davjohns

I absolutey get your point. And it is a valid one. I started out saying I don't want to villify doctors and I don't. However, I think the vast majority of the emotional reaction to med mal is generated by insurance companies. I think you will find out that a huge part of the 'dictating to' also comes from insurance companies. Who wants 'tort reform'. Did you guess 'insurance companies'? Good for you! It is not a patient vs doctor thing. It isn't even a lawyer vs doctor thing. However, there is a money maker in there that wants it to appear so. So, of course, our new health insurance legislation makes everyone buy insurance. Hmmmm.... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

NRA + NASCAR = Death Race! I like it. Where do I sign up? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Everyone views things through their personal prism. I am living in Belgium. They have significant income tax and a national 22% sales tax. They call it a Value Added Tax (VAT). Obviously, that means value is added to the government coffers. Garbage bags are $2 each due to tax. Fuel is about $9 per gallon thanks to tax. There is a tax for running a business from your home. Cars are inspected and taxed heavily. Etc. Government services are horrible. Civil Servants practice the phrase, "It's not possible" in multiple languages. It's the only phrase they are proficient at. Meanwhile, I am living in the US 1940's or 50's. No air conditioning. Radiators for heat. Heating oil has to be delivered to the tank out back (also heavily taxed). The streets are terrible. One car families are the norm. It's hard to find any product unless I shop online and have it sent from the US. Everything is very expensive. Quality of life is much below what the US enjoys. People shower infrequently because it costs so much for water and heating it. I've never thought things would get better if we just took more money from those who earned it and gave it to government to spend on keeping politicians in power. It just doesn't make sense to me. Being here hasn't changed that any. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I own Braveheart. I've watched it a few times. I never knew there was a junk shot in it. I will not be watching it to find the shot. Turns out I have not watched a huge percentage of the movies people are citing on here. Not sure why that is. I had no idea that many actresses had gone topless in movies. I continue to be a very odd person...and getting more remote daily. Ah well. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't want to villify doctors, but if they are getting out of the industry, it is because they have made lots of money and can afford to. It is not because of medical malpractice (unless they are just that bad at medicine). In Alabama, you can't just prove the doctor's negligence caused a problem. It has to be clear and unambiguous. Doctors enjoy legal immunities that ordinary citizens don't. And if it is a billing problem...guess what? It falls under medical malpractice. The same standard applies and their insurance defends it. In order to prove the doctor was negligent, I need an expert witness with the exact same qualifications as the negligent doctor. Makes sense, right? Except that if the negligent heart surgeon has a certification in cosmetic surgery, I have to find an expert heart surgeon with a certification in cosmetic surgery. Then, you have to pay your expert witness to come in from out of state (Alabama doctors all have the same insurance carrier and are forbidden to testify against each other), pay expenses, and then see your trial changed to another date so you go through it over and over again. Like I said before, the rule in Alabama is easy. If you are healthy enough to contact an attorney, you don't have a viable med mal case. This is in line with what Jerry said. Unless the patient is dead or a vegetable, the doctor is likely to head off to T time without a second thought about med mal. I know. I know. We need reform to protect the poor doctors. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

When I was practicing, I have to tell you I didn't see that. Settlement is certainly part of the decision to file a case. The filing of the case puts pressure on to work something out. But it just isn't cost effective to file cases that can't win. Especially, in Medical Malpractice cases; the insurance companies will deny their own mother before admitting to wrongdoing no matter what the facts. I'm sure there is abuse of the system. However, the cases I have seen held up as examples have turned out to be poor examples once you knew the facts. I remember reading about the Liebeck v. McDonald's case in law school. Everything I had heard about that case was a lie. Once you knew the facts, you wanted to give that woman lots of money. I'm pretty comfortable trusting decisions to a jury of 12 that has more facts than the person hearing the stilted news report. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Judges actually have that option. It is usually reserved for cases where one side is clearly wrong. Afterall, why do you want to use it when the case was close? You have to be absolutely right before you can get a judge to decide between you? Those cases get settled before they reach a judge. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't see where it says there was no finding of gross negligence. I agree that is a lot of money. But the article indicates it was based on what it will cost to take care of the child now that it has this doctor induced disability. Without more facts, that article isn't terribly helpful. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've never exactly figured out what tort reform was needed. Care to share? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm confused. The new Sec State just promised 60Mil to Syrian rebels. CNN just said we released 250Mil to Egypt. Both countries have oil we would gladly buy lots of if they let us. Why are we worried about an automatic cut of less than 2.5% of the budget? If we are still giving money away, I can't believe we are on the brink of the abyss. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Maybe something with the Space Command emblem used by Buzz Lightyear? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sigh...it was in the link you provided. "The Secular Coalition for Alabama lobbied in opposition to SB112 because of provisions in the bill that are not included in the ballot language. Specifically, the proposed amendment removes the right to an education for Alabama's children: '..but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense..' To be clear, the no right to education "poison pill" language is a vestige of the Amendment that introduced the racist language in the first place. We want those provisions removed too, since they can still be used against children in Alabama and even to end public education." The amendment did a couple of really good things, but made it law that children are not entitled to a public education. That's why it was defeated. The amendment would not have changed racist laws. Those were changed decades ago. It would have just gone back and erased the language was overturned. But it would have also denied that Alabama children had a right to a public education. So, the bill was objectionable when entirely known. Coupled with a very powerful Alabama Education Association lobby, this bill was doomed to fail for reasons that had nothing to do with racism. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Perhaps. Every state has its own special weirdness related to law or government. Take, for example (at random, of course) Alabama. I'd never have thought that as recently as 2012 racial segregation in schools and poll taxes would be formally reaffirmed as permissible in the state. But, in fact, they are: At least Mississippi had the good taste to formally abolish slavery. This year. So yeah, people can be kinda funny. Andy...you're going to make me look up this amendment to see what it actually said. I was in Alabama (from Alabama) during the run up to the vote. The advertisements for and against this measure made it sound like they were talking about two different pieces of legislation. The ones against said if you voted for it, you were a racist. The ones for said something totally different, like you had to vote for it unless you wanted bunnies sacrificed at the beginning of church services (I don't recall exactly what it was). I suspect it was some mixed legislation that had something racial attached to something unsavory to try to play the racism card to get it through. Not really sure. You know better than most that you can't take these things at face value. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There was once an episode of the Simpsons where a character being examined by a doctor that explained to the guy that he had so many viruses, bacteria and such, that they kept each other in balance. We have cures for things we did not have. We have diseases we did not have. We have more communication. We have more junk communication and miscommunication. We have easier travel. We have easier travel for disease, crime, and corruption. We have more ideas. We have more bad ideas. We have more stuff. We have more waste. We have more free time. We waste more time. We have more food. We have more weight problems. Maybe there is a cosmic balance to things. Maybe man can not stand to be too successful and is self-limiting. Maybe we are on the verge of something big when one side of the equation gains an advantage over the other. Will it be a boom in prosperity or devastation? Life. If done properly, it's one hell of a ride. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I never knew anything about this issue. I read the two articles. One dismisses a written application for service as a 'half-hearted effort'. Strange characterization in my book. The other article cites an application to the Naval Academy, written application for service, and a hand written letter veritably begging for help in joining. I don't know what the man's thoughts and motives were, but if he was a draft dodger, he had strange tactics. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Let's stop playing patty cake on this. It really toasts my buns. This is a rising issue. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm not going to roll over. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll buy that. Personally, I just found it mildly amusing. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There is no end to what they want; they're utterly bottomless. As to what they need, the military always has to fight a war, as that's their raison d'etre. They may want us to think they need every @#$%^ aircraft carrier battle group and fighter plane that they want to deploy all over the globe, but perceptive minds know that there's only so many of those truly needed to keep our children safe in their beds at night; the rest is just Welfare to the military-industrial complex. If, in the course of sucking up and spending all those trillions of dollars (and thousands of our children's lives) for those advanced weapons systems and wars in Timbuktu, soldiers in the field are lacking enough body armor and armored humvees, the blame for that outrage lies mainly with the generals and admirals who divert those funds away from the troops so that they (the brass) can have their toys and global projections of power, and the Halliburtons (barely removed from I.G. Farben) are enriched beyond all avarice. There's your answer, ma'am. Sorry. Went to the end and saw this. Actually, we don't ask for half of what we get. Congress rams it down our throats. I still have a duffle bag full of stuff that I packed before deploying to Iraq. I knew I would not need anything in that bag. It is still packed and locked. I don't even remember what is in there. It was all clearly stuff that some contractor made money off of, but every Soldier knew was unnecessary. There are lots of programs we have to take to get the things we actually do ask for. There are lots of things we need and don't get and don't need, but get. It leads back to your representatives and what gets their supporters jobs and their contracting buddies lucrative deals. Please don't blame the military. We are just the excuse and the punching bag. If the Department of Defense was allowed, we could take the budget cuts with ease. But we are not allowed to cut the projects Congress forced on us. They tell us how the money must be spent. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not even a drop in the bucket compared to the Unlimited Welfare US military. Not really fair, Andy. No doubt, the Defense Department isn't the most svelt of government agencies, but most defense spending is directed by your congress critters. Kill that turd of an F-35 and sequester goes away right there. Quit forcing us to take equipment we didn't want or need and you can save loads. Congress mandates that money be spent on things we didn't ask for and then we get blamed. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm confused. Is Andy 'The Man' now? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Goodness, girl. So sorry. It's much safer when you use the parachute. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It's NY. It does not surprise me at all. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not QUITE what I had in mind, but I take your point. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I knew a guy who drove a truck and had a spare trailer. He put a bedroom / bath at the front and a kitchen / living room at the rear. He drove a small car into the livingroom and hauled the whole thing with his truck. When he stopped, he took the car out and used it to run around. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Lets do it! Hey just need a surplus sub from one of the third world shitholes we sold them to and we can feed the commercial whaler crews ( add the fucking MAKAH too) to all the krill and crabs there. I'm not in favor of whaling, but I have always wondered how people could justify killing humans to save animals. Seems like conflicting values to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.