Who Votes for the People of Mississippi in Congress?
Jul 29, 2005 10:38 Filed in: Mississippi/Jackson
I received an email from the President of the
Association of Trial Lawyers in America which I
reproduce in part:
"Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Act, which would allow drug companies, HMOs, nursing homes, doctors and hospitals to avoid full accountability when they cause injury or death.
"Although the bill passed, backers of the bill failed to pass the bill by the sizable margin they hoped might jump start the bill in the Senate.
"In fact, despite a year of relentless lobbying by doctors and insurers, as well as drug companies, nursing homes and HMOs, there was virtually no increased support for this legislation.
"A year ago, when the House passed this same bill, 229 Members voted in favor of it. Today, 230 Members voted in favor. This marks the fourth time since September 2002 that the House has passed this legislation."
___________________________________
This is the object of the "tort reform" exponents: make it impossible for badly injured people to receive fair compensation for pain and suffering caused by them, and when their really egregious or deliberate negligence injures the patient, exempt them from punitive damages
Punitive damages disrupt business plans. Injuries and compensatory damage awards that arise from them can be predicted statistically, enabling insurance actuaries to set premiums at a profitable rate to protect their clients. Punitive damages awards, on the other hand, are not predictable and are intended to make an example. When Ford was sued about 20 years ago for making the Pinto with an exposed gas tank prone to rupture and burn when the car was rear-ended, a company memo obtained by the plaintiff's lawyers during discovery revealed that the company was well aware of the danger and made the cold-blooded decision to go ahead and make it with the dangerous design, because the potential savings in cost were considerably more than it could expect to pay out in lawsuits and legal expenses. Of course Ford didn't plan for that memo to see the light of day and when it was put before twelve citizens in a court of law, they awarded the plaintiffs $90 million in punitive damages, their estimate of Ford's cost savings. The verdict, although later reduced on appeal, was a fair one, considering Ford's deliberately manufacturing a dangerous automobile.
It is now coming to light that the giant Pharmaceutical Corporations, part of the most profitable industry in the world, routinely suppress data from unfavorable trials of new medicines in order to get FDA approval. Baycol, Phen-Fen and Vioxx are three recent products that the manufacturers had good reason to believe were dangerous yet deliberately failed to warn. Should they be exempted from punitive damages, even it they knowingly marketed a dangerous product, which brought them fabulous profits?
Let's make it closer to home: The driver of an 18-wheeler, high on methamphetamine, barrels through your neighborhood at 80 mph, ignoring stop signs and speed limits. He runs up on the curb and hits your 5-year old daughter who dies instantly and is apprehended 50 miles down the road by law enforcement officers. His employer knows of his addiction but keeps him on the payroll because he delivers his load so quickly. Your daughter dies instantly, so she experiences little pain and suffering. She has no job or earning power and it is almost impossible to estimate the net present value of her future earnings. Her body, flattened by the 18-wheeler, is unrecognizable. A few days later, the insurance adjustor brings you a check for $200,000, which is the cap on non-economic damages. Your daughter, in the eyes of the insurance company, has no economic value. You must accept the $200,000 because the tort reformists have protected the driver, the trucking company and their insurers. The trucking company and driver get off scott free and you, dear bereaved father or mother, stand there holding a check for $200,000. The driver, his employer and the insurance company are laughing their way to the bank.
That is what the tort reformists are trying to bring about.
Predictably, representatives Wicker and Pickering voted for the health care industry and against the people of Mississippi. Taylor, somewhat unaccountably for a Democrat, also voted against the people. Bennie Thompson is the only representative from this state that consistently votes on behalf of the rest of us.
Think about it.
Click here to confirm how your Representative voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll449.xml
"Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Act, which would allow drug companies, HMOs, nursing homes, doctors and hospitals to avoid full accountability when they cause injury or death.
"Although the bill passed, backers of the bill failed to pass the bill by the sizable margin they hoped might jump start the bill in the Senate.
"In fact, despite a year of relentless lobbying by doctors and insurers, as well as drug companies, nursing homes and HMOs, there was virtually no increased support for this legislation.
"A year ago, when the House passed this same bill, 229 Members voted in favor of it. Today, 230 Members voted in favor. This marks the fourth time since September 2002 that the House has passed this legislation."
___________________________________
This is the object of the "tort reform" exponents: make it impossible for badly injured people to receive fair compensation for pain and suffering caused by them, and when their really egregious or deliberate negligence injures the patient, exempt them from punitive damages
Punitive damages disrupt business plans. Injuries and compensatory damage awards that arise from them can be predicted statistically, enabling insurance actuaries to set premiums at a profitable rate to protect their clients. Punitive damages awards, on the other hand, are not predictable and are intended to make an example. When Ford was sued about 20 years ago for making the Pinto with an exposed gas tank prone to rupture and burn when the car was rear-ended, a company memo obtained by the plaintiff's lawyers during discovery revealed that the company was well aware of the danger and made the cold-blooded decision to go ahead and make it with the dangerous design, because the potential savings in cost were considerably more than it could expect to pay out in lawsuits and legal expenses. Of course Ford didn't plan for that memo to see the light of day and when it was put before twelve citizens in a court of law, they awarded the plaintiffs $90 million in punitive damages, their estimate of Ford's cost savings. The verdict, although later reduced on appeal, was a fair one, considering Ford's deliberately manufacturing a dangerous automobile.
It is now coming to light that the giant Pharmaceutical Corporations, part of the most profitable industry in the world, routinely suppress data from unfavorable trials of new medicines in order to get FDA approval. Baycol, Phen-Fen and Vioxx are three recent products that the manufacturers had good reason to believe were dangerous yet deliberately failed to warn. Should they be exempted from punitive damages, even it they knowingly marketed a dangerous product, which brought them fabulous profits?
Let's make it closer to home: The driver of an 18-wheeler, high on methamphetamine, barrels through your neighborhood at 80 mph, ignoring stop signs and speed limits. He runs up on the curb and hits your 5-year old daughter who dies instantly and is apprehended 50 miles down the road by law enforcement officers. His employer knows of his addiction but keeps him on the payroll because he delivers his load so quickly. Your daughter dies instantly, so she experiences little pain and suffering. She has no job or earning power and it is almost impossible to estimate the net present value of her future earnings. Her body, flattened by the 18-wheeler, is unrecognizable. A few days later, the insurance adjustor brings you a check for $200,000, which is the cap on non-economic damages. Your daughter, in the eyes of the insurance company, has no economic value. You must accept the $200,000 because the tort reformists have protected the driver, the trucking company and their insurers. The trucking company and driver get off scott free and you, dear bereaved father or mother, stand there holding a check for $200,000. The driver, his employer and the insurance company are laughing their way to the bank.
That is what the tort reformists are trying to bring about.
Predictably, representatives Wicker and Pickering voted for the health care industry and against the people of Mississippi. Taylor, somewhat unaccountably for a Democrat, also voted against the people. Bennie Thompson is the only representative from this state that consistently votes on behalf of the rest of us.
Think about it.
Click here to confirm how your Representative voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll449.xml
|