Please. Everyone knows chiropractic isn't medicine!

Done in one. Turn out the lights on your way out of the thread, folks.

Just pray harder, Rick.

Her pain was real. She wasn't trying to milk the system, unlike all those lazy liberals in Philly who are driving up the cost of our health insurance

If we have learned anything about Rick Santorum, it's that it's different when it's him.

Small government. Deregulation. Fiscal conservatism.

/fark this lot

Of course there needs to be reform in malpractice lawsuits, yes, but doesn't capping do a bit too much to protect physicians? 250k won't cover much for the uninsured if they need to use those funds to repair damage done,

But, but, but. . . Gay men have buttsex!!!!

And, um. . . Liberals kill babies!!!

/Santorum in 2012

I got mine so screw you.

violetvolume: If we have learned anything about Rick Santorum ANY politician, it's that it's different when it's him.

It's Ok If You're A Republican.

As much as I loathe Santorum and everything he stands for, isn't this like arguing that Jon Stewart is a hypocrite for advocating higher taxes on the rich if he himself pays 15% (or 20% or whatever) on his income?

It's an invalid argument in either case.

kbronsito: does it even count a medical malpractice then?

Good question. I don't think you can sue a chiropractor for medical malpractice anymore than you can sue a squeege guy if your brakes fail.

Jesus freak a hypocrite?!?!?!

That's unpossible!

threedingers: As much as I loathe Santorum and everything he stands for, isn't this like arguing that Jon Stewart is a hypocrite for advocating higher taxes on the rich if he himself pays 15% (or 20% or whatever) on his income?

It's an invalid argument in either case.

Um, realizing this is derailing a bit, but how is it hypocritical of Jon Stewart to advocate raising taxes on himself? Now, if he had said "raise taxes on all the rich but me" he'd be a hypocrite. The reality, however, is that you're throwing out a strawman and your skills of logic and deductive reasoning fall somewhere below the level of Trig Palin.

He is suing because he now can't go at his wife from behind, and have to resort to male prostitutes?

Where is the money for that going to come from?!?!??! Huh? Tell me?

hailin: Meh, I think pain and suffering should be eliminated because it is just a bullshiat way to put emotion into a lawsuit, which is completely subjective to how the jury responds to an emotional plea. If something happens and you need a lifetime of care, fine then get your couple million or whatever will provide you care and move on. You are a complete waste of space to sue for an additional million on TOP of getting you condition taken care of just because of "suffering". I'm sure pain meds are rolled into your lifetime of care.

We have smart and funny buttons, but why not an asshole button?

A hypocritical republican?

Is it a day that ends in "y"?

Fine. As long as we cap medical bills at the same.

No? Then nothing doing. Do these people have no concept of why people sue for malpractice? My own grandmother had to sue just to get her surgery bills paid after the doctors farked up- around $50,000 for the surgery plus an ungodly amount for drugs, recuperative therapy, and other problems that complicated her existing medical conditions. Bonus- both her sons are doctors who knew exactly where and how he had farked up, and why he shouldn't have.

$250,000 is nothing for some people who have had doctors make mistakes in treating them. Remove the wrong limb? We're talking about a lifetime of prosthetics and potentially lost income.

That was then
This is now.

tax cuts for the wealthy will fix this.

LazarusLong42: His wife's partial birth abortion was different too.

And that time he stuck his tongue up a dude's asshole in a San Fransisco bathhouse

hailin: Meh, I think pain and suffering should be eliminated because it is just a bullshiat way to put emotion into a lawsuit, which is completely subjective to how the jury responds to an emotional plea. If something happens and you need a lifetime of care, fine then get your couple million or whatever will provide you care and move on. You are a complete waste of space to sue for an additional million on TOP of getting you condition taken care of just because of "suffering". I'm sure pain meds are rolled into your lifetime of care.

I can think of a few examples, off of the top of my head, where pain and suffering was the sole reason for the lawsuit, and they are not all unwarranted. Pain, or suffering, are very valid reasons to seek legal enforcement of justice.

Why wouldn't you be compensated for pain and suffering? What if, I don't know, Ford decided to let a defect go through that harms the users by exploding tailpipe syndrome or whatever, because repairing it would cost more than to settle lawsuis. Now, say I bought said car, and was subsequently sent to the hospital, and followed with 5+ years of physical therapy, in which i lose my job, spouse, and home. If ford were to simply reimburse me for my car, medical bills, and home, I would be a zero sum gain, right?

So, Ford gets to just recoup my financial losses, but I get nothing for the 5+ years of suffering I went through, or the continual suffering of the long term consequences?

I believe you may be a bit shortsighted or perhaps swayed by some pundits, but pain and suffering isn't some gimmie gotcha clause that 'those types' use to make a quick buck.

Besides.....reffering to your example, how many civil lawsuits are decided by a jury trial? I was under the impression that it was generally a one judge kinda deal.

The only reason Santorum hasn't "resigned his campaign" yet is because the GOP needs him to make Romney and Gingrich look more appealing.

Think about that for a minute.

hailin: Meh, I think pain and suffering should be eliminated because it is just a bullshiat way to put emotion into a lawsuit, which is completely subjective to how the jury responds to an emotional plea. If something happens and you need a lifetime of care, fine then get your couple million or whatever will provide you care and move on. You are a complete waste of space to sue for an additional million on TOP of getting you condition taken care of just because of "suffering". I'm sure pain meds are rolled into your lifetime of care.

Damages that are not capped are measured by pecuniary loss due to the disability, and cost of care. Eliminating pain and suffering damages pretty much ensures that only the rich will get any kind of just compensation. Which, if you read the later part of this article, is pretty much what Santorum's woman was up to. She had little pain and suffering, but went after $500K as a pecuniary loss.

Is it fair that only the rich get just compensation for their injuries? How much is a person's lifetime of pain and suffering worth?

What if the doctor was grossly negligent: amputating the wrong leg, resulting in both legs being amputated? Should a poor guy receive next to nothing when an anesthesiologist puts the breathing tube down the esophagus instead of the trachia, in an otherwise simple operation, leaving the guy a virtual vegetable for life?

Lipo: threedingers: As much as I loathe Santorum and everything he stands for, isn't this like arguing that Jon Stewart is a hypocrite for advocating higher taxes on the rich if he himself pays 15% (or 20% or whatever) on his income?

It's an invalid argument in either case.

Um, realizing this is derailing a bit, but how is it hypocritical of Jon Stewart to advocate raising taxes on himself? Now, if he had said "raise taxes on all the rich but me" he'd be a hypocrite. The reality, however, is that you're throwing out a strawman and your skills of logic and deductive reasoning fall somewhere below the level of Trig Palin.

That's my point. Stewart isn't hypocritical, as was pointed out at great length in last week's thread (new window). Nor is Santorum in this case, if you apply the same logic.

There should be a punitive side to obvious and wanton malpractice/negligence, but the victim shouldn't get that money. Maybe it should go to a fund to help represent indigent victims, or something like that. People shouldn't see potential lawsuits as a profit center.

kbronsito: "does it even count a medical malpractice then?"

And yet the court allowed it, raising the question of whether you could sue any other "alternative medicine" practitioner for failing to deliver results.

I am all for bashing Rick Santorum because I think he's an awful human being, but I think there is a fairly reasonable discussion to be had about malpractice reform.

Can anyone with more familiarity of the subject weight in on the pros/cons of this?

See... he really loves his wife, he doesnt even know your wife's name

We need to get the shareholders for profit idea out of health care first.

The real problem with healthcare is this before anything else. You just talk to a doctor for 2 minutes and they most likely all ready rung up what it took you a whole week to make...and that not the including the corporate middle men

To follow up on my comment, being a medical professional can reap high rewards. Removing the business risk of such a profession leaves it wide open for bad practices.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world Rick Santorum wouldn't be able to hold a seat on the Potato Salad Task Force of the Church Picnic Committee, yet here and now there are literally millions of idiots who think he'd make a fine president. Thankfully not nearly enough millions of idiots to get Rick elected, but, still.

As I've said before -- Pennsylvanians tried to warn you about Rick when we FINALLY stepped up and handed him the most historic beating in our election history. As bone-dumb, petty and hypocritical as you think Rick Santorum is, he's much, much worse.

Y'all need to pay attention to that last sentence there. It's one of the most reality based things I've ever read on FARK

Lipo: threedingers: As much as I loathe Santorum and everything he stands for, isn't this like arguing that Jon Stewart is a hypocrite for advocating higher taxes on the rich if he himself pays 15% (or 20% or whatever) on his income?

It's an invalid argument in either case.

Um, realizing this is derailing a bit, but how is it hypocritical of Jon Stewart to advocate raising taxes on himself? Now, if he had said "raise taxes on all the rich but me" he'd be a hypocrite. The reality, however, is that you're throwing out a strawman and your skills of logic and deductive reasoning fall somewhere below the level of Trig Palin.

That's a requirement to work at Fox News.

It's also an insult to Trig Palin.

TimonC346: Of course there needs to be reform in malpractice lawsuits, yes, but doesn't capping do a bit too much to protect physicians? 250k won't cover much for the uninsured if they need to use those funds to repair damage done,

As the son of a woman who has had 20 years of medical issues as the result of an incompetent doctor I can tell you right now that 250k can be pissed away in a single day.

My mother lost her suit though, because while the docs fixing her would openly admit to how badly this original guy farked her up, they wouldn't say it in front of a judge. They all feared this guy hanging them out to dry down the road too much.

As a result my father is 67 and can't retire because they need his insurance to pay her medical bills

There needs to be some kind of reform, but I have no idea how to fix it. Healthy people can work the system and injured people get farked.

Chiropractor. I'm sure she was in for some frequent adjustments... if you know what I mean.

I have a real low tolerance for religious farkwads who chastise things that they themselves always seem to have a convenient excuse for.

Nice try Rick, but you should have brought this up earlier as Newt and Mitt pretty much have the "hypocrite vote" of the GOP locked up.

I think you all might be missing the point....

IS THE JUDGE A DAMN ACTIVIST JUDGE OR A PATRIOTIC ALL-AMERICAN JUDGE?

TheChemist: Fine. As long as we cap medical bills at the same.

No? Then nothing doing. Do these people have no concept of why people sue for malpractice? My own grandmother had to sue just to get her surgery bills paid after the doctors farked up- around $50,000 for the surgery plus an ungodly amount for drugs, recuperative therapy, and other problems that complicated her existing medical conditions. Bonus- both her sons are doctors who knew exactly where and how he had farked up, and why he shouldn't have.

$250,000 is nothing for some people who have had doctors make mistakes in treating them. Remove the wrong limb? We're talking about a lifetime of prosthetics and potentially lost income.