departments with taxes.
>
> let's give all our money to the government and let them protect us
> from
> every risk known to man.
Let's construct strawmen arguments and look like a fool.
susan
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:e83010c8-9aab-4077...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>- Bob T.
I find a lot of flaws with this logic, but the main one being if my
neighbors house burns down the sparks etc. might very easily cause my house
to burn down or even cause my whole town to burn down if not controlled.
If my neighbor gets cancer, my risk of catching it is zero.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:RTWJm.14567$ET3...@newsfe17.iad...
> So what? I am so sick of *public policy* taking my money and
> giving to others who have had just as many opportunities in life,
> are younger and better abled than I am, just so I look politically
> correct.
Are you extremely wealthy, Susan? If not, you are much more likely to
be a beneficiary of such a policy, not a payor.
mo_charles
> > from
> > every risk known to man.
>
> Let's construct strawmen arguments and look like a fool.
again?
mo_charles
____________________________________________________________________�
Bob T.
What if your neighbor catches Swine Flu?
- Bob T.
susan
but you see, I don't care to be EITHER.
mo_charles
> > giving to others who have had just as many opportunities in life,
> > are younger and better abled than I am, just so I look politically
> > correct.
>
> Are you extremely wealthy, Susan? If not, you are much more likely to
> be a beneficiary of such a policy, not a payor.
we know who else isn't wealthy, you and billb.
mo_charles
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9luls6x...@recgroups.com...
>> > let's give all our money to the government and let them protect
>> > us
>> > from
>> > every risk known to man.
>>
>> Let's construct strawmen arguments and look like a fool.
>
> again?
Yup, again. You do it on about 80% of your posts. Nobody suggested
"giving all your money to the government to protect from every risk
known to man." Only a complete idiot would compare that with having
government funded fire departments. You never fail to disappoint.
susan
"Bob T."
>
>> If my neighbor gets cancer, my risk of catching it is zero.
>What if your neighbor catches Swine Flu?
>- Bob T.
So what? Lack of his health insurance is going to make him more likely to
catch swine flu?
I promise I won't go next door and make-out with the neighbors until the
swine flu pandemic has ended.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jZXJm.27935$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> but you see, I don't care to be EITHER.
Really? Then maybe you should consider submitting your per capita fair
share of taxes on your own volition. You realize you are getting a
huge break right now because of the progressive tax system, right?
My point was you said you are sick of paying for everyone, when I
highly doubt you are even paying your own share. But if you are
extremely wealthy, in that top 2%, maybe you are paying for others.
Correct me if I am wrong.
mo_charles
>
> Yup, again. You do it on about 80% of your posts. Nobody suggested
> "giving all your money to the government to protect from every risk
> known to man." Only a complete idiot would compare that with having
> government funded fire departments. You never fail to disappoint.
where do deadbeats like you draw the line? when have you siphoned off
enough money from more productive members of society?
mo_charles
----�
susan
I am middle class
I pay exactly what I am asked to pay.
I pay for my own food.
I pay for my own mortgage.
I pay for my own car.
I pay for my own fucking cell phone (one of my bigger pet peeves)
I pay for my own house/car/health insurance.
I pay for my own utilities.
I pay for my kids and grandkids gifts for Christmas/Birthdays etc, without
running over the the YMCA (another pet peeve)
I don't have a huge retirement fund waiting for me - maybe you would like to
send me some money instead of paying for my neighbors health insurance,
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9nYJm.9863$%j4....@newsfe18.iad...
> I am middle class
>
> I pay exactly what I am asked to pay.
That's what I thought. So you aren't paying anything for anyone else.
You aren't even paying your own per capita share of taxes. You are a
beneficiary of the progressive tax system. You should completely
disabuse yourself of this oft repeated notion that you are paying for
others. Rest assured, you aren't.
da pickle
>>He seems to think that "tort reform" is limited to med-mal cases.
>
> You are shameless fucking liar, and this is a perfect example.
Such language. And yet, you only use the term "tort reform" as associated
with med-mal cases.
>> He seems to think that there is nothing
>> "broken" in the tort system in the USA.
>
> More lies. I have never commented *at all* on the general tort system in
> the US. All my comments on tort reform on RGP have been in the context of
> the current debate on medical system reform. Again, you are shameless
> fucking liar.
That is what I just said ... please be consistent. I just said all your
comments on tort reform are related to med-mal cases. Don't you remember
talking about all those eggregiously injured folks due to medical negligence
cases?
Is this really you, Bill? Are you trolling?
>> NOTE: I make my living defending folks that have been sued by plaintiffs.
>> At this stage of my career, almost 100% are the result of an automobile
>> accident. I settle almost 100% of the cases.
>
> A thirty your law career that culminated in settling minor car accident
> claims in Dogpatch? You must be one hell of a lawyer. lol
Bumfuck, thank you. Many of my cases are less than 50,000 dollar cases. I
do not consider them "minor" but perhaps you could tell us about your major
cases.
I am one hell of a lawyer. (Didn't you read my resume?)
I have a license to practice in New York, Texas, the District of Columbia
and Bumfuck.
(I have a professional engineering license as well. And a license to deal
poker. And a pilots license. All my soccer referee licenses have been
allowed to lapse ... I am getting pretty old.)
You, Bill?
I have had 43 major jury trials to verdict. (Major claims being over
200,000.)
I have never lost a jury trial.
I'll give you a run down on some of the more exciting ones if you like ...
fires, electrocutions, dismemberments, paralyzations, lost eyes, lost dicks,
crushings, and a lot of planes, trains and semi-tractor trailer trucks.
A lot happens here in Bumfuck.
[So there is not misunderstanding:
Win = plaintiff gets less than my last offer of settlement
Push = plaintiff gets less than his last offer of settlement but more than
mine
Lose = plaintiff gets more than his last offer of settlement]
What is your record, Bill? [In cases where the plaintiff's last offer was
over 200,000]
Have you ever tried a jury case? Tell us about it.
> >I would say that at least 30%
>> of the time, the claimant was not hurt at all in the accident and another
>> 20% of the time, the claimant is going to the doctor long after he
>> "recovered" from his injuries.
>
> You would say...but you are a proven liar and idiot, so what you would say
> doesn't carry much weight, does it? If you can prove someone is faking, do
> it. If you can't, shut the hell up. You are clueless.
I take that to mean you have never been involved in a regular old automobile
case in the United States.
da pickle
>> I am middle class
>>
>> I pay exactly what I am asked to pay.
>
> That's what I thought. So you aren't paying anything for anyone else. You
> aren't even paying your own per capita share of taxes. You are a
> beneficiary of the progressive tax system. You should completely disabuse
> yourself of this oft repeated notion that you are paying for others. Rest
> assured, you aren't.
Rest assured you do not know what the fuck you are talking about, Bill.
There is only one group who pay absolutely nothing but their own salary in
income taxes.
Government workers whose only source of income is their government check.
Everyone else ... everyone else ... that pays income taxes pays a portion of
the rest of each and every one of those government workers.
da pickle
> where do deadbeats like you draw the line? when have you siphoned off
> enough money from more productive members of society?
BillB and those that believe the government can do more good with your money
than you can are doing it for your own good and the good of others that they
consider to be more deserving of your money than you are.
susan
"da pickle"
> BillB and those that believe the government can do more good with your
> money than you can are doing it for your own good and the good of others
> that they consider to be more deserving of your money than you are.
I think I get what you are saying, but would like this sentence parsed?
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jNadnRvvOvopxWXX...@giganews.com...
>>>He seems to think that "tort reform" is limited to med-mal cases.
>> You are shameless fucking liar, and this is a perfect example.
> Such language. And yet, you only use the term "tort reform" as
> associated with med-mal cases.
So if I comment specifically the current event topic of medical tort
reform, that means I think tort reform is limited to medical
malpractice cases. That's quite the logic you have there, Sparky.
>>> He seems to think that there is nothing
>>> "broken" in the tort system in the USA.
>> More lies. I have never commented *at all* on the general tort
>> system in the US. All my comments on tort reform on RGP have been
>> in the context of the current debate on medical system reform.
>> Again, you are shameless fucking liar.
> That is what I just said ... please be consistent. I just said all
your
> comments on tort reform are related to med-mal cases
Lying again. That's not at all what you said. You said, "He seems to
think that there is nothing "broken" in the tort system in the USA,"
when I never offered any opinion on the subject whatsoever. You are a
proven shameless liar.
> I am one hell of a lawyer. (Didn't you read my resume?)
> I have had 43 major jury trials to verdict. (Major claims being
> over 200,000.)
>
> I have never lost a jury trial.
> I'll give you a run down on some of the more exciting ones if you
> like ... fires, electrocutions, dismemberments, paralyzations, lost
> eyes, lost dicks, crushings, and a lot of planes, trains and
> semi-tractor trailer trucks.
>
> A lot happens here in Bumfuck.
>
> [So there is not misunderstanding:
>
> Win = plaintiff gets less than my last offer of settlement
> Push = plaintiff gets less than his last offer of settlement but
> more than mine
> Lose = plaintiff gets more than his last offer of settlement]
Oh brother. We've already been through debunking your compulsive lies.
Remember when you were bragging to everyone about your "legal writing
career", and it turned out to be one three page article in a third
rate law school journal from 1977? LOL! That was funny as hell. Let
me refresh your compulsive lying memory:
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/a918a34b04369469?hl=en
Are you forgetting that I am a professional legal researcher? Why
don't you now give me the full citations for those "43 major jury
trials" (how does one differentiate a major jury trial from a minor
jury trial?). Don't bother with the one about your grandmother's leaky
roof, or the cow that got hit by a car. I have those. I can't seem to
find much else of note. I'm sure the case citations, showing you as
counsel of record, will help speed things up.
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f60ms6x...@recgroups.com...
>> > again?
>>
>> Yup, again. You do it on about 80% of your posts. Nobody suggested
>> "giving all your money to the government to protect from every risk
>> known to man." Only a complete idiot would compare that with having
>> government funded fire departments. You never fail to disappoint.
>
> where do deadbeats like you draw the line? when have you siphoned
> off
> enough money from more productive members of society?
>
> mo_charles
Deadbeats like me? Now you have delusions that you know what I pay in
taxes? Delusional, illogical, *and* racist. Quite the trifecta!
da pickle
BobT is honest enough to tell the truth. He believes that everyone should
have health care and those with more should pay for those with less. He is
not specific about what EXACTLY should be "covered" but that detail is not
enough to sway him from his general desire to provide health care (whatever
that might mean) to everyone ... regardless of ability to pay for any of it.
It is just another part of the dole ... food, shelter, clothing, child
support, cars, cell phones, utilities ... whatever.
For Bob, medicaid and all the existing entitlements are not enough. There
are still people that are, in his opinion, too stupid to buy their own
health insurance ... so he wants the federal government to become the sole
supplier of health care. He is not specific about how that would actually
work, but I suspect he prefers the Canadian system over the UK system. It
is a matter of degree rather than a difference in substance.
BillB on the other hand, is so disengenuous about what he actually is
talking about, that he cannot be pinned down on details because he has no
details. He does not understand the current system but he knows what we
need here in the USA.
In general, both BillB and BobT believe that smart people in the government
(as long as a Bushie gets back into the White House) are a better place for
decisions that affect you in your everyday life. You should work and give
x% of your income to the government and the government will decide for you
what you should get. Neither of them has ever shown any interest in the
idea that it would be better for the government to do less rather than do
more. It is not an idea that has any appeal to either of them.
People if left to themselves will sometimes make bad choices ... BobT and
BillB believe that they should be protected from making those bad choices.
Others believe that when you go too far, the government starts making one
size fits all decisions that actually do not fit everyone everywhere.
However, once you go down the path of turning a freedom over to the
government, you can never regain that freedom without a revolution.
Both ends and all extremes of all parts of the political spectrum engage in
this strange behavior that when "their" guy is in charge, the government is
great and when "someone else" is in charge, the government is bad.
mo_charles
> > enough money from more productive members of society?
>
> taxes? Delusional, illogical, *and* racist. Quite the trifecta!
i see how freely you choose to take from "the wealthy". it doesn't take a
genius to figure out you haven't got much income or net worth. have you
ever noticed how smart the deadbeat liberals are around here? makes me
wonder where all you whiners went so wrong. i guess i'd blame the system
before myself too.
have another cheeseburger, billb. your fat fix is on me ...
mo_charles
-----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i08ms6x...@recgroups.com...
>> > where do deadbeats like you draw the line? when have you
>> > siphoned off
>> > enough money from more productive members of society?
>>
>> Deadbeats like me? Now you have delusions that you know what I pay
>> in
>> taxes? Delusional, illogical, *and* racist. Quite the trifecta!
>
> i see how freely you choose to take from "the wealthy". it doesn't
> take a
> genius to figure out you haven't got much income or net worth. have
> you
> ever noticed how smart the deadbeat liberals are around here? makes
> me
> wonder where all you whiners went so wrong. i guess i'd blame the
> system
> before myself too.
>
> have another cheeseburger, billb. your fat fix is on me ...
More illogic from mo the dunce.
I know you like to pretend you took your undergrad English degree (if
you even have that) and soared to great heights, but I really don't
think anyone's buying it. I'm certainly not. The only way you'd get
rich is finding some rube to loan you piles of money, and using it all
to bet against every piece of financial advice you've ever posted on
RGP.
mo_charles
> > take a
> > genius to figure out you haven't got much income or net worth. have
> > you
> > ever noticed how smart the deadbeat liberals are around here? makes
> > me
> > wonder where all you whiners went so wrong. i guess i'd blame the
> > system
> > before myself too.
> >
> > have another cheeseburger, billb. your fat fix is on me ...
>
> More illogic from mo the dunce.
>
> I know you like to pretend you took your undergrad English degree (if
> you even have that) and soared to great heights, but I really don't
> think anyone's buying it. I'm certainly not. The only way you'd get
> rich is finding some rube to loan you piles of money, and using it all
> to bet against every piece of financial advice you've ever posted on
> RGP.
and STILL NOTHING about your own net worth ... surprise, surprise. don't
worry, bill, the world's still fucked up enough to let your vote count the
same as mine. guys like me are gonna be taking care of failures like you
for a long time to come.
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________�
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6oams6x...@recgroups.com...
> and STILL NOTHING about your own net worth ... surprise, surprise.
> don't
> worry, bill, the world's still fucked up enough to let your vote
> count the
> same as mine. guys like me are gonna be taking care of failures
> like you
> for a long time to come.
Why would I post my net worth on a newsgroup? You really are a
dullard. My time has a market value of about $350/hr. That should give
you a good idea how hard up I am.
I'll tell you what...just to prove your illogic in terms even you can
understand, I'll post the net worth of George Soros, who aligns with
my opinion on most social issues:
$11 billion
Or how about Bill Gates? We line up pretty well too:
$50 billion
Or maybe Warren Buffet:
$30 billion
Now do you finally see that you are an illogical idiot?
susan
and I have a 200+ IQ
Ramashiva Jr
>
> and I have a 200+ IQ-
LMAO!!! You must be using the metric system or something.
BillB
"Ramashiva Jr" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:19604516-5a60-4129...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 1:32 pm, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> and I have a 200+ IQ-
>
> LMAO!!! You must be using the metric system or something.
I think she is saying she finds it hard to believe that a lawyer with
15 years call in a major metropolitan centre bills $350/hr. She
obviously doesn't get out much. That is the lowball price.
susan
so you have given up over $2000 today just responding to me. Boy, do I feel
special
da pickle
"BillB"
>> Such language. And yet, you only use the term "tort reform" as
>> associated with med-mal cases.
>
> So if I comment specifically the current event topic of medical tort
> reform, that means I think tort reform is limited to medical malpractice
> cases. That's quite the logic you have there, Sparky.
No, not at all ... you do dodge and weave. You have only talked about tort
reform and med mal cases. I have continuously talked about tort reform in
the most general sense. You lose again, Bill.
>>>> He seems to think that there is nothing
>>>> "broken" in the tort system in the USA.
>
>>> More lies. I have never commented *at all* on the general tort system in
>>> the US. All my comments on tort reform on RGP have been in the context
>>> of the current debate on medical system reform. Again, you are shameless
>>> fucking liar.
>
> > That is what I just said ... please be consistent. I just said all your
> > comments on tort reform are related to med-mal cases
>
> Lying again. That's not at all what you said. You said, "He seems to think
> that there is nothing "broken" in the tort system in the USA," when I
> never offered any opinion on the subject whatsoever. You are a proven
> shameless liar.
You are on the rag today, Bill. Spending a lot of time on RGP. 350 an hour
for legal research?
You have not indeed expressed any opinion on general tort reform you just
keep saying that reforming the tort system will not have any appreciable
monetary effect on health care costs ... you are wrong, of course, but that
does not deter you from continuing your bleating.
In all of your ranting, tort reform is limited to med mal cases.
>> A thirty your law career that culminated in settling minor car accident
>> claims in Dogpatch? You must be one hell of a lawyer. lol
>>Bumfuck, thank you. Many of my cases are less than 50,000 dollar cases.
>>I do not consider them "minor" but perhaps you could tell us about your
>>major cases.
>>I am one hell of a lawyer. (Didn't you read my resume?)
>>
>>I have a license to practice in New York, Texas, the District of Columbia
>>and Bumfuck.
>>(I have a professional engineering license as well. And a license to deal
>>poker. And a pilots license. All my soccer referee licenses have been
>>allowed to lapse ... I am getting pretty old.)
>>You, Bill?
What ... no comment Bill? Do you really have a license to practice law?
Really?
Do you do "research" for a living, Bill? At 350 an hour? Wow, you are much
more successful than I am.
You get a little creative with your cutting, don't you, Bill?
>>I have had 43 major jury trials to verdict. (Major claims being over
>>200,000.)
>>
>>I have never lost a jury trial.
>>
>>I'll give you a run down on some of the more exciting ones if you like ...
>>fires, electrocutions, dismemberments, paralyzations, lost eyes, lost
>>dicks, crushings, and a lot of planes, trains and semi-tractor trailer
>>trucks.
>>
>>A lot happens here in Bumfuck.
>>
>>[So there is not misunderstanding:
>>
>>Win = plaintiff gets less than my last offer of settlement
>>Push = plaintiff gets less than his last offer of settlement but more than
>>mine
>>Lose = plaintiff gets more than his last offer of settlement]
>>
>>What is your record, Bill? [In cases where the plaintiff's last offer was
>>over 200,000]
>>
>>Have you ever tried a jury case? Tell us about it.
[You left out what you were responding to, Bill ... shame on you.]
> Oh brother. We've already been through debunking your compulsive lies.
> Remember when you were bragging to everyone about your "legal writing
> career", and it turned out to be one three page article in a third rate
> law school journal from 1977? LOL! That was funny as hell. Let me refresh
> your compulsive lying memory:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/a918a34b04369469?hl=en
>
> Are you forgetting that I am a professional legal researcher? Why don't
> you now give me the full citations for those "43 major jury trials" (how
> does one differentiate a major jury trial from a minor jury trial?). Don't
> bother with the one about your grandmother's leaky roof, or the cow that
> got hit by a car. I have those. I can't seem to find much else of note.
> I'm sure the case citations, showing you as counsel of record, will help
> speed things up.
Nifty change of subject, Bill and with misquotes and everything. I said I
have published on many subjects. I taught law for several years in a
graduate engineering program. I taught physics at AFIT. I did a lot of
things. I have published many articles and made many public presentations.
As I told Gary, I had never written a book, but I liked his a lot.
Did you not read my resume, Bill. I still await your indication of exactly
what your tort experience might be. I am proud of mine.
I have still not lost a jury trial ... I still wonder if you have ever been
in a courtroom.
And you missed the last part:
>>I take that to mean you have never been involved in a regular old
>>automobile case in the United States.
Silence is assent, so I guess my guess was correct. You really are a bag of
wind.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Uk0Km.4919$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
> so you have given up over $2000 today just responding to me. Boy,
> do I feel special
Not really. First, I probably spent about .1 hour (tops) responding to
you. Second, I hardly work anymore. I live a modest lifestyle, we have
two incomes and no kids, and I have some serious health issues to deal
with. But what you said does remind me of something a lecturer in my
bar admission class told us back in 1993. He was lecturing about
stress in the legal profession, and he said you have to avoid the
temptation to put a price tag on all your free time. I remember he
said, "If you say to yourself, 'I can't go play tennis today, that
will cost me $1000!' you'll end up dead by 45."
mo_charles
> > don't
> > worry, bill, the world's still fucked up enough to let your vote
> > count the
> > same as mine. guys like me are gonna be taking care of failures
> > like you
> > for a long time to come.
>
> Why would I post my net worth on a newsgroup? You really are a
> dullard. My time has a market value of about $350/hr. That should give
> you a good idea how hard up I am.
is $350/hr. a lot? i don't work for others, so i don't have a rate that i
beg for. today, i lost low five figures, not even remotely close to my
biggest losing day this year. i guess i should hang it up.
> I'll tell you what...just to prove your illogic in terms even you can
> understand, I'll post the net worth of George Soros, who aligns with
> my opinion on most social issues:
>
> $11 billion
>
> Or how about Bill Gates? We line up pretty well too:
>
> $50 billion
>
> Or maybe Warren Buffet:
>
> $30 billion
>
> Now do you finally see that you are an illogical idiot?
are these the guys who are low-balling the american tax payer for tax
credits:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125729682025626851.html?
i think they just want to pay their fair share ... a few decades from now.
mo_charles
--------�
Tim Norfolk
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e83010c8-9aab-4077...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 7:22 am, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bob T."
>
> > >Exactly right - just like when somebody's house is on fire, it's not
>
> > my problem or your problem it's their problem.
>
> > How does that have anything to do with what I said? Or are you implying
> > that I have a choice whether to live in a town with a fire department?
>
> It's an analogy. �A century ago, only the people who paid the fire
> department in advance would have their fires put out. �Those people
> are analogous to the people that have health insurance. �As a society,
> we decided that putting out fires was so important that we would all
> pay enough taxes to put out all the fires.
>
>
>
> > >Nowadays we as a society feel
>
> > that it's better to put out all the fires, and we pay for our fire
> > <departments with taxes.
>
> >> yes? Guess I'm totally missing your point here.
> >We are contemplating making a similar changeover in our attitude
>
> towards medical care as we made a century ago with fires. �In Canada>and most of Europe, health care is treated like modern American fire
>
> departments. �They feel it is better for the society as a whole to pay>for everyone's health care with taxes, just as we feel it's better to
>
> pay for fire departments with taxes.
>
> >- Bob T.
>
> I find a lot of flaws with this logic, but the main one being if my
> neighbors house burns down the sparks etc. might very easily cause my house
> to burn down or even cause my whole town to burn down if not controlled.
>
> If my neighbor gets cancer, my risk of catching it is zero.
Actually, if you had insurance, and your neighbour didn't, they used
to douse your house, to prevent spreading the fire.
Tim Norfolk
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or there aren't enough people immunized to have local herd immunity?
Public health, including shots and pre-natal care, is very good
policy. However, I don't trust the average politician, so whether that
can be achieved here is another matter.
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mN6dnX8x6fc...@giganews.com...
>>>I am one hell of a lawyer. (Didn't you read my resume?)
>>>I have a license to practice in New York, Texas, the District of
>>>Columbia and Bumfuck.
>>>I have had 43 major jury trials to verdict. (Major claims being
>>>over 200,000.)
>>>
>>>I have never lost a jury trial.
>>>
>>>I'll give you a run down on some of the more exciting ones if you
>>>like ... fires, electrocutions, dismemberments, paralyzations, lost
>>>eyes, lost dicks, crushings, and a lot of planes, trains and
>>>semi-tractor trailer trucks.
I'll ask again. Do you have the case citations for these "43 major
jury trials?" No deflections, no changing the subject. You either have
the citations, or you don't.
I'd really like to believe you, but after you got caught in that huge
lie about your "legal writing career", you and I both know your
credibility around here is pretty much shot.
So do you have the case citations, or not. Yes or no?
(As I said, no need to give me the citation for the small claim about
your grandmother's leaky porch. I have that one)
da pickle
> I'll ask again. Do you have the case citations for these "43 major jury
> trials?" No deflections, no changing the subject. You either have the
> citations, or you don't.
No, I don't. They were not appealed and I did not pay for a transcript.
You remain a tool, Bill.
How about answering simple questions rather than jumping around like a
scared rabbit>
> I'd really like to believe you, but after you got caught in that huge lie
> about your "legal writing career", you and I both know your credibility
> around here is pretty much shot.
No, I didn't, Bill and my credibility is whatever it is. Your refusal to do
anything but act like a butt remains consistent as well.
> So do you have the case citations, or not. Yes or no?
Asking the same question over and over does not help your case, Bill.
Selective cutting of the posts to which you respond does not help your case
either, Bill. Answer a question ... coward ... or fake ... which might it
be? I am proud of my resume ... post yours and we can compare.
> (As I said, no need to give me the citation for the small claim about your
> grandmother's leaky porch. I have that one)
Dare I say that you are lying, Bill? Could it be that you are just funning
and not lying?
My grandparents were dead long before I went to college. I graduated in
engineering and did not receive my JD until much later than that. How about
you, Bill? Any experience at all in court? Any at all?
There are 2000 billable hours in a reasonable lawyer's year. (Associates
are usually expected to bill many more than that.) At 350 an hour, you
are/were making 700,000 at least. I would say that was damned respectable.
I would be proud to make that kind of money.
Tell us about your experience, Bill, you don't need citations, just your
word that you are telling the truth. (Or at least that you are not just
funning.)
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UYSdnSi52qf...@giganews.com...
>> I'll ask again. Do you have the case citations for these "43 major
>> jury trials?" No deflections, no changing the subject. You either
>> have the citations, or you don't.
>
> No, I don't. They were not appealed and I did not pay for a
> transcript. You remain a tool, Bill.
Pay for a transcript? LOL! Do you think RGP is stupid? What does
having a transcript have to do with anything? Just give me the case
names, the courts, and the years. That's all I need. You do realize
court registries keep records of these things, right?
"43 major jury trials", but you can't name them? Sounds a little
fishy, no?
>> I'd really like to believe you, but after you got caught in that
>> huge lie about your "legal writing career", you and I both know
>> your credibility around here is pretty much shot.
>
> No, I didn't, Bill and my credibility is whatever it is. Your
> refusal to do anything but act like a butt remains consistent as
> well.
Yes, you did get caught in a big lie. It was a WHOPPER. Gary Carson
said he was willing to bet he had published more legal articles (two)
than you. You responded by bloviating in your usual fashion about your
"legal writing career." Upon investigation of your claims, your "legal
writing career" amounted to publishing one goofy article in 1977 in
some third rate law school's journal.
> Dare I say that you are lying, Bill? Could it be that you are just
> funning and not lying?
>
> My grandparents were dead long before I went to college.
Oh, was it your aunt then? Are you denying you know what case I am
talking about? You don't remember the leaky porch case? Sure you do.
How about the cow that got hit by the car case? You know that one,
right?
> How about you, Bill? Any experience at all in court? Any at all?
Yes, I have some courtroom experience. But nothing like your "43
[unnamed] major jury trials." (that don't seem to appear on any legal
database). But we aren't talking about me. I have never made any
extraordinary claims at all about my legal career.
> There are 2000 billable hours in a reasonable lawyer's year.
> (Associates are usually expected to bill many more than that.) At
> 350 an hour, you are/were making 700,000 at least. I would say that
> was damned respectable. I would be proud to make that kind of money.
Associates here are expected to bill about 1600 hours a year. When I
was an associate back in the day I was billing at $200/hr. I always
met my targets. What is unusual about that?
> Tell us about your experience, Bill, you don't need citations, just
> your word that you are telling the truth. (Or at least that you are
> not just funning.)
Why would I give my stalker intimate details about my life, career, or
anything else? We are talking about you and your extraordinary claims,
remember? Now please, just give us the names, courts, and dates of
those "43 major jury trials" you've won...or at least admit you are a
compulsive liar.
da pickle
>>> I'll ask again. Do you have the case citations for these "43 major jury
>>> trials?" No deflections, no changing the subject. You either have the
>>> citations, or you don't.
>>
>> No, I don't. They were not appealed and I did not pay for a transcript.
>> You remain a tool, Bill.
>
> Pay for a transcript? LOL! Do you think RGP is stupid? What does having a
> transcript have to do with anything? Just give me the case names, the
> courts, and the years. That's all I need. You do realize court registries
> keep records of these things, right?
Well, Bill, they may keep trial results in your country, but they do not
here.
Many of my suits were in the 9th JDC ... they are all indexed. Come on down
and take a look. I'll buy you a beer. You stupid fuck.
Still dodging aren't you, Bill?
Even one jury trial, Bill? Even one bench trial? Just one?
> "43 major jury trials", but you can't name them? Sounds a little fishy,
> no?
>
>>> I'd really like to believe you, but after you got caught in that huge
>>> lie about your "legal writing career", you and I both know your
>>> credibility around here is pretty much shot.
>>
>> No, I didn't, Bill and my credibility is whatever it is. Your refusal to
>> do anything but act like a butt remains consistent as well.
>
>
> Yes, you did get caught in a big lie. It was a WHOPPER. Gary Carson said
> he was willing to bet he had published more legal articles (two) than you.
> You responded by bloviating in your usual fashion about your "legal
> writing career." Upon investigation of your claims, your "legal writing
> career" amounted to publishing one goofy article in 1977 in some third
> rate law school's journal.
No, I didn't, Bill. You apparently did not even reread the thread that you
so asiduously "researched."
I will admit that LSU is not Harvard or Virginia, but it does a pretty good
job for those of us in Bumfuck.
That article is really a "note" ... it is required for Law Review. I do not
know anything about your law school ... do they have a law review?
>> Dare I say that you are lying, Bill? Could it be that you are just
>> funning and not lying?
>>
>> My grandparents were dead long before I went to college.
>
> Oh, was it your aunt then? Are you denying you know what case I am talking
> about? You don't remember the leaky porch case? Sure you do. How about the
> cow that got hit by the car case? You know that one, right?
I really don't, Bill. My partner hit a cow once ... really messed up his
Prelude. No lawsuit though.
I remember an ambulance that hit a calf once and the attorney for the lady
that was being rushed to the hospital sued all the farmers in the area that
had cows. I represented a dairy farmer ... it was a bull calf ... he did
not have any bull calfs on his farm. We got out of that one.
Is that the one you mean?
>> How about you, Bill? Any experience at all in court? Any at all?
>
>
> Yes, I have some courtroom experience. But nothing like your "43 [unnamed]
> major jury trials." (that don't seem to appear on any legal database). But
> we aren't talking about me. I have never made any extraordinary claims at
> all about my legal career.
You have made a lot of claims about your legal abilities. I was just
wondering if they are all vicarious or if you have any practical experience.
Expand on your courtroom experience and how it might support your opinions
about tort reform.
>> There are 2000 billable hours in a reasonable lawyer's year. (Associates
>> are usually expected to bill many more than that.) At 350 an hour, you
>> are/were making 700,000 at least. I would say that was damned
>> respectable. I would be proud to make that kind of money.
>
> Associates here are expected to bill about 1600 hours a year. When I was
> an associate back in the day I was billing at $200/hr. I always met my
> targets. What is unusual about that?
Unusual ... associate in the USA would never get by with 1600 hours. How
long were you an associate?
>> Tell us about your experience, Bill, you don't need citations, just your
>> word that you are telling the truth. (Or at least that you are not just
>> funning.)
>
> Why would I give my stalker intimate details about my life, career, or
> anything else? We are talking about you and your extraordinary claims,
> remember? Now please, just give us the names, courts, and dates of those
> "43 major jury trials" you've won...or at least admit you are a compulsive
> liar.
Wow, do you think I want intimate details ... just wow. At least admit that
you have not one major jury trial at all. If you admit that you have no
jury trial experience, I will give you one citation to one jury trial to
whet your appetite ... then if you continue to answer the most simple
questions, I will continue to give you more and more.
You have not been very good at answering simple questions. You seem to
think that demanding answers of others is fair and balanced.
So let us begin ... you admit that you have never tried a jury case and I'll
give you a citation. I'll even tell you what happened and you can check up
on it yourself ... so we will know who is full of it.
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yJqdnQ7vpJo...@giganews.com...
>> Pay for a transcript? LOL! Do you think RGP is stupid? What does
>> having a transcript have to do with anything? Just give me the case
>> names, the courts, and the years. That's all I need. You do realize
>> court registries keep records of these things, right?
>
>
> Well, Bill, they may keep trial results in your country, but they do
> not here.
Yes, "they" do. But why don't you let me worry about that? Just give
me the names, court, and year of the "43 major jury trials you have
won." How hard can this be? I mean, you even went to the trouble of
counting them! Just give us the names and dates. Shouldn't take you
more than a few minutes. You can probably name at least 25 off the top
of your head, can't you? Are you having a hard time remembering? This
isn't going to turn out to be a big lie like your "legal writing
career", is it?
> You have made a lot of claims about your legal abilities.
No, I haven't, but you most certainly have. You have "43 major jury
trials" under your belt, and you won them all! We're just waiting for
the names.
Please, don't keep RGP in suspense any longer! Give us the names!
You know how you have been relentlessly stalking me, even though I and
others have asked you many times to stop? OK, you have my full
attention now. I am going to pursue this issue with the same fervor
you have shown in stalking me. So please, let's get this over with.
Give me the names of these "major jury trials", or at least admit you
are a compulsive liar.
Peg Smith
>You know how you [da pickle] have been relentlessly stalking me, even though I and
>others have asked you many times to stop?
I think he's sweet on you, Bill. His hard on for you is definitely
showing.
>OK, you have my full
>attention now. I am going to pursue this issue with the same fervor
>you have shown in stalking me. So please, let's get this over with.
>Give me the names of these "major jury trials", or at least admit you
>are a compulsive liar.
He won't, you know. He's like Beldin and the other numbskulls, once
he's been skewered he'll never admit it. He'll stalk you, he'll insult
you, but he'll never tell you the names of the 43 cases.
Peg
O-PGManager
> tough shit.
>
> If they were poverty level a different story.
>
> I read somewhere, and I am not going to look it up, that more than half of
> americans making more than $75,000 a year chose to self-insure. Good for
> them - just don't expect me to bail you out when you run out of funds.
Brilliant Susan. As we're wheeling the internally bleeding car accident
victim into the ER I'm sure it'll be easy to do a quick check on his
insurance status, income level, and ability to self-insure himself! And
if this instantaneous personal info check reveals he could've afforded
insurance but chose not to, then we can take him out back and drop him in
a dumpster with a "Tough shit. -Love Susan" sticker on him.
This is much better than an insurance mandate.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
O-PGManager
> > of serious medical problems off on society.
>
> because insurance companies lose lots of money? fucking idiot.
>
> mo_charles
Mo are you ok lately? You're usually way better than this. I know you
don't like BillB, but how can you argue that a "self-insured" 25 year old
who gets in a car wreck and runs up a 300k bill before his life is saved
and has no hope of paying it off isn't freeloading?
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________�
O-PGManager
> people who get horribly "bad results" from their medical care WITHOUT any
> lawyers and without any fight and without any need to find out whether there
> was "negligence" at all ...
Interesting idea, but not even remotely similar to every "tort reform"
proposal on the table.
> All these lawyers LOSE if there is "tort reform" ... a vanishingly few
> deserving plaintiffs miss out on winning the lottery; however, millions of
> others get reasonable compensation without a lawsuit ...
Ok, just so we're clear your talking about Pickle's Fantasy Tort Reform
Proposal, not the actual proposals being considered. Because all those do
is cap damages - no other changes for things like people getting
compensated sans lawsuit.
> Those lawyers (perhaps like BillB) who are the losers are the only losers in
> this sort of "tort reform."
Perhaps, but again we're talking about the Tort Reform of Pickle's Dreams
which has absolutely nothing in common with the tort reform proposals
BillB is talking about.
> [And if you, Opie, do not believe that regular folks use the term
> "frivolous" and a synonym for "stupid" or "unjustified" or "ridiculous" ...
> then you are just as disingenuous as BillB.]
I think most regular folks don't use the term at all. Corporate interests
use it as a synonym for stupid, unjustified, and ridiculous in order to
drum up support for "tort reform" that does nothing more than cap damages.
> NOTE: I make my living defending folks that have been sued by plaintiffs.
An aside: You do realize then, that you make your living off of these
plaintiffs suing people - same as the trial lawyers. I never quite
understood defense lawyers bemoaning all the lawsuits against their poor
client - they wouldn't have a job without them.
> We need tort reform. I have suggested a reasonable model (workers
> compensation) for medical cases
You very well may have, but your suggestion is not even remotely similar
to the "tort reform" proposals that are on the table.
> but no one wants to talk about the real
> issues here (and that is understandable, because few have any understanding
> of the problems) and those that chose to mention the subject at all have
> political inclinations that make them unable or unwilling to carry on a
> legitimate conversation.
I think your frustration should be directed at the guys carrying water for
the versions of "tort reform" on the table that are in reality not tort
reform at all - BillB is simply pointing that out.
BillB criticizes the tort reform proposals on the table - and you take it
as a personal attack on your own idealized version of tort reform. The
result is you make posts that are head scratchers.
> BillB believes the government can spend the money that individuals earn in a
> better manner than those individuals can. It is as simple as that.
> Individuals are not to be trusted with the fruits of their own labor ... FOR
> THEIR OWN GOOD. It is as simple as that.
Ok now we're off topic.
O-PGManager
> income taxes.
>
> Government workers whose only source of income is their government check.
>
> Everyone else ... everyone else ... that pays income taxes pays a portion of
> the rest of each and every one of those government workers.
Yes Pickle, the police officer and firefighter are suckling off the
government teat - but the "private business" owner who calls upon them to
protect his "private property" - he is the only one of the three
contributing to the economy.
This is just bizarre. Are you really saying that government workers
provide zero value to the economy and are no different than welfare
recipients?
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
______________________________________________________________________�
BillB
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6dqhf5hfbjh7jrnh1...@4ax.com...
I thought I was actually pretty good at legal research, but this one
has got me stumped. I found the big $1000 leaky veranda case he took
all the way to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana and lost. I am not
surprised he had problems remembering it. He has blocked it out as a
traumatic experience. Jesus, if it was my grandma I would have just
written her a check for $3000 and told her not to worry about it.
I also found the big cow-hit-by-car case he lost at trial *and* on
appeal. I also found a few others he lost. It's amazing to me that he
loses so freely on these minor league reported cases, yet he's batting
1.000 in "major jury trials" that he can't name (not to mention that
*none* of these *major* cases - all 43 -- were ever appealed). It all
seems a little bit...what's the word...counter-intuitive to me. One
pattern that seems to emerge is that he has a proclivity for
ill-advised appeals. I guess he has problems being told he is wrong?
Another bit of irony here: you know how he has been endlessly railing
about "frivolous lawsuits?" Take a look at the third paragraph of the
decision below:
"Mrs. Pickels filed suit against Mr. Brown on May 5, 1981, asserting
that, because of his defective workmanship, he was legally indebted to
Mrs. Pickels in the amount of $4,500. This $4,500 total was
constituted by the $3,000 allegedly necessary to repair her front
stoop, and by an additional $1,500 representing mental anguish,
embarrassment, personal suffering and loss of sleep caused by the
deteriorated condition of her veranda."
Yes, you read that right. Mr. Anti-Frivolous actually claimed $1,500
for "mental anguish, embarrassment, personal suffering, and loss of
sleep"... over a *leaky veranda*! LOL!!! Even the Jerry Springer
Show rejects who make it onto the Judge Judy show know better than to
pull that crap.
Stay tuned. I am thinking of doing a full series, case by case, expos�
on the stellar legal career of RGP's own self-proclaimed legal
Superstar, John "mental anguish" Pickels. Some of the cases are really
quite humorous.
431 So.2d 880
Mary S. PICKELS, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Clovis BROWN, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 15349-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana,
Second Circuit.
May 3, 1983.
Page 881
McClure & McClure by John C. Pickels, Alexandria, for
plaintiff-appellant.
Rogers M. Prestridge, Bossier City, for defendant-appellee.
Cook, Yancy, King & Galloway by John D. Collinsworth, Shreveport, for
third-party defendants-appellees Bamburg Mechanical, Inc., and
Northern Assur. Co. of America.
Before MARVIN, JASPER E. JONES and SEXTON, JJ.
SEXTON, Judge.
Plaintiff brought suit against both the contractor who she hired to
fix the leaking roof on her veranda, and the sub-contractor who the
contractor hired to assist him in making the necessary repairs.
Plaintiff alleged that, although she had paid the contractor for his
work, he and the sub-contractor had failed to fix the leak. The trial
court granted plaintiff a $1,000 judgment against the contractor.
Plaintiff now appeals, seeking a judgment against the sub-contractor,
and an increase in the amount of the award. We affirm.
Plaintiff-appellant in this cause is Mrs. O.K. Pickels, a 74 year old
widow who resides in a residential area of Shreveport, Louisiana. The
defendant contractor against whom the trial court granted recovery is
Clovis Brown, a remodeler who lives in Bossier City. The defendant
sub-contractor against whom all civil claims were dismissed is Bamburg
Mechanical Incorporated, a construction firm located in Bossier City.
The roof of Mrs. Pickels' veranda began to leak sometime in the summer
of 1980. The leak caused significant interior damage, most notably the
deterioration of the veranda's plaster ceiling and sheetrock walls.
After at least two repairmen had unsuccessfully attempted to stop the
leakage, Mrs. Pickels discussed the problem with Clovis Brown. In a
tersely worded contract dated September 12, 1980, and signed by both
Brown and Mrs. Pickels, Mr. Brown contracted for a sum of $1,085, to
install a metal roof on the veranda, replace the interior sheetrock
wall that had been damaged by rain and paint the newly installed work.
The contract included a written one year guarantee by Mr. Brown of the
quality of his workmanship and materials. It is clear that Mrs.
Pickels indicated to Mr. Brown that she was distraught over the
leakage and felt helpless to alleviate it, and that Mr. Brown assured
Mrs. Pickels that he would competently address the problem and fix the
leak.
Mr. Brown's repair work involved the interior of the stoop, where he
replaced and repaired the stoop's damaged interior walls and woodwork
and painted the newly repaired walls. Although the inner ceiling was
not damaged enough to require the replacement of its sheetrock, Mr.
Brown did have it painted.
While Mr. Brown did the necessary carpentry on the inside of the
stoop, Bamburg Mechanical sub-contracted with Brown to replace the
roof over Mrs. Pickels' veranda. Pursuant to its contract with Brown,
Bamburg installed a sheet metal roof on Mrs. Pickels' veranda. Bamburg
also installed flashings on, and adjacent to the veranda's metal roof
in order to seal any gaps around its perimeter, and the joint between
the main roof of the house and the veranda roof. Mr. Brown paid
Bamburg $400 for these services.
Mrs. Pickels found the repairs to her veranda satisfactory and
aesthetically pleasing, and paid Mr. Brown $1,085 pursuant to the
agreement. However, subsequent to the repairs, heavy rains fell and
Mrs. Pickels discovered that the leak in the veranda
Page 882
roof still existed, despite Mr. Brown's efforts. The roof continued to
leak, causing new damage to the interior walls and ceiling of Mrs.
Pickels' veranda. The walls and ceiling of the stoop became water
stained, and the plaster in the ceiling began to cave in. This
condition was still deteriorating at the time of the trial.
Mrs. Pickels filed suit against Mr. Brown on May 5, 1981, asserting
that, because of his defective workmanship, he was legally indebted to
Mrs. Pickels in the amount of $4,500. This $4,500 total was
constituted by the $3,000 allegedly necessary to repair her front
stoop, and by an additional $1,500 representing mental anguish,
embarrassment, personal suffering and loss of sleep caused by the
deteriorated condition of her veranda. Mr. Brown answered, asserting
that the leak was located not in the veranda roof, but in the roof
over the main part of the house; Mr. Brown also filed a third party
demand against the sub-contractor Bamburg, praying that Bamburg be
held legally responsible for any amount for which Brown might be cast
in judgment. The plaintiff, Mrs. Pickels, thereafter amended her
original petition to join as defendants Bamburg, and its insurer,
Northern Assurance Company of America.
After a trial on the merits, the trial court found that Mr. Brown had
"contracted with the plaintiff to not only repair the existing damage,
but to also fix the leak." The court concluded that "There is no
question that Mr. Brown did not correct the leak." The trial court
accordingly returned a judgment in the amount of $1,000 in favor of
Mrs. Pickels and against Mr. Brown. The court further rejected Mrs.
Pickels' claims against Bamburg, and Clovis Brown's third party demand
against Bamburg. Plaintiff, Mrs. Pickels, has appealed the trial
court's decree, contending in her first assignment of error that she
should have been granted a judgment against Bamburg, and asserting in
her second assignment that the court improperly evaluated her damages
and that her recovery should be increased on appeal. Appellant seeks
no further relief with respect to Brown, and we understand the
judgment against him has been satisfied. Brown has neither appealed
nor answered the appeal. Therefore we do not address the correctness
of the judgment against Brown.
The essence of plaintiff's claim against Bamburg is that Bamburg
caused her harm by failing to install a watertight roof and flashings
over her veranda. We note that, while there is no contractual privity
between plaintiff and Bamburg in the ordinary sense, there are several
legal theoretic bases which could potentially support a judgment
against Bamburg, in favor of Mrs. Pickels, the plaintiff. 1
Mrs. Pickels could argue that the contract between Brown and Bamburg
was a stipulation pour autrui which inured to her benefit; 2 that
there was an implied contract between Bamburg and herself; 3 or that
Bamburg was liable to her in quasi-contracts
Page 883
under the legal theory expressed by the Latin maxim "actio de in rem
verso." 4 Mrs. Pickels could argue that Bamburg had committed a
quasi-offense or tort through an allegedly negligent installation of
the roof. 5 In short Mrs. Pickels could claim, under a number of
alternative theories, that Bamburg had a civil obligation 6 to her
which arose either from the consent of the parties or by operation of
law. 7
Page 884
While these theories of recovery constitute interesting matter for
contemplation, our factual determination herein entirely pretermits a
discussion of their applicability. Our factual determination, simply
stated, is that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance that the
damage-causing leak was located in the metal roof or flashings
installed by Bamburg over plaintiff's veranda. Thus, assuming arguendo
that Bamburg owed Mrs. Pickels a duty to install a watertight veranda
roof--whether this duty was rooted in tort, quasi-contract, implied
contract, or contract for the benefit of a third party--plaintiff has
not proven the breach of this obligation.
It is initially important to note the relative positions of the
veranda and the main house. The veranda in question directly abuts the
front of Mrs. Pickels' wood frame house and the front door of Mrs.
Pickels' house is located at the front of the veranda. The main roof
of plaintiff's home sweeps steeply downward to the veranda roof which
is located at the base of the main roof. The veranda roof is connected
to the main roof by flashings which are designed to serve as a
watertight seal and joint between the roofs of the house and veranda,
and to prevent any intrusion of water into the house beneath the
juncture of the two roofs.
One problem with plaintiff's factual assertion that Bamburg's work was
faulty, is that there appear to be several structurally deficient
areas in the main roof of the house in which the leak could have
existed. Photographic evidence indicates that the roof of the main
house is visibly old and has noticeably deteriorated with age. There
are several broken shingles on the house near the roof of the veranda.
The theory that a leak existed in the main roof rather than in the
veranda roof is corroborated by the testimony of plaintiff's own
witness, roofing contractor Edward Durham. Mr. Durham testified by
deposition that he would not assume the obligation of fixing Mrs.
Pickels leak unless he replaced the main roof which covered Mrs.
Pickels' entire house.
Furthermore, Clovis Brown along with Howard Aucoin, the Bamburg
employee who installed the metal roof and flashing, returned to Mrs.
Pickels' house after the initial complaint to check for leaks. Brown
and Aucoin sprayed water under high pressure directly upon the roofing
installed by Aucoin on behalf of Bamburg. Both men unequivocally
testified that the direct application of the water demonstrated no
leakage in any of the roofing installed by Aucoin. As the trial court
noted in its written reasons for judgment, the testimony indicated
that the work done by Bamburg (Aucoin) was rendered "in a professional
manner and was not defective in any way."
In other words the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the location of
a leak or defect in Bamburg's installation. As the trial court noted,
"the evidence does not show what is causing the continued leak." We
conclude, from the above mentioned facts and testimony, that plaintiff
did not prove by a preponderance that Bamburg breached any putative
legal duty to her by making a faulty installation.
Appellant's assignment with respect to quantum is disposed of by the
foregoing determination. Plaintiff's award cannot be increased with
respect to defendant Brown, since that defendant has been
conventionally released by plaintiff from any further liability. We
have held that the other defendant, Bamburg, is not civilly liable to
plaintiff.
We conclude, for the above reasons, that plaintiff did not prove by a
preponderance that Bamburg installed a leaky veranda roof, and that
plaintiff therefore did not establish that Bamburg violated an alleged
duty to her. We hold, furthermore, that plaintiff's contentions as to
quantum are disposed of by the procedural posture and result of this
case. Thus, the trial court's judgment dismissing all claims against
Bamburg and granting plaintiff a $1,000 award against Brown is in all
respects affirmed at appellant's costs.
AFFIRMED.
---------------
1 The general rule, of course, is that there can be no contractual
liability in the absence of privity. See Lumber Products, Inc. v.
Hiriart, 255 So.2d 783 (La.App. 4th Cir.1971); Cambais v. Douglas, 167
La. 791, 120 So. 369 (La.1929). This legal rule flows in part from
LSA-C.C. Art. 1889, which decrees that a party to a contract may not
bind another person who is not a party to the contract.
2 LSA-C.C. Arts. 1890 and 1902 provide that two persons may, by
contract, agree to confer a benefit upon a third person. Such a
contract for the benefit of a third party cannot be revoked without
the consent of the third party if he "has signified his assent to
accept it." LSA-C.C. Art. 1902. In his analysis in State ex rel. Guste
v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, 331 So.2d 478 (La.1976), then Supreme
Court Justice Tate applied the precepts of Articles 1890 and 1902 to
allow a building owner to recover from a sub-contractor for defective
workmanship. In that case, although there was contractual privity
between the building owner and the general contractor, and privity
between the general contractor and the sub-contractor, there was no
privity between the building owner and the sub-contractor.
3 LSA-C.C. Art. 1811 acknowledges the existence and efficacy of
implied contracts and provides that:
"The proposition as well as the assent to a contract may be expressed
or implied:
Express when evinced by words, either written or spoken;
Implied, when it is manifested by actions, even by silence or by
inaction, in cases in which they can from circumstances be supposed to
mean, or by legal presumptions are directed to be considered as
evidence of an assent."
See, e.g., V-8 Taxi Cab Service, Inc. v. Hayes, 322 So.2d 442 (La.App.
4th Cir.1975).
4 The Civil Code expressly recognizes that unwritten or
quasi-contracts may form the basis for civil liability. See LSA-C.C.
Arts. 2292-2313. An actio de in rem verso represents one of several
quasi-contractual actions available to litigants in Civilian
jurisdictions, and the legal requirements for this type of action were
thoroughly discussed in Capitano v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 359
So.2d 308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978), and more recently in HMC Management
Corp. v. New Orleans Basketball Club, 375 So.2d 700 (La.App. 4th
Cir.1979).
5 Such an action would of course be founded upon LSA-C.C. Art. 2315
which mandates that "Every act whatever of man that causes damage to
another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it," and upon
Article 2316, which states that "Every person is responsible for the
damage he occasions not merely by his act, but by his negligence, his
imprudence, or his want of skill." The Louisiana courts have allowed
recovery in tort for negligent workmanship, in the absence of privity,
in Marine Insurance Co. v. Strecker, 234 La. 522, 100 So.2d 493
(La.1957) and Kendrick v. Mason, 234 La. 271, 99 So.2d 108 (La.1958).
The decrees rendered in Strecker and Kendrick are arguably
inconsistent with the traditional doctrinal distinctions between
actions ex contractu and ex delicto. The nature of the duty breached
is the chief distinguishing factor between an action in tort and an
action in contract. Torts involve the violation of a general duty
arising from statute or common sense and owed to all, while suits on
contract involve the violation of a special duty, conventionally
created, and owed to specific persons. Torts involve a violation of
the rule of reason, while contract actions deal with the contravention
of the covenant that forms the law between the parties. As Planiol
suggests, a contract may be breached by an act or omission less severe
and substandard than that required to constitute a tort. Furthermore,
Planiol contends, legal presumptions favor a plaintiff in contract
actions, and a defendant in tort actions. In addition to these
distinctions in the character of the two actions, there are
significant differences in their effect: tort actions prescribe in one
year and contract actions prescribe in ten, and plaintiffs in tort
actions generally receive a fuller measure of indemnification. For
further illumination of the differences between tort and contract
actions, See LSA-C.C. Arts. 3536, 3544; Kozan v. Comstock, 270 F.2d
839 (5th Cir.1959); Iberville Land Co. v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 141
F.2d 384 (5th Cir.1944); Dan George, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, 145
F.Supp. 523 (W.D.La.1956); Kohn v. Mayor of Carrollton, 10 La.Ann. 719
(La.1855); Planiol, Traite Elementaire De Droit Civil, Vol. 2, � 874
(Trans.La.State Law Inst.1959).
It should be noted that while the decisions rendered in Strecker and
Kendrick may not adhere to all of the classic doctrinal distinctions
between actions in tort and contract, these decisions seem to comport
with the Civil Code. As Justice Hawthorne enunciated in Strecker in
his exposition of Article 2315, "We know of no provision of the Code
which relieves one by whose fault another is damaged from the
obligation to repair the damage because there is no privity of
contract existing between them." 234 La. 522, 100 So.2d 493, 494. As
was similarly stated by Justice Simon in Kendrick, Articles 2315 and
2316 do not contemplate civil responsibility conditioned upon
contractual privity and "to so hold ... would be violative of the
positive and all inclusive language employed in these articles." 234
La. 271, 99 So.2d 108, 113.
6 A civil obligation, as opposed to imperfect and natural obligations,
is one which is legally binding and "which gives the party, with whom
it is contracted, the right of enforcing its performance by law."
LSA-C.C. Art. 1757(3).
7 The Civil Code divides all civil obligations, in relation to their
source, into two major categories: those which originate "from the
consent of the parties," and those which "are created by the operation
of law." LSA-C.C. Art. 1760. The first category is of course
constituted by conventional obligations, whether express or implied.
The second category of civil obligations may be further divided into
obligations which arise solely by operation of law,--such as those
obligations incidental to tutorship, curatorship, neighborhood, and
co-ownership--and obligations which arise partly from operation of law
and partly from "an act done by the party obliged, or in his favor."
LSA-C.C. Art. 2292. This sub-category of civil obligations which arise
partly by operation of law and partly from human acts, consists of
quasi-contracts, offenses and quasi-offenses. LSA-C.C. Art. 2292.
Pepe Papon
No, she's referring to her Ignorance Quotient.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
da pickle
>> There is only one group who pay absolutely nothing but their own salary
>> in
>> income taxes.
>>
>> Government workers whose only source of income is their government check.
>>
>> Everyone else ... everyone else ... that pays income taxes pays a portion
>> of
>> the rest of each and every one of those government workers.
>
> Yes Pickle, the police officer and firefighter are suckling off the
> government teat - but the "private business" owner who calls upon them to
> protect his "private property" - he is the only one of the three
> contributing to the economy.
Well, your hyperbole meter is running overtime again, Opie. The police
officer and the firefighter and the congressman and the senator and the IRS
agent and every other federal, state and local government official is being
paid by "other people" to perform services. They are paid with tax dollars
from "other people" ... people that do not provide government services. (If
the government employee was exempt from taxation, that employee could be
paid less money and there would be many other government employees out of a
job ... for example: those that collect that money and give it back to the
employee for the "rest" of his or her wages.)
There is a good reason for taxes and for government to provide services ...
but the payment comes from those that pay taxes and are NOT government
employees. The government employees are not suckling off the teat, but they
do not contribute money to run the government. Government employees get
their money from producers. The question is whether it is better to have
taxes and government provide a product or a service or is it better for
individuals or groups of individuals or companies to provide whatever
service or product is under consideration.
I would think that fire and police are reasonable government services. I
think that the armed services are reasonable uses of our tax dollars.
Somewhere along the line, government decided that it should be the provider
of more and more services and (in my opinion) it has overstepped its bounds.
Is there even one federal or state or local government entity that you feel
is "unnecessary?" Even one?
I think that if congress put their minds and hearts into "less spending"
they could do it. I do not think they will ever do it. I think that every
government agency ... every one of them ... will grow and grow and grow.
I know that you believe that the supply of "tax dollars" is unending and
that the government services are "productive" and that borrowing to pay for
this never ending increase in government spending has no consequences ...
but I disagree.
> This is just bizarre. Are you really saying that government workers
> provide zero value to the economy and are no different than welfare
> recipients?
No, I am not saying that at all. It is bizarre that you can make such a
conclusion.
We pay taxes for government services. There is a limited supply of tax
dollars available. The government is taking too much in tax dollars for too
many "programs" ... there is no effort to slow the increase of government
growth. You believe there is no problem. I disagree.
mo_charles
> > > of serious medical problems off on society.
> >
> > because insurance companies lose lots of money? fucking idiot.
>
> don't like BillB, but how can you argue that a "self-insured" 25 year old
> who gets in a car wreck and runs up a 300k bill before his life is saved
> and has no hope of paying it off isn't freeloading?
because, ON AVERAGE, insurance costs more than its provision. i'm
beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really works.
mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
mo_charles
peg, as useless as ever. any thoughts on the subject, or have you just
shown up to prove to the community that you can still kiss somebody's ass?
mo_charles
----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iu3os6x...@recgroups.com...
> because, ON AVERAGE, insurance costs more than its provision. i'm
> beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really
> works.
You are the one without a clue. *Everyone* is exposed to the risk of
medical catastrophe. If you don't have the assets to cover that risk
(which few do), and you refuse to buy insurance to cover that risk,
and you know that society will take care of you (which it will) in the
event that risk materializes, then you are FREELOADING.
That should not be that difficult for even you to understand. It is
very straightforward. I would estimate most bright 8 year olds could
grasp it. Are you still having difficulty understanding?
mo_charles
> > beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really
> > works.
>
> You are the one without a clue. *Everyone* is exposed to the risk of
> medical catastrophe. If you don't have the assets to cover that risk
> (which few do), and you refuse to buy insurance to cover that risk,
> and you know that society will take care of you (which it will) in the
> event that risk materializes, then you are FREELOADING.
>
> That should not be that difficult for even you to understand. It is
> very straightforward. I would estimate most bright 8 year olds could
> grasp it. Are you still having difficulty understanding?
so you're suggesting we cover these costs by enforcing the purchase of an
insurance plan that costs even more. your choice of a lucrative career as
a paralegal is making perfect sense.
mo_charles
da pickle
> BillB"
>> He won't, you know. He's like Beldin and the other numbskulls, once
>> he's been skewered he'll never admit it. He'll stalk you, he'll insult
>> you, but he'll never tell you the names of the 43 cases.
>>
>> Peg
Sure I will, Peg ... I just want to do it one at a time. Do you think my
request for at least one BillB case to be unfair?
> I thought I was actually pretty good at legal research, but this one has
> got me stumped. I found the big $1000 leaky veranda case he took all the
> way to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana and lost. I am not surprised he
> had problems remembering it. He has blocked it out as a traumatic
> experience. Jesus, if it was my grandma I would have just written her a
> check for $3000 and told her not to worry about it.
Now that would be reported. How about the citation. I don't remember this
one. (I find that you quoted the case below ... that case was tried in city
court in Shreveport ... Mrs. Pickels is my mother. I wond the case. The
appeal is direct from city court. The appellate court affirmed the
judgement of the trial court.)
> I also found the big cow-hit-by-car case he lost at trial *and* on appeal.
> I also found a few others he lost.
Now, that would be reported too. Citation. Wait, I remember a case in
Catahoula or Concordia parish involving a guy whose cow got over a parish
cattle gap and was hit by a car. The issue was whether the owner was
responsible or the parish. I doubt that it was a jury trial. I think Jimmy
Peters was judge then ( might have been LaSalle parish ) ... Jimmy went
with the parish, I think. Smart move on his part. If you give me the
citation, I'll look it up when I get to work this morning and give you a
report.
(Why did you not quote this one too?)
> It's amazing to me that he loses so freely on these minor league reported
> cases, yet he's batting 1.000 in "major jury trials" that he can't name
> (not to mention that *none* of these *major* cases - all 43 -- were ever
> appealed).
Oh, I don't know, Bill ... I am still waiting for you to mention just one
jury trial that you had and I will give you the first caption on one of the
big ones. I am still waiting. You have to pay for your porriage. Quid pro
quo.
The cases your research has found are not jury trials.
> It all seems a little bit...what's the word...counter-intuitive to me. One
> pattern that seems to emerge is that he has a proclivity for ill-advised
> appeals. I guess he has problems being told he is wrong?
I will give you a caption as soon as you give me one. Fair? Why do you
keep snipping that simple request.
I appeal cases when my client tells me to appeal. You?
So far you are the epitome of pettyness.
> Another bit of irony here: you know how he has been endlessly railing
> about "frivolous lawsuits?" Take a look at the third paragraph of the
> decision below:
>
> "Mrs. Pickels filed suit against Mr. Brown on May 5, 1981, asserting that,
> because of his defective workmanship, he was legally indebted to Mrs.
> Pickels in the amount of $4,500. This $4,500 total was constituted by the
> $3,000 allegedly necessary to repair her front stoop, and by an additional
> $1,500 representing mental anguish, embarrassment, personal suffering and
> loss of sleep caused by the deteriorated condition of her veranda."
Why did you not say that in the first place. Mrs. Pickels was my mother.
I won the case. It was affirmed on appeal.
> Yes, you read that right. Mr. Anti-Frivolous actually claimed $1,500 for
> "mental anguish, embarrassment, personal suffering, and loss of sleep"...
> over a *leaky veranda*! LOL!!! Even the Jerry Springer Show rejects who
> make it onto the Judge Judy show know better than to pull that crap.
>
> Stay tuned. I am thinking of doing a full series, case by case, expos� on
> the stellar legal career of RGP's own self-proclaimed legal Superstar,
> John "mental anguish" Pickels. Some of the cases are really quite
> humorous.
It will be fun to stroll down memory lane. At least you posted the case and
gave a citation.
You did notice that I won even this silly case for my mother. Have you ever
won a case, Bill?
Even won one?
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi6os6x...@recgroups.com...
>> You are the one without a clue. *Everyone* is exposed to the risk
>> of
>> medical catastrophe. If you don't have the assets to cover that
>> risk
>> (which few do), and you refuse to buy insurance to cover that risk,
>> and you know that society will take care of you (which it will) in
>> the
>> event that risk materializes, then you are FREELOADING.
>>
>> That should not be that difficult for even you to understand. It is
>> very straightforward. I would estimate most bright 8 year olds
>> could
>> grasp it. Are you still having difficulty understanding?
>
> so you're suggesting we cover these costs by enforcing the purchase
> of an
> insurance plan that costs even more. your choice of a lucrative
> career as
> a paralegal is making perfect sense.
Wow, you really are as dumb as a box of rocks, and you have no
compunction about displaying it to the world.
Yes, I am suggesting the responsible thing to do is to purchase your
own insurance to cover your own risks rather than foist that risk upon
complete strangers. That is why people are obligated by law to
purchase automobile liability insurance in most jurisdictions. Maybe
it will take some broke, uninsured driver to total your car, put you
in a wheelchair, and leave you with no financial recourse whatsoever
before you will be able to fully grasp the concept. I am confident
that if that happened to you, you'd understand right away....but then
again, you have surprised me many times with your stupidity.
susan
You still see no difference between automobile insurance and health
insurance?
O-PGManager
> > don't like BillB, but how can you argue that a "self-insured" 25 year old
> > who gets in a car wreck and runs up a 300k bill before his life is saved
> > and has no hope of paying it off isn't freeloading?
>
> because, ON AVERAGE, insurance costs more than its provision. i'm
> beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really works.
>
> mo_charles
Of course it does, that's the cost of protection against catastrophe.
Either you pay it, or after catastrophe happens everyone else does - or we
can perform Susan's mythical "Insta-insurance means income test" on every
bleeding accident victim and let those who can't cover their treatment
bleed to death out back.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
________________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
> > of an
> > insurance plan that costs even more. your choice of a lucrative
> > career as
> > a paralegal is making perfect sense.
>
> Wow, you really are as dumb as a box of rocks, and you have no
> compunction about displaying it to the world.
>
> Yes, I am suggesting the responsible thing to do is to purchase your
> own insurance to cover your own risks rather than foist that risk upon
> complete strangers. That is why people are obligated by law to
> purchase automobile liability insurance in most jurisdictions. Maybe
> it will take some broke, uninsured driver to total your car, put you
> in a wheelchair, and leave you with no financial recourse whatsoever
> before you will be able to fully grasp the concept. I am confident
> that if that happened to you, you'd understand right away....but then
> again, you have surprised me many times with your stupidity.
.. if he'd paid for insurance, society would have been much better off!
liability insurance for cars? LOL.
mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
> > beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really works.
>
and yet nobody on your side wants to do without the overhead. why not?
> Either you pay it, or after catastrophe happens everyone else does - or we
> can perform Susan's mythical "Insta-insurance means income test" on every
> bleeding accident victim and let those who can't cover their treatment
> bleed to death out back.
that's the goddamn point. we all pay anyway, but with enforced insurance
we pay MORE than it actually costs. how dumb are you guys?
mo_charles
----�
O-PGManager
> officer and the firefighter and the congressman and the senator and the IRS
> agent and every other federal, state and local government official is being
> paid by "other people" to perform services.
So what? Everyone is paid by "people" to perform services.
> They are paid with tax dollars
> from "other people" ... people that do not provide government services.
This is a meaningless distinction. All are paid for providing services -
some deemed necessary by private citizens, others deemed necessary by
society at large.
> for example: those that collect that money and give it back to the
> employee for the "rest" of his or her wages.)
What the hell is this example referring to? Some sort of mythical "living
wage" program that exists in your mind?
> There is a good reason for taxes and for government to provide services ...
> but the payment comes from those that pay taxes and are NOT government
> employees.
This is ridiculous. The payment comes from those who provide a service
that's paid for either publicly or privately. The only way this claim is
accurate is if you insist those in the private sector derive zero benefit
to doing business via their tax dollars.
> The government employees are not suckling off the teat, but they
> do not contribute money to run the government.
Good lord... this really is a bizarre train of thought you are on. They
provide services that get consumed by the public and get compensated for
said services. A portion of the money they receive for providing services
is taxed - same as everyone else.
> Government employees get
> their money from producers.
And producers use government services in order to produce.
> The question is whether it is better to have
> taxes and government provide a product or a service or is it better for
> individuals or groups of individuals or companies to provide whatever
> service or product is under consideration.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous insinuation that
government employees are some sort of welfare class - existing only
through the largess of the private sector.
> I would think that fire and police are reasonable government services. I
> think that the armed services are reasonable uses of our tax dollars.
> Somewhere along the line, government decided that it should be the provider
> of more and more services and (in my opinion) it has overstepped its bounds.
>
> Is there even one federal or state or local government entity that you feel
> is "unnecessary?" Even one?
There are lots. But you didn't even try to distinguish between the
valuable and not valuable government employees - you accuse me of not
being able to tell the difference but is YOU who just lumped them
altogether. Only now when I bring up firefighters and police do you begin
to backtrack and conclude some provide valuable service - well at least
you backtracked.
> I know that you believe that the supply of "tax dollars" is unending
Now you're just being a prick. It's patently clear through my entire
history here that I don't believe that.
> and
> that the government services are "productive" and that borrowing to pay for
> this never ending increase in government spending has no consequences ...
> but I disagree.
Back to using the ridiculously broad brush painting all government
services as "unproductive"...
> We pay taxes for government services. There is a limited supply of tax
> dollars available. The government is taking too much in tax dollars for too
> many "programs" ... there is no effort to slow the increase of government
> growth. You believe there is no problem. I disagree.
If this had been your original post I would've had no problem with it
(aside from the usual stupidly wrong insult). But this isn't what you
said - you made a ridiculous insinuation that government employees as a
class don't contribute to growing the economic pie.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------�
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cIWdnWlXCfP...@giganews.com...
> Now that would be reported. How about the citation. I don't
> remember this one. (I find that you quoted the case below ... that
> case was tried in city court in Shreveport ... Mrs. Pickels is my
> mother. I wond the case. The appeal is direct from city court.
> The appellate court affirmed the judgement of the trial court.)
HAHAHA...perfect example of how much of a delusional liar you are. You
sued for $4,500 and got $1000. That is not substantial success.
Then you appealed that decision (see the word "appellant" next to Mrs.
Pickels name?), and the trial decision was affirmed. That means you
LOST your appeal, and exposed your mother to costs for the appeal. Are
you a liar, or are you just plain stupid? Two court hearing, and loss
on appeal, to recover a measly $1000. And you call that a "win". No
wonder you have won "43 major jury trial". A loss is a win to you!
>> I also found the big cow-hit-by-car case he lost at trial *and* on
>> appeal. I also found a few others he lost.
> Now, that would be reported too. Citation. Wait, I remember a case
> in Catahoula or Concordia parish involving a guy whose cow got over
> a parish cattle gap and was hit by a car. The issue was whether the
> owner was responsible or the parish. I doubt that it was a jury
> trial. I think Jimmy Peters was judge then ( might have been
> LaSalle parish ) ... Jimmy went with the parish, I think. Smart
> move on his part. If you give me the citation, I'll look it up when
> I get to work this morning and give you a report.
>
> (Why did you not quote this one too?)
I see, the judge was biased against you. And the appeal court was too,
right? LOL!!
> Oh, I don't know, Bill ... I am still waiting for you to mention
> just one jury trial that you had and I will give you the first
> caption on one of the big ones. I am still waiting. You have to
> pay for your porriage. Quid pro quo.
I don't remember making any such claims. If you can show me making any
claims about winning jury trials (major or minor), then I will either
provide you proof, or admit I am a liar. Why won't you do the same?
> I will give you a caption as soon as you give me one. Fair? Why do
> you keep snipping that simple request.
So let me get your logic straight. If you claim you are an astronaut
who has been to Mars, and I ask you for proof of same, you will not
provide that proof until I first prove that *I* have been to Mars,
even though I never made such a claim? Is that your warped logic? You
are a horrible tap dancer.
I have never claimed I have won any jury trials. I have never claimed
I have won any trials at all. I have never claimed I succeeded on any
motions. I have never claimed I won a case in traffic court. I have
never never claimed I won a case in small claims court. YOU made the
outlandish claims, remember? Either you can back those claims up, or
you cannot. It is quite obvious to everyone reading this that you
cannot. Who do you think you are fooling? You lied about your "legal
writing career", and you lied about your "43 major jury trials." Just
admit it; you will feel better.
> I appeal cases when my client tells me to appeal. You?
It's that simple, is it? LOL! You aren't much of a lawyer then.
>> "Mrs. Pickels filed suit against Mr. Brown on May 5, 1981,
>> asserting that, because of his defective workmanship, he was
>> legally indebted to Mrs. Pickels in the amount of $4,500. This
>> $4,500 total was constituted by the $3,000 allegedly necessary to
>> repair her front stoop, and by an additional $1,500 representing
>> mental anguish, embarrassment, personal suffering and loss of sleep
>> caused by the deteriorated condition of her veranda."
>
>
> Why did you not say that in the first place. Mrs. Pickels was my
> mother.
>
> I won the case. It was affirmed on appeal.
You sued for $4500, and was awarded $1000. Then YOU appealed that
award, and you lost the appeal, exposing your mother to the costs of
the appeal, which were probably more than the amount you were awarded
in the first place. Why are you such a compulsive liar?
And why would someone so opposed to "frivolous lawsuits", try to pad
their client's damages 50% for "mental anguish, embarrassment,
personal suffering, and loss of sleep" in a minor small claims
contract case about shoddy workmanship? Did you really believe such a
claim had any reasonable chance of success?
> You did notice that I won even this silly case for my mother. Have
> you ever won a case, Bill?
>
> Even won one?
I have never made any claim about winning or losing cases one way or
the other. Why should I tell you anything? You are a stalker. You are
the one making outrageous, self-serving claims. Put up or shut up.
Travel A
"Mo are you ok lately? You're usually way better than this. I know you
don't like BillB, but how can you argue that a "self-insured" 25 year
old who gets in a car wreck and runs up a 300k bill before his life is
saved and has no hope of paying it off isn't freeloading?"
Mo_Charles wrote:
because, ON AVERAGE, insurance costs more than its provision. i'm
beginning to think you guys haven't got a clue how this shit really
works.
mo_charles
They don't. They follow disastrous Euro-socialism health care as a
pardigm of success for health care in America. What do you expect?
They're idiots.
Dopey Manager's all demagoguery and no brains. Take away the lame sob
stories, and he's drooling.
As Judge Bork said: Socialism absurd in theory and a disaster in
practice.
Stupid gets real stupid when someone uses real-life examples of proven,
miserable failure as the basis of their "argument".
The Soviet Union collapsed, Europe's eroding heavily under the strain of
decades of "big government" entitlement programs, China's going the
other way to full-blown market economy, and these morons are still
communists. What do you expect but left wing, buzzword idiocy from them?
The nuts in the White House have already blown 3.2 trillion in left-wing
payoffs, and these quippy, smug assholes think it's cool to put everyone
in the country on a massive, watered down Medicare health care "plan"
that can't possibly be anything but total failure.
80% of the country like their health care in America. Keep, and improve
the current system, that's the best that can be done.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:C9eKm.30003$1g6....@newsfe10.iad...
> You still see no difference between automobile insurance and health
> insurance?
Of course I see a difference. One is for cars, and one is for bodies,
but the principle is the same. If you refuse to buy medical insurance,
and you can't personally cover the worst case risks, and you know
society will cover you if that risk materializes, you are foisting you
own personal risk on others (society). It is the same as driving a car
without liability insurance. You are foisting the *your* risk on
others, albeit a smaller group of people.
By refusing to buy medical insurance, you are foisting your risk on
society as a whole. By refusing to buy automobile liability insurance,
you are foisting your risk on whoever you may crash into. It's the
exact same principal. It's freeloading.
susan
"BillB"
> By refusing to buy medical insurance, you are foisting your risk on
> society as a whole.
And this is where I have a major problem. Why? If you are making x dollars
and could by most everyones standards afford it, then I am not wanting to
pay for your hospital stay.
> By refusing to buy automobile liability insurance, you are foisting your
> risk on whoever you may crash into. It's the exact same principal. It's
> freeloading.
Well, Opie and others have convinced me. In fact, they are showing just how
dumb PDS is by paying her own way. I am no longer going to pay for health
insurance, auto insurance or any other insurance. I will from this point
forward count on them paying my way. In fact, I think the whole USofA
should do this.
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:QWeKm.24552$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
>
> "BillB"
>
>> By refusing to buy medical insurance, you are foisting your risk on
>> society as a whole.
>
> And this is where I have a major problem. Why? If you are making x
> dollars and could by most everyones standards afford it, then I am
> not wanting to pay for your hospital stay.
I'm sorry, I am confused about what you are saying here. It sounds
like you are now agreeing that everyone should be personally
responsible and purchase their own insurance. I thought you were
arguing the opposite a minute ago.
> Well, Opie and others have convinced me. In fact, they are showing
just how
> dumb PDS is by paying her own way. I am no longer going to pay for
> health insurance, auto insurance or any other insurance. I will
> from this point forward count on them paying my way. In fact, I
> think the whole USofA should do this.
Unfortunately, there are large groups of people who think this way. If
you have no assets, and therefore nothing to lose, why should you buy
liability insurance (or health insurance, for that matter)? If you
wipe out a family, or crash into someone's house, or suddenly need a
heart bypass, you are judgment proof, so that's everyone else's tough
luck!
It's clearly immoral, and it leads to grave injustices and hardship on
entirely innocent people. That's why they need laws to enforce the
need to insure yourself, because for people with little or nothing to
lose (by way of assets) and no conscience, having no insurance is
clearly the way to go. Just let everyone else bear the risk/cost for
you. If enough people start thinking this way, as has started to
happen, then insurance becomes so expensive that more and more people
*have* to drop their coverage, because they can simply no longer
afford it, and the whole process snowballs. That is going on in the US
right now with medical insurance. So many people are freeloading, that
insurance is becoming unaffordable for those who want it, because they
are carrying the costs for those who refuse to buy it. But if you are
a middle class person such as yourself, with something to lose, you
are caught between a rock and a hard place (because of the
irresponsibility of others with far less to lose). You either agree to
cover the freeloaders (through high insurance premiums), or risk
losing everything you have worked for yourself. That is clearly
unfair.