boomac Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Fair enough mdeneen. Packers vs Eagles Birds get 7 pts for better coaching Birds get 2 pts for home field advantage Birds give 1 point because I grew up there now hate them Birds 8 Pack gets 2 pts for better QB Pack gets 2 pts for offensive line Pack gets 1 pt for a better running game Pack gets 3 pts because the're on a roll Pack gets 1 pt cause boomac loves them Pack loses 1 pt because fans actually wear "cheese heads" Pack 8 You call it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 There are folks that are concerned about fraudulent or frivolous claims being filed. The system usually disposes of such suits very quickly. For example, the McDonalds suit that claims the Golden Arches made them obese was dismissed quickly. There are severe sanctions avaialble for such suits. Sometimes it takes awhile to catch the clever crooks. When they do get caught, they are in serious trouble. Too much tort reform would be the equivalent of cutting off your entire nose because there is a small cancer on said nose. It is better to remove the cancer with liquid nitrogen than remove the entire nose. Alleged reform that wants to limit pain and suffering to $500,000 for being made a paraplegic is cutting off the nearly the entire nose IMO. Medical malpractice insurance is so expensive due to the costs of defending, not the cost of damages. If you think that the doctors and hospitals are sued too often, you need to be aware that one in every ten patients are injured while in the hospital. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Although I have no axe to grind here,I thought that this was interesting: "T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s."(1953-55) "Following his resignation, he made the following statement: "Congress went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion." "The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds." "The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men." "The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die." "The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men." "I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...' " http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html T. Coleman Andrews was a candidate for President on the State's Rights Party ticket in 1956. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomac Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 "For example, the McDonalds suit that claims the Golden Arches made them obese was dismissed quickly." Thank God - That was like some nut suing the teachers union because he couldn't read the fat warnings. Seems to me it was a no brainer! Still cost $$$$$ to defend. "Alleged reform that wants to limit pain and suffering to $500,000 for being made a paraplegic is cutting off the nearly the entire nose IMO." The limit in this case is unacceptable. I agree 100%. What ever the "McDonalds Lady" got above medical bills and some limited P&S is crapola. Her drinking coffee while driving is a heck of a lot more dangerous than hot coffee being served at a gut burger joint. Now McDonalds coffee is average. Hot,hot coffee is better. Darn, I miss it! "Medical malpractice insurance is so expensive due to the costs of defending, not the cost of damages. If you think that the doctors and hospitals are sued too often, you need to be aware that one in every ten patients are injured while in the hospital." Not sure I can agree completely, (Rendell in PA felt differently as well) but even so, MR Mc Goo, lets find out who is directly responsible. The AMA needs to take a more proactive stance with regard to competency. So do other organizations, associations and unions. When corporation executives are responsible, we need to go after their butts individually. The business world isn't the Army where you have to follow orders. Bust one or two of the slippery SOBs and things may start to change. There are good people in high positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 The above quote (allaegedly from a former Com. of IRS) is worth a few chuckles. I suspect that it is a fake. I doubt that a person could be confirmed as Com. of IRS with such views; and the organization that posted the quote does have an ax to grind. Such organizations can only thrive by spreading misinformation. I have had many taxpayers come in after reading such drivel and acting upon it. Its not always easy to keep them out of serious trouble. Immagine that a person owns a business making $1,000,000 per year and the IRS has to show probable cause to do an audit. Such a system could not work. In recent years, Congress has passed a taxpayer bill of rights. It was entirely too long in coming IMO. It is a good start, but there needs to be some fine tuning. I always get a chuckle when folks claim that they should not have to pay taxes in one breath and in the next breath want a strong military. Where are those $400 billion going to come from? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Mr Magoo, Hire is another reference to Mr. Andrews I found on a Google search of the 16th Ammendment: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2185/2_11/59965300/p1/article.jhtml Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Boomac----It seems reasonable to me that if McDonalds wants to profit by selling scalding hot coffee through a drive-up window to people in moving objects that they take some liability along with the profit. Mind that the coffee was so hot the woman had 3rd degree burns over 15% of her body and was in the hospital a week. This was more in the nature of an industrial accident than a simple spilled drink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorv Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I have lost count of the number of Class Action lawsuits that have been filed on my account over the years. I dont think I have ever received anything from them. I suspect that the lawyers who filed the suits did collect. Jim N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I got about a dollar and a quarter once, the lawyers got a few million and I didn't even know that I had sued! It's like the tobacco case. Talk about "udder nonsense". The states and Federal government earn more money on cigarettes than the awful tobacco companies. Then they bleed the users for the "settlement" money and squander it. The lawyers made billions. Talk about unequal distribution of income.A real take from the poor and give to the rich scheme. If there are any lawyers out there who want to sue cell phone companies for their poor service despite their advertisments. Count me in! Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Class action suits are a scam part of the time. It is not unusual that a judge will NOT approve the settlement of a class action law suit because the attornies are getting a huge fee and the members of the class are getting the shaft. Class actions do fill a need. A big business can steal a dollar from each customer and the class action is the only practical way to go after the bad guys. Firms that propose unfair settlements should be barred from future class action filings. No other remedy will solve the problem IMO. bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorv Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Unfortunately it is a case of the fox guarding the hen house. It is the ABA that disciplines lawyers. Sort of like the politicians passing laws that apply to every enterprise except themselves. Jim N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomac Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I, boomac, stopped at McDonalds a little bit ago and ordered a cup of coffee. It was passed to me with the top slightly insecure. Though I managed to get it settled without a spill, I can see how a serious accident and injury could occur. I now apologize for commenting on "the McDonalds case" without complete knowledge of the circumstances. I still believe that there is a line here, (when & how) but it was a mistake to speak out with less than full information. What I do know is that, in product liability cases, they generally serve anybody or any company that had anything at all to do with the product. This happens often and the costs to defend such cases are significant. In some states, correct me if I'm wrong, (like NJ) they have comparative negligence laws. This means that somebody/some business that is ruled 1% at fault could end up paying 100% of the claim if the other parties are unable to pay. I know this happens frequently. I've experienced it. You guys are smart enough to know what I'm talking about here and I don't believe it's right and I don't believe it has aything to do with "do process". It has to do with lawyers treasure hunting at somebody else's expense. Now I don't dislike lawyers. I respect their profession and their abilities. I hope my daughter goes on to law school but I sure detest the greedy ones that don't give a crap about who or what they destroy in the effort to "win at any cost". It just seems prudent to initiate a a discussion about options that might improve the system. Now how about the Panthers beating the Rams? Good incentive for Packers to win in Philadelphia. The Pack does not play well in domes. Now, Pack by 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Boomac----It seems reasonable to me that if McDonalds wants to profit by selling scalding hot coffee through a drive-up window to people in moving objects that they take some liability along with the profit. Mind that the coffee was so hot the woman had 3rd degree burns over 15% of her body and was in the hospital a week. This was more in the nature of an industrial accident than a simple spilled drink. If the settlement covered her medical costs and any other of her losses due to this incident, and even a REASONABLE amount for pain and suffering, I would deem this case as reasonable settled. If you want to ad to this a heavy fine as well to ensure McD's feels the pain, I would go along with it too provided this was due to some negligence on their part. What happened to individuals taking responsibility for their own actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Well, anyway, this is a very arcane subject and far, far too complex to hack around on here. I am willing to accept the reality that the great majority of Americans who work for a living are enthusiastically embracing values counter to their own fundamental interests. And, that I, like you all, simply need to place more trust in the CEOs of Humana, GE, CitiBank, FoxNews, et al, to "do the right thing by me." I'm sure it will work out just fine. I'm done. I'm joining you all. Well Mark, let me be the first to welcome you to the vast right wing conspiracy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.