I support some form of Tort reform. I think it's important that victims (for lack of a better word) are fairly compensated for their injuries, but I don't think windfall verdicts are appropriate.
To those who claim that tort reform is a bad idea because it only saves less than 5%, don't you think that 5% is a fairly substantial amount of money? A savings of ~$60 billion per year? At what point did we become so jaded to think that $60 billion is chump change?
Tort Reform Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
Thank you for your insight!xyzbca wrote:. I've never been involved in med-mal so I won't speak authoritatively on itA'nold wrote:I'm not into name calling but you are a COMPLETE MORON if you actually think insurance companies will pass on any "savings" they get from tort caps or at least anything that will make your doctor visit cheaper. Go ahead, buy the insurance company hype hook, line, and sinker, you're only hurting yourself.
-
A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Tort Reform
When did we become so gullible that we actually believe that tort reform will do anything but line the pockets of insurance companies and absolutely screw over innocent people?AmicusCuriae wrote:I support some form of Tort reform. I think it's important that victims (for lack of a better word) are fairly compensated for their injuries, but I don't think windfall verdicts are appropriate.
To those who claim that tort reform is a bad idea because it only saves less than 5%, don't you think that 5% is a fairly substantial amount of money? A savings of ~$60 billion per year? At what point did we become so jaded to think that $60 billion is chump change?
-
TCScrutinizer
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm
Re: Tort Reform
When did "we" become so bad at arguing that "we" actually delete the points of those debating us and grandstand instead?A'nold wrote:When did we become so gullible that we actually believe that tort reform will do anything but line the pockets of insurance companies and absolutely screw over innocent people?AmicusCuriae wrote:I support some form of Tort reform. I think it's important that victims (for lack of a better word) are fairly compensated for their injuries, but I don't think windfall verdicts are appropriate.
To those who claim that tort reform is a bad idea because it only saves less than 5%, don't you think that 5% is a fairly substantial amount of money? A savings of ~$60 billion per year? At what point did we become so jaded to think that $60 billion is chump change?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
