Putin calls USA a parasite on the world economy!

[OlgaH]

I don't think tort reform has to be difficult to achieve.  Compensatory damages are quite ok but it's the punitive damages for emotional distress, pain and other non tangible items that make up a part of the overall costs.  I haven't a clue as to how much, but maybe Olga can give us an idea what the compensatory vs punitive damage ratio is.  A first step might be to limit punitive damages.

Non-economic damages also known as quality life damages. Physical and psychological effects, emotional distress have a great impact on people  life. Sometimes people have to go through psychological therapy that quiet expensive. Sometimes they have to take pain killers for the rest of their life. That is also not so cheap. Sometimes according to experts people have to have several additional surgeries during their life that is also very expensive.   

The compensatory vs punitive damage ratio depends on each case. It can be for example 25% of plaintiff's fault or 50/50 and so on.

Plaintiff has to prove his/her economic loss and physical, emotional, psychological suffering. And it is not so easy as someone can think especially in some cases of medical malpractice and many different experts are involved from both sides, a plaintiff has to go through different kind of examinations, and it depends whose facts the jury will believe. Person's background also plays an important role. 

[BC]

Olga,

thanks for the explanation.

I guess what I'm looking for is if you feel punitive damages are a large part of the overall settlement picture.  By punitive damages I don't mean future costs of pain meds, therapy or quality of life issues.  That would be compensatory damages.

To put it boldly, what I am looking for is if you feel the amounts being awarded include a high percentage of moneys that will end up going towards 'other things' like spent on buying a new home or paying off a mortgage, buying a car, traveling, luxury shopping, whatever..

[OlgaH]

One case we worked on we called "Vagina Case". After surgery was performed in a young woman's vagina after she gave a birth to her first child, a doctor left a surgical sponge inside. The woman discovered the sponge after three days when she was sent home with her child.  She complained on pain and vaginal infection with discharge and emotional distress. Examination and analyses from the doctor she went to actually showed no infection. The woman was a nurse by her profession, she even froze the sponge as evidence. There were 6 men and one woman in the jury. By their body language and facial expressions I can tell they did not show any signs of their support to the woman's story despite of the experts, testimonies and evidence by the plaintiff. 

[OlgaH]

Olga,

thanks for the explanation.

I guess what I'm looking for is if you feel punitive damages are a large part of the overall settlement picture.  By punitive damages I don't mean future costs of pain meds, therapy or quality of life issues.  That would be compensatory damages.

To put it boldly, what I am looking for is if you feel the amounts being awarded include a high percentage of moneys that will end up going towards 'other things' like spent on buying a new home or paying off a mortgage, buying a car, traveling, luxury shopping, whatever..

BC, sorry for misunderstanding, confused with comparative negligence. My fault especially when I try to do several things at once. Again it depends on a case, sometimes the jury don't give any punitive damages. Regarding the amounts I have to look through our cases we worked on, just to be sure. 

[Gator]

Regarding tort awards, I understand the reasoning behind them on individual cases, yet taken on the whole it has reached a luxury level that we probably can not afford as a nation. Similarly, a strong military has always been important, yet it too has been taken to a level that we can not afford.
 
America must reduce its debt, and such luxuries must be pared.  These are not the only targets.  There are many, many luxuries and sources of unproductive spending. Everyone's ox will lose some blood.  Life will be good.

[Gator]

Comments by SF&EE and a few others tend to echo the repeated message from Obama -- it is obscene to be especially successful in business.  Frankly, such talk sounds like class warfare, which has never been part of the American tradition. 
 
I am not claiming this is Misha's sentiment, yet he posted something that I was thinking about when I retired for the evening.
 

The top 10% wealthiest Americans own a measly 70.9% of all American assets. Why burden them on their quest to 80, 90 and 100% 

 
I don't understand how this concentration is an abnormality for America, and I especially do not understand how this is bad. 
 
The source you quoted reports the following for the Top 1% and 20%:
 
Percentage of Total US Net Worth
 
Top 1%       1983   33.8%
                 2007   34.6%
 
Top 20%      1983    81.3%
                  2007    85.0%
 
I do not see a significant difference over 24 years, and  I don't recall complaints in the early 1980s about concentration.   I have absolutely no data, yet I would guess that the concentration at the top was even greater in the 1880s given railroad barons and other robber barons.
 
Keeping this relevant to RWD, I need only look at the Soviet Union when communism distributed their "wealth" fairly evenly across all classes.  Surely those who complain about concentration of wealth are not suggesting a socialized system.   

[SFandEE]

Comments by SF&EE and a few others tend to echo the repeated message from Obama -- it is obscene to be especially successful in business.

I have been misrepresented by you to create your own story


Institutionalized corruption is obscene.  Think of playing a board game, do you know Monopoly?  Where the banker creates the rules as they go along, changes the rules for the other players and can print money when he wants.  That is obscene.  Buying the government or making the government impotent in creating a playing field where all can compete fairly.


Class warfare is being committed in the US--serfdom exists.  Why are the borders kept open during a time of terrorism?  To keep wages low--as the General Contractors the wage difference between an undocumented worker and a union roofer.


I have no interest in discussions with false representations of my comments.  I also notice a failure to answer fair questions by those who disagree with me, while I try to be responsive.  Ignored questions mean not able to address logical, intelligent disagreement.  No more give without some better communication.


Those who do not understand the issue with paying a CEO of UHC $1.6 billion compensation are not worth talking with.  Just go in peace.  We disagree.  I cannot entertain your ability to understand markets.  He did not make $1.6 billion because he earned $1.6 billion or that he was the best value, he got paid $1.6 billion because that is what he spent his time negotiating and then making happen.  This is not the type of CEO that should be responsible for insuring health--$1.6 billion is an example of corrupt capitalism.  The stubborness to fail to address the corrupt compensation of health care executives in a discuss rather than accusing me of be a socialist means you are shooting blanks.  The system, the institutions are broken.  Yes or no.  You say "no", I say "yes".  Go in peace, just stop trying to sound like you are discussing the issues.

[Muzh]

Comments by SF&EE and a few others tend to echo the repeated message from Obama -- it is obscene to be especially successful in business.  Frankly, such talk sounds like class warfare, which has never been part of the American tradition. 
 

I don't think any one here stated that it is obscene to be successful in business. What people here are calling obscene is the lack of payback for all the money they make. You know, the ratio of profit over welfare at the expense of the middle class. THAT is the class warfare being waged by the Gilded Class. That's what is obscene.
 
The funny thing is that it is everyone, liberal and conservative Joe Schmucks, who are paying for this inequality.
 
What I'm claiming is that the UberRich should have the same level of tax liability as I have (in relative terms, of course). That he is not a better human being than I am and deserves to be excluded. But everything being equal is socialism.

[Muzh]

. Damned button.

[TheTraveler]

When libs discuss wealth redistribution... all I ever hear about publicly is millionaires, billionaires, uber-wealthy, robber barons, corporate jet owners, the CEO of Merrill Lynch, some dead dude in his car in Colorado....
 
But when put to paper, every lib proposal that I've seen regarding taxing the wealthy starts by increasing taxes on middle class families who earn $250K+ per year.
 
If they thought they had a valid point, why the need to be deceptive about whom they're targeting for redistribution?
 
The main relevance to RWD is that the average Russian woman is far too smart to not recognize the inherent class envy... and it's unattractive in a man.

[SFandEE]

The main relevance to RWD is that the average Russian woman is far too smart to not recognize the inherent class envy... and it's unattractive in a man.

As spokesman for Russians--is white collar crime and tax evasion that allows a man to be wealthy attractive in a man?  Even easier for you--is it the same as a man who creates his wealth by honoring his tax obligations and earning his income by being an honest businessman/professional/worker?


Answer here _____________________________


I have been talking about corruption--none of you have addressed corruption.  You are having a conversation with yourselves and proclaiming yourselves enlightened.  When I see someone babbling to themselves I think something else.

[Muzh]

When libs discuss wealth redistribution... all I ever hear about publicly is millionaires, billionaires, uber-wealthy, robber barons, corporate jet owners, the CEO of Merrill Lynch, some dead dude in his car in Colorado....
 
But when put to paper, every lib proposal that I've seen regarding taxing the wealthy starts by increasing taxes on middle class families who earn $250K+ per year.
 
If they thought they had a valid point, why the need to be deceptive about whom they're targeting for redistribution?
 
The main relevance to RWD is that the average Russian woman is far too smart to not recognize the inherent class envy... and it's unattractive in a man.

I hope you understand the difference between 'wealth redistribution' and paying fair share of taxes.
 
My wife recognizes the abuse and it is not called class envy.

[Gator]

SF&EE,
 
No offense intended, yet your posts impressed me to write such.  If you say that is not you, then good.  We learned that you did not vote for Nancy Pelosi, and yet you reminded me of her  philosophy.
 
It is apparent that you are an educated and intelligent man.  And it seems that you have a keen knowledge of what you speak.  Yet, you use nebulous terms (e. g., institutionalized corruption) and the examples you choose seem to center on compensation.  So I am unclear as   to your particular concern/objective.
 
When you identify a CEO of United Healthcare as a parasite is it not the business of his company that you dislike.  Would United's case managers for cancer patients have done anything different from other HMOs if the CEO made only $500,000 instead of 1.6 Bil?  Perhaps explaining the need for reform of the HMOs would be better than protesting a CEO's compensation.  But I don't think that is it.
 
SF&EE, you are a good writer.  Please describe in one sentence what you think should be changed and how much this would help to reduce America's debt.

[Turboguy]

Institutionalized corruption is obscene. 

To me all corruption is obscene but I think far more about the corruption that occurs on the lower end of the scale than the upper end.  The corruption among those receiving help and benfits is far worse and amounts to much more money than some executives who some feel are overpaid.   Not only that but we have little choice but to pay it out of our own pockets where with a business we can chose to patronize that business or not. 
 
It doesn't bother me a bit that someone is paid 5 million or so to run a corporate entity.  Someone felt he had the knowledge, wisdom and intelligence to be worth that.  Maybe they were wrong but there are reasons people with those jobs are not paid peanuts.  Yes, some are crooks and some are inept. 

[Muzh]

When you identify a CEO of United Healthcare as a parasite is it not the business of his company that you dislike.  Would United's case managers for cancer patients have done anything different from other HMOs if the CEO made only $500,000 instead of 1.6 Bil?  Perhaps explaining the need for reform of the HMOs would be better than protesting a CEO's compensation.  But I don't think that is it.
 

Ever heard of cause and effect? You can bet your sweet beepie that the CEO directs how the managers are going to treat ALL patients, not only cancer patients. If a CEO is so detached from his company's doings, you think he will last long there? How do you think the megaconglomerates hire CEOs. Because their good looks?
 
Now you are going to tell me that neither Murdoch had any knowledge of the hacking.

[GQBlues]

Institutionalized...corruption..., Hhhhmmm...getting something undeserved...dunno, sounds a lot like welfare (entitlements) to me.

[Misha]

Now, before you tell me that there have been OTHER advances, look at the stage of research for cancer prevention. I mean, since when? Or HIV vaccination. And the list goes on. Why such a delay? First, it is government sponsored, and second, there is no profit on this.

There is intriguing research being conducted at the University of Alberta that could be a potential cure for some cancers. However, because the medication involved cannot be patented, no large pharmaceuticals have rushed forward to fund more research and testing as there is no money to be made. What funding has been given is government funding:

The DCA compound is not patented and not owned by any pharmaceutical company, and, therefore, would likely be an inexpensive drug to administer, says Michelakis, the Canada Research Chair in Pulmonary Hypertension and Director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program with Capital Health, one of Canada's largest health authorities.

However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials. He is grateful for the support he has already received from publicly funded agencies, such as the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), and he is hopeful such support will continue and allow him to conduct clinical trials of DCA on cancer patients.Michelakis' research is currently funded by the CIHR, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs program, and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

"This preliminary research is encouraging and offers hope to thousands of Canadians and all others around the world who are afflicted by cancer, as it accelerates our understanding of and action around targeted cancer treatments," said Dr. Philip Branton, Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Cancer.

Three years later:

Medical Researchers at the University of Alberta reported today evidence that the orphan generic drug Dichloroacetate (DCA) may hold promise as potential therapy for perhaps the deadliest of all human cancers: a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma.


...


One of the intriguing features of this work was that it was funded largely by public donations, including philanthropic foundations and individuals. In addition, it received support by Alberta public institutions, both the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Sciences.

The researchers continue to look for funding to continue their work.

[BC]

There is intriguing research being conducted at the University of Alberta that could be a potential cure for some cancers. However, because the medication involved cannot be patented, no large pharmaceuticals have rushed forward to fund more research and testing as there is no money to be made. What funding has been given is government funding:

 


Three years later:



The researchers continue to look for funding to continue their work.

Misha,

The University of Alberta's DCA Research Team is set to launch clinical trials on humans in the spring of 2007 pending government approval.

Did anything come about in these clinical trials?

[Faux Pas]

FP

In most scenarios capital investments in machines and other equipment are already included in current costs.

I the profits seen in healthcare are for a good part driven by defensive medicine, or overprescribing tests and fancy diagnostics so that a doctor can't be sued because some test was not done that may have discovered something.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

BC


You lost me here. Either you completely misread my post/point. Which was, the advances of medical science is "because" of the capitalist system. Your later point there is that is correct. Doctors very often order a wide array of tests. I happen to have a number of Doctors as close friends and hear them talking among themselves and even including me in from time to time.


When confronted with a patient the first move is to determine yes or no, they do in fact have something wrong with them. The second move is to start the process of elimination of what that may be. They start out with everything it could possibly be and hope to narrow it down from information from various tests. More often than not they order tests the patient doesn't need but, they don't know that until the test results are complete. This is necessary to "cover their ass/bases" as it relates to medical malpractice insurance.

FP, you have no idea how true that research and development will dissapear. Imagine TV without ads for hard on pills, I don't care pills, beautiful skin pills, eliminating smelly feet pills, sleep all night and hallucinate pills, etc.
 
Now, before you tell me that there have been OTHER advances, look at the stage of research for cancer prevention. I mean, since when? Or HIV vaccination. And the list goes on. Why such a delay? First, it is government sponsored, and second, there is no profit on this.
 
Of course, if you smell my feet in a nice, hot, summer day you'll understand why pharmaceuticals have spent billon$$$$ in the development of this drug and others. (That's billions with a B)

Muzh,


I agree with the first part here but beg to differ on the latter. Cancer is the most researched topic in the medical field. There are billions or trillions dollars spent in universities and private labs all over the world looking for breakthroughs. The same with HIV and most other well known diseases and afflictions. With both government grants and private funding.


The the discoveries or breakthroughs of cures leads to other discoveries and cures. People, governments and investment capitalist believe in this and invest their money, hoping for a breakthrough and wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Why shouldn't they? Why is this so inherently wrong in some peoples eyes?

[Misha]

Misha,

Did anything come about in these clinical trials?

This from the latest news release:

By extracting glioblastomas from 49 patients over a period of 2 years and studying them within minutes of removal in the operating room, the team showed that tumors respond to DCA by changing their metabolism. Then, the team treated 5 patients with advanced glioblastoma and secured tumor tissues before and after the DCA therapy. By comparing the two, the team showed that DCA works in these tumors exactly as was predicted by test tube experiments. This is very important because often the results in non-human models tested in the lab do not agree with the results in patients. In addition, the team showed that DCA has anti-cancer effects by altering the metabolism of glioblastoma cancer stem cells, the cells thought responsible for the recurrences of cancer.

[TheTraveler]

I hope you understand the difference between 'wealth redistribution' and paying fair share of taxes.

Wealth redistribution =
 
* Households in the lowest quintile (20%) of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004 (paid much less than their 'fair share').
 
* Households in the middle quintile (20%) received $1.30 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004 (paid less than their 'fair share').
 
* Households in the top quintile (20%) received $0.41 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004 (paid much more than their 'fair share').
 
Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles (top 40%) of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles.
 
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf
 
In other words, wealth redistribution = our current taxation system.

[Gator]

"Institutionalized corruption is obscene."  To me all corruption is obscene ...

How about, the corrupt should be institutionalized. 

[Gator]

Ever heard of cause and effect? You can bet your sweet beepie that the CEO directs how the managers are going to treat ALL patients, not only cancer patients.

Yes, policy and guidelines come from the CEO.  My question, did United Healthcare do anything differently than other HMOs?  I don't know peanuts about HMOs other than if they are like insurance companies they will first look for valid reasons to deny coverage.
 
 

[Gator]

What I'm claiming is that the UberRich should have the same level of tax liability as I have (in relative terms, of course).

What is fair?  The US FIT is already progressive (tax rate increases as income increases).  You want this changed and how?  Many of the wealthy pay relatively low taxes because of deductions.  The Simpson Bowles report suggested a simpler approach with no deductions (including no deductions for mortgage interest and home RE taxes).

That he is not a better human being than I am and deserves to be excluded.

????

[Muzh]

I agree with the first part here but beg to differ on the latter. Cancer is the most researched topic in the medical field. There are billions or trillions dollars spent in universities and private labs all over the world looking for breakthroughs. The same with HIV and most other well known diseases and afflictions. With both government grants and private funding.

Ponder this for a second. Cancer is the dedeferentiation of cells. In lymans terms a basal cell is born and has no function. This cell goes thhrough a deferentiation process trigered by RNAs and becomes a functional cell (skin cell, lung cell, etc.) Somewhere in the process one of the "switches" are turned off and RNAs go back sending messages that it is time to go back so the cell reverts to its basal form (dedeferentiation).
 
Now consider ED. There is a slew of conditions that give rise to ED. You name it and it is there. Impossible to determine. Somewhere in another universe there are pharmacological tests to determine marketability of an effective dosage for hypertension. This is a controlled experiment with human beings. This is typical; I participated in a few. The response was not the one expected. Too drastic a drop in BP but massive hard ons on all subjects. Oops, we found a gold mine. Spent countless hours and $$ to come out with an effective dose. Since this is a protected procedure, other pharmas have to start from scratch. Think about the money spent. (Getting to my point, bear with me)
In comes genome mapping. Not complete mapping, just what they need to know. Again, put a price figure on this. How long it took the other pharmas to challenge Viagra? A couple of years? At what cost?
 
Genome mapping. The most certain way to get to the bottom of dedeferentiation.
 

The the discoveries or breakthroughs of cures leads to other discoveries and cures. People, governments and investment capitalist believe in this and invest their money, hoping for a breakthrough and wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Why shouldn't they? Why is this so inherently wrong in some peoples eyes?

Did you hear me say it is wrong to have wealth beyond their wildest dreams?