Actually, it was $25 million that the company settled for after the verdict. Given that, I find the closing line in your sermon telling.
That is actually not true. Most insurance companies pay out a higher amount than they take in meaning they simply benefit from the investment income on the float minus the additional pay outs. The firms do make a profit as is their right as a private business. They charge a certain amount to offer insurance and its our discretion as consumers and our free will whether we want to or not. As a free business if the profitability is so excessively high, then other companies would come in and charge less. I do not blame trial lawyers for being greedy, what I do blame is the system that allows them to ravage from industry to industry leeching of the production of companies and employees which increases costs in everything from food to healthcare to automobiles.
The fact is that lawsuits haven't increased the amount paid out by insurance companies. Here's more which can be linked to from the same site. Here are some more interesting tidbits about lawsuits, including information in which Jenna Bush was involved in fender bender with a driver, and BUSH SUED Enterprise rental company There is plenty more out there. But this will get folks started. It addresses the Mickey D's lawsuit, and the myth that lawsuits drive premiums up. That's just not the truth.
If we're commies, you're Nazis. How's that? Nanny nanny boo boo. Dear lord, where have the thoughtful, smart conservatives gone? These days I wish Cohen, mrpaige and MadMax were still squarely in the Bush camp so we could have some decent debates. And where's Refman?
I was mostly kidding. I thought it would be obvious by the inclusion of the USSR flag, complete with star of texas jibe, and comically bolded one line rebuttal. I even threw in the communist model and acted like I had just written it myself. I don't think socialized health care makes a country communist, nor does an extensive welfare program. It does lean quite a bit further left than I would like. I am much more into the government getting out of such areas altogether, instead of further entrenching itself. I would be willing to trade socialized health care with an option for private health care for those that want to pay for it, in exchange for the outlaw of abortion. I would also be willing to trade an expansive welfare system (Canadianesque) for the elimination of artificial market tinkering like subsidies and minimum wage laws. How about it?
I was making the argument that a national health care program would help the govt. get out of extensive welfare, since health care has traditionally been the largest cost of welfare. By implementing nationalized health care, we can get to the root of welfare costs and make siginifcant cutbacks in those programs.
Since you didn't answer me before (I don't count t_j's inaccurate rantings as an answer), I will ask again if you think that corporations should simply be allowed to do whatever they want? Should the consumer have any recourse at all?
You don't deserve health care because you happen to be born into an upper middle-class family; you deserve health care because you're a human being.
Sure, this statement sounds good (almost as good as 'I want world peace'), but do you know what does it cost to achieve this? I just love people who throws out these type of empty statments.
Afreakingmen. It would probably cost us a 50% tax bracket and 15% unemployment rates. ...and the liberals tell us that they'll create jobs... well at least the "Two Americas" will morph into one really mediocre America....
Jorge, How do you reconcile criticism of Edwards for being lucrative and successful in his chosen profession, while simultaneously celebrating economic Darwinism and capitalism? I find it a precarious stance, to say the least. At least you can say that GW Bush never bilked anyone in the world of business because he was just a complete failure. One could even argue that he had some sort of inner altruism, seeking to give away his companies funds. PS -- glad to see you acknowledge that two very different Americas exist today.
If we can find hundreds of billions of dollars to attack, invade, overthrow and occupy a sovereign country against the will of the world for no justifiable reason, we can find money to help Americans who need it. We've lost close to 1,000 American soldiers fighting in Iraq, but how many Americans have we lost because of poor health care? How much is an American life worth to you?
Thanks for the softball, SizzleChest. When your business is founded on ruining other businesses, it is quite easy to criticize trial lawyers. You see, some businesses create value through innovation. These businesses create a growing economy and benefit all. Then you have parasitic businesses that simply leech off of innovative businesses. These parasites impair productivity. They destroy value. They wreck families by eliminating jobs. They wring profits out of companies, which deflates stock values and postpone hard-working Americans' retirements. Holding an innocent pediatrician hostage because a child is born with the palsy is not capitalism. It is extortion. Thank you for your question, Sizzzzzzzzler.
Oh cool. I've always wondered who exactly was in charge of deciding what business practices were good and what business practices were negative. It's Trader_Jorge! So, when Walmart closes 10 individual businesses in a small town, re-employs some (not all) of the workers of the former small businesses (including their plucky little owners and managers) at substantially lower pay and reduced benefits, that's okay, right? It's funny how you make good corporate capitalism into some warm and fuzzy bear that cares about workers. That much spin might even make you dizzy. As an FBI profiler recently stated in the documentary "The Corporation," large corporations, if profiled as people, would perfectly fit the specs of "psychopath." Honestly, I don't have a big problem with that. But you can't make them out to be angelic and people who attack them to be demons. It doesn't wash.
So, would you prefer that your money pay for an elective war that didn't need to be fought or to insure children in America who would otherwise die? I prefer that if there is money to be spent that we spend it here.
I don't, but that's why I don't claim we should provide govt. health care for everyone under the sun. But anytime govt. wants to take more tax dollars and claim they can use it more efficiently than the private sector, I am skeptical. Just like the article said, Kerry doesn't address the deficit problem (which is an issue for me with Bush), so increased Tax plus a widening deficit, what does that mean to the overall health of our economy? It's much easier to add to our already hugh govt. then to cut from it. Personally, if I have the extra money that Kerry wants to tax, I'd much rather spend it on a charity that I know excatlly where the money goes.
Jorge: It is obvious from this strikeout-looking that you believe to be a home run that you have no conception of the Tort system, at all. I recommend the following texts: This is one of the seminal works in the area. Old but good. and: http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Product.asp?catalog_name=Aspen&category_name=&product_id=0735500479 This is more of a new school, L&E type approach by the well known, if controversial, Richard Epstein, who was one of my old teachers, and of course we used his book. His politics are probably more up your alley, not that it matters much as what we are talking about is fairly basic here. You're welcome.
This type of back-and-forth is healthy (for you) SizzleChest. It helps build your awareness of corporate truisms and helps build your knowledge of public finance. Allow me if you will, Sizz, to correct the above quotation from you. Wal-Mart is one of the best examples of creating value in an economic system. They built their business on establishing supercenters in underserved rural locations in order to benefit consumers. They benefit consumers through their wide product offering and their low prices. They benefit the community by providing jobs and in many cases being the largest tax-paying entity in the county. Wal-Mart is villified because they put a small number of people out of business. These people can't compete with the cost-advantages that Wal-Mart's scale allows them. These old shopowners were charging customers far more than Wal-Mart does. Hence, Wal-Mart saves consumers money. These old shop owners are inefficient and must be eliminated for the well-being of the economic system. They are fat that must be cut. Their talents are best employed in other areas. Wal-Mart is doing them a favor by accelerating this relocation process. Obviously, there can be no debate about this increasing consumers' welfare. This represents progress. It represents economic evolution of under-developed areas. Wal-Mart does indeed have a generous benefits package, something they have made an advertising priority of late. See, Sizzler, now you have a handy defense for when the lunatic fringe liberals out there in Hippie Francisco question you about this.
