You know, Hoo's thread got me thinking, along with a discussion I had with a colorectal surgeon while we were standing in the locker room the other day. When did American society change into the mess that exists today? I think it has been a rather insidious and slow process, but the outcome is the same nonetheless.

We have become a sycophantic labile nation. We have this sense of overwhelming entitlement that I could not for the life of me, understand. My wife and I commented the other day on how many people we know make horrible financial decisions in order to obtain the "good" life. It seems everyone thinks they are entitled to new cars, a new home- at least 3500 square feet with a 3 car garage and open floor plan, vacations in the caribbean, etc. I don't get it?:confused:

At the same time, many people in order to obtain these things, are forgoing saving for retirement, are taking out interest only or 5 year ARM mortgages, refinancing and using that money to pay off cars, or take vacations...neither of which I will ever understand. They buy boats and RV's that are far beyond their financial means. I just don't get it.

Our grandparents generation never thought of life in this way. They worked, HARD, and went through far more difficult times than we face now, yet they faced it with a sort of nobility that impresses the hell out of me. When did we change? and how on earth could we change it back......:confused:

We could open our borders and allow a flood of cheap labor to take over our system, that oughta do it. ;)

Our grandparents generation never thought of life in this way. They worked, HARD, and went through far more difficult times than we face now, yet they faced it with a sort of nobility that impresses the hell out of me. When did we change? and how on earth could we change it back......:confused:


FDR

..

You know, Hoo's thread got me thinking, along with a discussion I had with a colorectal surgeon while we were standing in the locker room the other day. When did American society change into the mess that exists today? I think it has been a rather insidious and slow process, but the outcome is the same nonetheless.

We have become a sycophantic labile nation. We have this sense of overwhelming entitlement that I could not for the life of me, understand. My wife and I commented the other day on how many people we know make horrible financial decisions in order to obtain the "good" life. It seems everyone thinks they are entitled to new cars, a new home- at least 3500 square feet with a 3 car garage and open floor plan, vacations in the caribbean, etc. I don't get it?:confused:

At the same time, many people in order to obtain these things, are forgoing saving for retirement, are taking out interest only or 5 year ARM mortgages, refinancing and using that money to pay off cars, or take vacations...neither of which I will ever understand. They buy boats and RV's that are far beyond their financial means. I just don't get it.

Our grandparents generation never thought of life in this way. They worked, HARD, and went through far more difficult times than we face now, yet they faced it with a sort of nobility that impresses the hell out of me. When did we change? and how on earth could we change it back......:confused:

I think that there are a lot more people out there who are living like our grandparents than we know really. I know tons of people like that. Working hard, taking care of their families, making ends meet as best as they can, and some of them are just getting by. Of course, if they're not making a lot of money, they must be lazy and stupid (hey Snake!). Just kidding. I think we see the people around us who are paying for the "better life" now, and not thinking about it later, because it is the times of commercialism and of "having things". But then again, there was plenty of that back in the day as well, you know, keeping up with the Jones' and all.

We don't need to "change it back", but you need to do what you and your wife think is best for you, and your family, and really don't worry about what the others are doing right? Personal responsibility. I have saved a good bit of money for my retirement since I got out of college, and have gone without a lot of things, but then again, that's how I was raised. We had 5 kids in our family, and we never went on vacations, anywhere. We couldn't afford it. My parents both worked, my Dad in the local paper mill, and my Mom either at the local shoe factory, or at in the local school district, and they never had a lot of money to rub together, but we did alright. They worked hard, and my Mom is still working hard now, Dad retired awhile back, but still, their retirement savings isn't anywhere near mine, and one is retired, and one is still working. They gave a lot to the kids over the years.

FDR

..


No way. The depression/WWII generation was hard working and did not expect the world to give them anything. I think it is much more due to cultural forces than the act of a single person, or even the "government" as a whole.

I would say the baby boomers are at fault, and they did not exactly suck at the teat of the state. They grew up in times of plenty and economic expansion and pretty much got whatever they wanted. They could get a job and expect it to have benefits, and not have to change jobs every 5 years. They controlled the markets for music, television, fashion, etc for decades. They got everything, and they have given everything to their children.... who now feel entitled to have everything. When you grow up in a bedroom of your own, filled with toys and computers and televisions, when you are driven everywhere, and then given a car at 16.... basically when you are GIVEN everything you want or desire from the get go, you come to expect it.

Yes, there are exceptions. But looking generationally I think the depression generation was the last one to face wide scale scarcity, and their influence has worn off.

I agree that it is the fault of the baby boomers but it is the generation we spawned and raised and their children that have grown up insulated and expecting something for nothing. Most baby boomers worked all their lives. If you are referring to the expectation of Social Security, then we are back to FDR.

I agree that it is the fault of the baby boomers but it is the generation we spawned and raised and their children that have grown up insulated and expecting something for nothing.

Your "but" makes it sound like you are saying something different than I did, but you are in total agreement with what I posted. I said the boomers were the cause, and the effect is seen in their children.

BUT, boomers feel entitled for sure. They work and feel entitled to stuff. Their kids feel entitled without the work. Or rather they feel they should have everything they grew up with BEFORE working for 20 years to get there... like their boomer parents/grandparents did.

I blame T.V., computer chips and over indulgent parents. The T.V. has had a huge impact on people attention spans and the computer has sped up basic human function to warp speed. Everything has to be done instantly and this transfers to all aspects of life. When you couple short attention spans with instant everything and parents that think that saying no to their kids is some sort of horrible deprivation you end up with people who can''t work toward a goal and don't believe thay should have to wait to acheive that goal.

I think how you perceive this issue depends on your point of view. Most of the people posting here have comfortable lives. Ask the question of a different demographic and you'll get substantially different answers. Besides, do we really want to change it back? All of it?

No way. The depression/WWII generation was hard working and did not expect the world to give them anything. I think it is much more due to cultural forces than the act of a single person, or even the "government" as a whole.

I would say the baby boomers are at fault, and they did not exactly suck at the teat of the state. They grew up in times of plenty and economic expansion and pretty much got whatever they wanted. They could get a job and expect it to have benefits, and not have to change jobs every 5 years. They controlled the markets for music, television, fashion, etc for decades. They got everything, and they have given everything to their children.... who now feel entitled to have everything. When you grow up in a bedroom of your own, filled with toys and computers and televisions, when you are driven everywhere, and then given a car at 16.... basically when you are GIVEN everything you want or desire from the get go, you come to expect it.

Yes, there are exceptions. But looking generationally I think the depression generation was the last one to face wide scale scarcity, and their influence has worn off.


Right. All, well most, of the conditions you mention have much of their roots in the FDR admin. It not just having things, it's also the mindset that you should have those things. The New Deal codified that mindset.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

I'm not knocking these ideals but you have to admit that they were mostly foreign until FDR. I hold that the entitlement mindset is part of the price we pay for the ND.

You know, Hoo's thread got me thinking, along with a discussion I had with a colorectal surgeon while we were standing in the locker room the other day. When did American society change into the mess that exists today? I think it has been a rather insidious and slow process, but the outcome is the same nonetheless.

We have become a sycophantic labile nation. We have this sense of overwhelming entitlement that I could not for the life of me, understand. My wife and I commented the other day on how many people we know make horrible financial decisions in order to obtain the "good" life. It seems everyone thinks they are entitled to new cars, a new home- at least 3500 square feet with a 3 car garage and open floor plan, vacations in the caribbean, etc. I don't get it?:confused:

At the same time, many people in order to obtain these things, are forgoing saving for retirement, are taking out interest only or 5 year ARM mortgages, refinancing and using that money to pay off cars, or take vacations...neither of which I will ever understand. They buy boats and RV's that are far beyond their financial means. I just don't get it.

Our grandparents generation never thought of life in this way. They worked, HARD, and went through far more difficult times than we face now, yet they faced it with a sort of nobility that impresses the hell out of me. When did we change? and how on earth could we change it back......:confused: Great post. Something I asked here a long time ago. The root of the problem? Liberalism coupled with Socialism. That is by definition. The combination of this mindset made people dependant upon society instead of themselves. It was done for selfish reasons of course which makes it that much more ironic. I dare say that the people evolving from this society would make poor pioneers and homesteaders. I doubt they could take the risks that those that are crossing our borders are taking and make good of it.

I disagree that it started and is caused by the boomers.....IMO, the "most selfish generation" was the WWII generation, the parents of the Boomers......they are the ones in the way of any SS reform, they are the ones who negotiated rediculous pension and retirement benefits that are unsustainable by any business and are ruining entire industries, they are the ones who created the consumer driven environment post WW II that is the direct source of any entitlement attitude that exists. Ask any WW2 vet and all you will hear is what they are entitled to.

This is not a popular notion, but I think that generation is much more the root of the consumer society, the grab everything you can, the take care of yourself first society.....what you see today is the natural progression from that.

Len

Great post. Something I asked here a long time ago. The root of the problem? Liberalism coupled with Socialism. That is by definition. The combination of this mindset made people dependant upon society instead of themselves. It was done for selfish reasons of course which makes it that much more ironic. I dare say that the people evolving from this society would make poor pioneers and homesteaders. I doubt they could take the risks that those that are crossing our borders are taking and make good of it.


Do you have any idea of what you are saying? Or do you just hear that something is bad and spout off some O'Riley talking points BS? First of all, when did this "liberalism coupled with socialism" take place, where and when did it exist? I'm thinking 30's, but I have a feeling you're talking about something completley different. And please tell me how you link liberalism and socialism to extreme consumerism? Something other than "people don't rely on themselves anymore becaose they're all libbie socialists" because you know that's absolutley false.

There is something much larger going on here, and I'm not saying that I know what it is, because I don't, and I will never claim that I do. But I have to tell you, the idea that it seems that you have it all worked out, that it's black and white, and you know the answer to all this nonsense and that the answer to what is wrong is so simpe it can be summed up in two ideologies that have so many different definitions of themselves by so many groups of people, well, that really scares the crap out of me, and makes you more of a problem rather than part of the solution.

Maybe there are links to what you say, I'm not saying that nowhere in those two ideologies can there be parts of problems that are interacting with others of problems, issues, etc... but to completley make an overwhelming statement as you did, and to be so completley sure of yourself is not going to help anyone or anything except for yourself, and your own personal ideology.




joe

Great post. Something I asked here a long time ago. The root of the problem? Liberalism coupled with Socialism. That is by definition. The combination of this mindset made people dependant upon society instead of themselves. It was done for selfish reasons of course which makes it that much more ironic. I dare say that the people evolving from this society would make poor pioneers and homesteaders. I doubt they could take the risks that those that are crossing our borders are taking and make good of it.


You can always count on Steam to come up with some B.S. way to blame the "libbies". What I hear from the right in this thread is that " I had it hard growing up and unless you had it harder then you don't get nothin'" Talk about selfish.

Your last sentence describes much of the problem, it isn't unreasonable expectations, it is an unreasonable timetable for it. Our children grew up with advantages we didn't have as children so they don't know anything different. They are like the children of rich people who have lost their fortunes, they still feel entitled and since they can't have what they feel they should have, they feel cheated. I think it is a natural human phenomenon. I have seen young people with this attitude, that I thought would prove to be failures, eventually come to grips with reality and do well as they get older. In other words, it is a matter of maturity. I read what Steam said farther down this thread and I don't agree. The kids of today are as capable as the children of yesterday, they just have different perspectives and different challenges. When faced with life, they respond. It's kind of a matter of perspective, poverty and what that means is in the eye of the beholder. My family was dirt poor and I never knew it. :)

I didn't say I have it all worked out or that my reason was solely responsible for where society is today. I believe there are a myriad of reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. A good portion of it is because we have a large demographic who do not contribute to society in any way. We placed them in the circumstances they are in because no one ever expected anything of them (those who are on the public dole). What I am talking about took place in the 60s and 70s. Making people dependent upon government handouts - welfare, public housing, ect - without society having a right to expect something in return for this. Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of dependency in order to form an electorate base. They did it under the guise of 'helping the unfortunate'. Instead it created dependency. Our education system let them down as well and that is mainly due to affirmative action. A plague upon our society. It should be considered insulting to any group of people, yet it was pushed to our detriment.

Then we have a society which makes heroes of sports athletes, Hollywood stars and musicians. None of these groups contribute to society in an meaningful way other than to entertain. The business of celebrity is worth hundreds of billions and is a huge part of our national product. In reality it is valueless, yet it drives our consumerism and has driven prices of products to unbelievable levels. I bet if one looked at when 'celebrity', especially sports celebrity, became a big business, one would find that was the beginning of the huge inflation we have experienced in consumer goods. It has effected everything we touch in our daily lives including burgers from McDs, the price of milk to the clothes on our backs.

Just saying, "It's the baby boomers": or "It's our permissive society" doesn't contribute much to the general understanding. I'm a boomer, and none of those criticisms applies to me--we live modestly in a 1500-square-foot house we bought more than 25 years ago, drive reasonable cars, my wife and I have both worked since we were 15 and have required our kids to earn the things they have. This is all by choice--we could easily afford more, but we have what we need.
As a society, though, we're increasingly unable to resist the temptation to blame SOMEBODY for everything we don't like. It makes great politics--it's what got Ronald Reagan elected, and Republicans have used it to good advantage ever since: Somebody who's NOT LIKE US is responsible for our problems and is out to take what we have. It worked great for Bush until six months ago.
Rather than some mythical segment of something-or-other being 100 percent responsible, though, it's likely all of us are 1 percent responsible. There's a little irony, seems to me, in a bunch of people who own $3000 bicycles talking about how the generation before them spoiled its children.

Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of dependency in order to form an electorate base.

Have any proof for this claim? That welfare was a cynical ploy to trap a secure electoral base, presumably for the dems?

The poor vote in low numbers, so it seem to be a bad idea. Heck, I could make a case that NIXON expanded the welfare state, because he saw it as a relatively cheap way to keep the poor from rioting in the streets and to keep them passive and NOT working to throw him out of office. Now THERE was a cynical use of welfare.... from the republican side.

But from the dem side? Back it up if you can.

I believe there are a myriad of reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. A good portion of it is because we have a large demographic who do not contribute to society in any way. We placed them in the circumstances they are in because no one ever expected anything of them (those who are on the public dole). What I am talking about took place in the 60s and 70s. Making people dependent upon government handouts - welfare, public housing, ect - without society having a right to expect something in return for this. Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of dependency in order to form an electorate base. They did it under the guise of 'helping the unfortunate'. Instead it created dependency. Our education system let them down as well and that is mainly due to affirmative action. A plague upon our society. It should be considered insulting to any group of people, yet it was pushed to our detriment.

Orange County, CA. Full of rich Republicans, not a one who wants to pay higher taxes. Their controller invested in junk bonds and such to try and keep the county solvent. The market tanks, Orange Co. goes bankrupt. Nice streets, perfectly groomed landscaping but they went bankrupt in the 90's and 2000's.

You wrote a good post, Steam. I just have a couple of changes.

I believe there are a myriad of reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. A good portion of it is because we have a large demographic who do not contribute to society in any way. We placed them in the circumstances they are in because no one ever expected anything of them (those who are wealthy).

What I am talking about took place in the 80s and 90s. Giving the wealthy tax breaks - without society having a right to expect something in return for this. Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of "getting something for nothing" in order to form an electorate base. They did it under the guise of 'helping the fortunate'. Instead it created dependency. Our education system let them down as well and that is mainly due to not enough tax revenue. A plague upon our society. It should be considered insulting to any group of people, yet it was pushed to our detriment.

Then we have a society which makes heroes of sports athletes, Hollywood stars and musicians. None of these groups contribute to society in an meaningful way other than to entertain.

Snoop Dogg is involved in Pop Warner football. Barbara Streisand does what she can to make our country a better place. :)

Orange County, CA. Full of rich Republicans...



I live here. I know all about it. But, keep in mind that wherever there are rich republicans, there are plenty of poor minorities.

There was actually a documentary called "Rancho California (Por Favor)" done about these poor workers living in the hills in shacks that they made from leftover wood and trash, behind all of these multi million dollar homes here in Southern California, I believe from the San Diego area into the OC area.

The divide between the rich and the poor here is amazing. You from around these parts?



joe

I live here. I know all about it. But, keep in mind that wherever there are rich republicans, there are plenty of poor minorities.

There was actually a documentary called "Rancho California (Por Favor)" done about these poor workers living in the hills in shacks that they made from leftover wood and trash, behind all of these multi million dollar homes here in Southern California, I believe from the San Diego area into the OC area.

The divide between the rich and the poor here is amazing. You from around these parts?
I live in LA and it always struck me as nonsensical that when I would enter Orange Co. from LA, all of a sudden the freeway got better and the streets were so much nicer. All this when Orange Co. was going through it's infamous bankruptcy. Just didn't make sense to me.

Phys' OP reminded me of this in the way that the streets of Orange Co. looked great, heck, a lot better than LA. But when you took a closer look at the books, they were in big trouble. Ostentatious spending done to keep up with the Jones' and not enough sound investments for the future.

That said, Orange seems to have come out of their bankruptcy OK.

I think you need to go back further than FDR. Wasn't it his predecessor Hoover who promised "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?" Certainly the "roaring" 1920s was the first "me-first" decade of the 20th century.

I think you need to go back further than FDR. Wasn't it his predecessor Hoover who promised "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?" Certainly the "roaring" 1920s was the first "me-first" decade of the 20th century.

That may be true. Same generation that fought WWII.

I didn't say I have it all worked out or that my reason was solely responsible for where society is today. I believe there are a myriad of reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. A good portion of it is because we have a large demographic who do not contribute to society in any way. We placed them in the circumstances they are in because no one ever expected anything of them (those who are on the public dole). What I am talking about took place in the 60s and 70s. Making people dependent upon government handouts - welfare, public housing, ect - without society having a right to expect something in return for this. Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of dependency in order to form an electorate base. They did it under the guise of 'helping the unfortunate'. Instead it created dependency. Our education system let them down as well and that is mainly due to affirmative action. A plague upon our society. It should be considered insulting to any group of people, yet it was pushed to our detriment.

Then we have a society which makes heroes of sports athletes, Hollywood stars and musicians. None of these groups contribute to society in an meaningful way other than to entertain. The business of celebrity is worth hundreds of billions and is a huge part of our national product. In reality it is valueless, yet it drives our consumerism and has driven prices of products to unbelievable levels. I bet if one looked at when 'celebrity', especially sports celebrity, became a big business, one would find that was the beginning of the huge inflation we have experienced in consumer goods. It has effected everything we touch in our daily lives including burgers from McDs, the price of milk to the clothes on our backs.


I think this is one of the most insightful posts I've ever seen Steam post, and I agree. Especially as pertains to celebrities. My thoughts on posting this not only stemmed from Hoo's post, but the thread on Illegal immigration, where we have Illegal aliens working jobs that Americans won't do. When did we become too good for hard labor. So many people talk about how much they hate their jobs, and while we all can't be fortunate enough to work in jobs that we love, I remember many old timers saying how grateful they were to even just have a job. I think our society has changed in many ways, and most of them for the negative. MM might have better statistics, but last year was the FIRST year in I don't recall how many decades when savings measured in dollar figures were in the NEGATIVE. I was told this by an anesthesiologist as we were discussing this today. I understand poor and hungry, I've been there, luckily for me it was a transient condition.

When you tell me when the rise of our letidious society began. I asked that same question a long time ago. I'd bet that when we began to see the rise in lawsuits (of all kinds, but mostly those somebody done somebody wrong type) that that's about when our society as a whole codified our sense of entitlement.

Can anyone tell me when suing everyone and anyone became soooo popular?

BT

BTW, I'l love to know exactly how affirmative action played a role in the sense of entitlement in our society as a whole.

Take the years the following "caught on" and average. That year was the turning point.

Cars - Model T assembly line - 1913 + 10 years to get cars out to the public=1923
Credit Cards - 1958 was the original Visa - bankamericard
Television - became common in households - 1955

1945 was the year. It was the year WW2 ended. Simple as that.

Entitled....



Entitlement. Poor financial decisions are not related to the concept. Materialism is the root of the problem, not entitlement. Humans are and in times of plenty have always been materialistic. It is nothing new. It is just that now, with the instant nature of acquisition and global corporations claws paying billions upon billions to convince the masses that 300hp and a new wardrobe every season is necessary, we have become sycophantically labile.

"Total spending on advertising in all media in the United States in 2004 increased 9.8 percent from 2003 to $141,100,000,000 dollars, industry research released Wednesday showed. The growth is more than twice that of the economy."

It is what drives the beast, what goads the weak and the impressionable to acquire beyond their means.

That and the billions spent to maintain/enhance the status quo.

"Lobbyists spent an estimated 3,000,000,000 dollars on congress in '04."

Entitlement. Am I entitled to good health care? Am I entitled to live relatively free from the fear of crime? What am I entitled to get for the 24 years of taxes I have paid into our system thus far? Am I entitled to believe that our elected officials will act within the law, that our corporations will do what is right and not what is expeditious to the bottom line? Does the richest society in the history of humanity have an obligation to help those at the bottom? Are those on the bottom entitled to the same educational opportunities as those at the top?

Entitle, I do not think it means what you think it means.......at least in how you phrased your question.......goes far beyond the idiots desire to keep up with the Jones.......

I didn't say I have it all worked out or that my reason was solely responsible for where society is today. I believe there are a myriad of reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. A good portion of it is because we have a large demographic who do not contribute to society in any way. We placed them in the circumstances they are in because no one ever expected anything of them (those who are on the public dole). What I am talking about took place in the 60s and 70s. Making people dependent upon government handouts - welfare, public housing, ect - without society having a right to expect something in return for this. Politicians thought they would entrap people in a culture of dependency in order to form an electorate base. They did it under the guise of 'helping the unfortunate'. Instead it created dependency. Our education system let them down as well and that is mainly due to affirmative action. A plague upon our society. It should be considered insulting to any group of people, yet it was pushed to our detriment.

Then we have a society which makes heroes of sports athletes, Hollywood stars and musicians. None of these groups contribute to society in an meaningful way other than to entertain. The business of celebrity is worth hundreds of billions and is a huge part of our national product. In reality it is valueless, yet it drives our consumerism and has driven prices of products to unbelievable levels. I bet if one looked at when 'celebrity', especially sports celebrity, became a big business, one would find that was the beginning of the huge inflation we have experienced in consumer goods. It has effected everything we touch in our daily lives including burgers from McDs, the price of milk to the clothes on our backs.


I don't think FDR devised the New Deal in order to trap people. Nor was Truman's Fair Deal an attempt to lock in votes. They were the right things to do at a time when the nation was suffering. How dare those WWII soldiers take advantage of the GI Bill? How dare they expect to buy a home or get an education? How dare the elderly expect not to die in poverty?

Talk about entitlement... Hell, the military is one of the largest social programs this country has ever seen. They pay for your education, housing, medical, dental, vision...etc. There's just one little catch... Ya may just have to sacrifice your life for these wonderful social programs.

Have you ever been to Butte, Montana? Have you ever seen a shanty town? People living in shacks in the side of the mountain, no electricity, no running water...etc. Mine dried up and closed and people suffered. These people couldn't get a job at the one McDs. When I was a Republican I didn't believe in welfare until I visited Butte. Two arms, two legs, you can work. Hell, there are many handicapped people who work. But, unless you've seen a town like Butte, you may never really understand the need for welfare. (Please spare me the typical "move" response.)

How does affirmative action negatively impact our education system? How do you suggest society stem the tide of generational poverty caused by slavery? Did your great-grandfather have an systemic advantage over an African-American? Could they go to the same schools, get the same jobs...etc? Just cause AA opens the doors, doors that were previously closed to African-Americans for generations, it doesn't mean these students don't have to perform once they get there. AA may not be perfect, but I've yet to hear a better way to fix the problem from your side of the aisle.

The sports/celebrity inflation you speak of only impacts those who choose to be fans. No one forces you to buy a TV. No one forces people to buy an $8 beer, or a $120 jersey, at the ballpark. No one forces you to pay $10 for a movie ticket. Want Julia Roberts in your movie, it's gonna cost ya $20 mill. It's the freemarket system. Cast some unknown and you're likely to lose your shirt. Cast Ms. Roberts and you're almost guaranteed to get your money back and hopefully make a little profit. This part of your argument surprised me cause it almost sounds un-American.

Real inflation occurs after a government spends/prints money like a drunken sailor. The budget deficit is one of the main culprits behind inflation. Inflation rose to 16% during Carter's term partly b/c Nixon printed money for an unnecessary war, and partly due to an energy crisis.

So what do we have today? Out of control energy prices, and a president fighting an unnecessary war, while he creates the largest budget deficit ever. My how someone hasn't learned from history. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about one of the largest tax cuts during a time of war.

Boy, I'd certainly hate to be the next president to have to fix this mess. They're destined to be a one termer just like good ole Carter. It took 42 presidents 230 years to amass a $4 trillion national debt, and BillyBoob has doubled that in less than 6 years. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Heck-of-a-job Brownie!!!

Energy prices are not the fault of this administration, they are tied to world wide demand. This war IS necessary and Jimmy Carter didn't fix anything. When he was in office, the feeling in the world and at home was that America had reached it's zenith and was on the dedcline. Then came Ronnie who defeated the Soviet Union, Bombed Daffy, restored our faith in ourselves and each other, prevented the spread of communism into South America and put us back on the top rung in his two terms.

When you tell me when the rise of our letidious society began. I asked that same question a long time ago. I'd bet that when we began to see the rise in lawsuits (of all kinds, but mostly those somebody done somebody wrong type) that that's about when our society as a whole codified our sense of entitlement.

Can anyone tell me when suing everyone and anyone became soooo popular?

BT

BTW, I'l love to know exactly how affirmative action played a role in the sense of entitlement in our society as a whole.


This is one of those funny myths that just keeps going. Actually there are fewer lawsuits per capita now than there have been in the past. If you look at the stats. from say the time of Lincoln you would find that there were more suits and people would sue at the drop of a hat. Also if you look at the make up of suits that are filed now the majority of the courts time is taken by criminal matters, family law and businesses suing each other. I believe that this myth of a litigious society is a P.R. campaign by the insurance companies to brand anyone that files a personal injury suit to be some sort of fraud or cheat. Sure, every year the news reports some horrendous verdict from some wacky case. What they don't report is that these cases a few and far between given the volume the courts deal with. Even less reported is the fact that virtually all of these cases could have been settled for less, but someone decided to roll the dice and take their chances.

This is one of those funny myths that just keeps going. Actually there are fewer lawsuits per capita now than there have been in the past. If you look at the stats. from say the time of Lincoln you would find that there were more suits and people would sue at the drop of a hat. Also if you look at the make up of suits that are filed now the majority of the courts time is taken by criminal matters, family law and businesses suing each other. I believe that this myth of a litigious society is a P.R. campaign by the insurance companies to brand anyone that files a personal injury suit to be some sort of fraud or cheat. Sure, every year the news reports some horrendous verdict from some wacky case. What they don't report is that these cases a few and far between given the volume the courts deal with. Even less reported is the fact that virtually all of these cases could have been settled for less, but someone decided to roll the dice and take their chances.


That's the problem with your data there bud, MOST are settled out of court, so even though they may not be "court" cases, they still cost industry and insurance companies tons of money.

That's the problem with your data there bud, MOST are settled out of court, so even though they may not be "court" cases, they still cost industry and insurance companies tons of money.


That's how it is supposed to work. Person gets hurt, they contact other persons insurance company, both sides agree on damages. And what's this "they cost industry and insurance companies tons of money", stuff? For one thing that is exactly what the insurance company contracted for. And who exactly do you want to side with here? The multi billion dollar insurance company or the little guy that was messed up for life in a car accident? That's one of those funny things about this country, if you hurt someone they get to sue you for damages. I would say that probably 99% of the cases out there end up settling for a jury finds an amount that is what should be awarded. On the other hand have you seen the http://www.dandl-law.com/dn/HARVARD%20MEDICAL%20MALPRACTICE%20STUDY.docstudies that find that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the cases that involved medical malpratice are not pursued? Maybe they should just be quite, it could cost them more.

First you have to prove medical malpractice and physicians are extremely reluctant to get involved in support of any but the most obvious cases with extreme consequences. Most malpractice is simply human error, not malicious intent. Settlements do tend to go outside the realm of actual damage and exceed the possibilities of that individual had they remained unharmed.

First you have to prove medical malpractice and physicians are extremely reluctant to get involved in support of any but the most obvious cases with extreme consequences. Most malpractice is simply human error, not malicious intent. Settlements do tend to go outside the realm of actual damage and exceed the possibilities of that individual had they remained unharmed.


You don't to prove malicious intent, you have to prove negligence, which takes a finding that the care proved was outside the realm of the standard of care in that type of case. And where did you get the idea, or proof for that matter, that settlements tend to go outside the realm of actual damages? Do you want to limit it to only medical bills? Is the persons quality of life worth nothing? So if some dumbass plows into you and you are paralyzed from the neck down or suffer permanent brain damage you think the cost of your hospital stay is it?

Entitlement. Poor financial decisions are not related to the concept. Materialism is the root of the problem, not entitlement. Humans are and in times of plenty have always been materialistic. It is nothing new. It is just that now, with the instant nature of acquisition and global corporations claws paying billions upon billions to convince the masses that 300hp and a new wardrobe every season is necessary, we have become sycophantically labile

I read all the previous stuff about blaming the boomers or blaming liberals and socialists or blaming entertainment and athletes and kind of laughed. Svend has hit it on the head. The problem is basic human behavior. When times are easy, we get lazy. And this behavior is not limited to humans either.

I'm surprised $$ isn't all over this -- we are undergoing a market correction, if you will. I predict things will get a lot worse before they get better. The US is facing increased competition from a host of new economic player. This is coming at a time when US society has been complacent for more than half a century -- well, actually it probably started 30 years ago but now we are getting much closer to a crisis situation.

Pick the anology you want ... Corporate: Company has a great run of products and gains massive market share. It continues banking on its success while other upstarts innovate. Company now finds itself behind the 8 ball. Sports: Athlete dominates sport for some stretch. Hubris reigns and he gets lazy. Gets "deposed" by other athletes who work harder and want it more.

Buying the latests whatever, raising our kids by proxy, and acting as though we are masters of the universe is not the way to get back on top. I'd like to remind everyone here that the basic infrastructure of society are kids and we are not serving them well.

Also, I'm not trying to knock capitalism here. In fact, I think it's just fine with some societal controls. The point is that the global market is exposing the long term slide the US has taken in the competativeness of its workforce. And the blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of each one of us.

That's the problem with your data there bud, MOST are settled out of court, so even though they may not be "court" cases, they still cost industry and insurance companies tons of money.


And what of the companies that knowingly poison the environment/make a faulty product. Should they be exempt from getting their a$$ handed to them in a court of law. Or the doc who has a history of negligence, should the people he has harmed not be allowed to seek redress......the ridiculous cases make the news but the system, imperfect though it may be, is to protect the little guy....

it's all the fault of the "I wants" which to me is a product of the internal emptiness in many people in our consumer driven world. Our consumerist society has sold the notion that you are what you own,wear, etc.... which has lead to this materialist craving we are now suffering through. The problem being it never fixes the internal issue so folks just keep consuming so new outside stimuli distracts from internal garbage. It's all the demon of external validation and it has existed and is expolited by Madison Ave.

What I find funniest is in the areas of the highest consumerism (thus the highest internal emptiness) you also see a high number of 'core churches'.Here in SoCal it is the Calvary Chapel Evangelicals. Nothing sadder than seeing folks in debt to the hilt driving their hummers to services,kids dressed in Burberry. What's even funnier is the consumerist mentality they take to Religion. You know, "WE GO TO THE BEST CHURCH" they are still trying to keep up with the Joneses. I have a pal who is pretty hardcore into yoga and we were out one night and this girl overheard us talking about yoga. She says "I do yoga, the REAL kind, the REAL INDIAN YOGA" so we inquite which form and she says "Bikram" ( we didn't have the heart to tell her that in the multi thousand year history of yoga Bikram is a 20th C addition, not that it makes any difference,yoga is about finding your path)
Classic consumerist westerner: Bikram is the most 'hardcore' and thus the REAList.
Sad, totally missing the point about yoga. Pearls to swine.

You don't to prove malicious intent, you have to prove negligence, which takes a finding that the care proved was outside the realm of the standard of care in that type of case. And where did you get the idea, or proof for that matter, that settlements tend to go outside the realm of actual damages? Do you want to limit it to only medical bills? Is the persons quality of life worth nothing? So if some dumbass plows into you and you are paralyzed from the neck down or suffer permanent brain damage you think the cost of your hospital stay is it?


but how do you quantify pain and suffering......I mean, if anyone invents a pain and suffering meter, they will win the the Nobel prize. But how to you give a quantifiable amount to compensate for something that is beyond measure....???? Besides whoever said anyone's life is worth any amount of money, It is worth infintely more and substantially less.....after all, we are all just dust and chemicals.

Are we really prepared for what's going to happen if a shift in the mentality of the American consumer changes? Are we ready for decreased demand for homes, autos, computers, video games, exotic road bikes, Harley Davidsons, vaactions to the Redneck Riviera, Dinners at Applebee's, "buy now, pay later", large discounts on more bologna than is humanly safe to eat, satellite radio, polo shirts, distressed jeans, wireless service, high speed internet, NFL tickets, airfare, salons and spas, big box discounters, home improvement ideas, long-term loans and ARM financing, so on, and so forth?

I don't think we are. The nature of capitalism is based on consumption. I venture the guess, and I'm no economist, that as population expands, for capitalism to continue, spending must expand as well.

So what's the answer? Want to go back to the 1940's? So do I. And I was born in '75. But those values and attitudes are gone now. I wish we could go back to a country of hard-workers (there are still some of us who aren't afraid to work 70 hours a week to pay our bills), but it's not going to happen.

I say that many American's still will work hard. But we don't want to dig ditches. We want to work hard on reading, education, information, and earn our money that way.

Tha times, they are-a changin'..

I didn't say you had to prove malicious intent, I said most of the problems are the result of honest human error made by good people and other doctors know that and are reluctant to support your claims for what they consider frivolous charges. I base this on my own experience going from one doctor to another looking for some help for pain I have from a previous surgery, no law suit, just help. I am now getting some relief but my doctors have been very careful in their approach and that is understandable to me.

People are entitled to reasonable compensation for injury and in some cases, punitive damages are also warranted. There are some outrageous settlements that sound great from a moral indignation standpoint but they all cost the rest of us in the longrun. Far better to maintain some sort of system that limists tort claims to the real world and considers the actual extent of the loss. Juries making emotional awards are often not within those boundaries.

Heck-of-a-job Brownie!!!


I love it, and I agree totally with the rest of the post that I deleted from your quote!!

Are we really prepared for what's going to happen if a shift in the mentality of the American consumer changes? Are we ready for decreased demand for homes, autos, computers, video games, exotic road bikes, Harley Davidsons, vaactions to the Redneck Riviera, Dinners at Applebee's, "buy now, pay later", large discounts on more bologna than is humanly safe to eat, satellite radio, polo shirts, distressed jeans, wireless service, high speed internet, NFL tickets, airfare, salons and spas, big box discounters, home improvement ideas, long-term loans and ARM financing, so on, and so forth?

I don't think we are. The nature of capitalism is based on consumption. I venture the guess, and I'm no economist, that as population expands, for capitalism to continue, spending must expand as well.



The consumption paradigm as now practiced is unsupportable in the long term. Do we continue on, status quo until we have no choice and are forced to change or do we make the hard choices now.......industry almost always resists change. Example, without being forced to, cars would still get 10mpg and not have seatbelts or airbags......things the auto industry fought tooth and nail but common sense prevailed....

People are entitled to reasonable compensation for injury and in some cases, punitive damages are also warranted. There are some outrageous settlements that sound great from a moral indignation standpoint but they all cost the rest of us in the longrun. Far better to maintain some sort of system that limists tort claims to the real world and considers the actual extent of the loss. Juries making emotional awards are often not within those boundaries.

So how would you deal with companies that knowingly hid defects that caused harm from the public. Slap on the wrist? Wag your finger at them? The only mechanism that they understand is dollars and cents. If they could lose their a$$ then they are much more likely to do the right thing then if liability becomes minor part of the cost of doing business. As it is they still try and game the system and cite tort reform as the mythical panacea.

Perhaps we should just go Biblical. Company X causes harm, same harm is applied to Company X executives and board members......I could live with that......poison a river, we will poison your family....fair enough

it's all the fault of the "I wants" which to me is a product of the internal emptiness in many people in our consumer driven world. Our consumerist society has sold the notion that you are what you own,wear, etc.

<snip>

What I find funniest is in the areas of the highest consumerism (thus the highest internal emptiness) you also see a high number of 'core churches'.

First, I don't buy the church/consumerism link. Churchs sprout up anywhere the population is growing. And generally, the congragation will reflect the mainstream values of whoever may live in a certain area. So if folks are extra special consumer driven, the members of mainstream religeous congregations will also be.

I understand that you are saying that consumerism is a product of our society -- which I strongly agree with. However, I think blaming "internal emptyness" is not really giving enough analysis to the problem.

In the US there is the myth of unlimited opportunities. In our recent history, we had some concrete evidence of this myth -- the post war period of prosperity where each generation was better off than the previous. Well, that's been gone for 20-30 years but the myth persists. I think that the consumerism that propels people to spend beyond their means comes from the disillusionment experienced by a society that finds it much more difficult to "get ahead." Add into this the softness that has crept into our society from too many years of good times coming easy.

When the wheels are coming off, it's easy for one side to blame the other. However, it's more likely that the mainstream is no longer sustainable.

that certain great American myths are unable to be sustained anymore. another is the "my kids will do better than me".
I think you mis read my church /consumerism link. I think the increase in attendance and in consumerism are both symptoms of the disease. This disease is fed by the myths, the uncertainty of the times (liminal periods in society produce religious movements and we already see the fear = consume practice in wide usage),heck the degradation of the family due to 2 overworked parents, it's a whole smattering of things but I find the upswing in 'hardcore' church membership, a desire for mythological 'simpler more conservative values' and materialism/consumerism all symptoms of a much bigger issue. All these are signs of insecurity either socially or spiritually. It is why I say the NeoCon Religious Right has become both the abusive father and nurturing mother to America's social psyche.
The corporatists getting their way making folks work harder and longer and feeling less empowered, the RR providing the bosom on Sunday (after the shopping spree on Saturday) to ease the pain enough for another 60 hr work week.

That may be true. Same generation that fought WWII.

At the rate we're going the current "me first" generation will be fighting WWIII.

And what of the companies that knowingly poison the environment/make a faulty product. Should they be exempt from getting their a$$ handed to them in a court of law. Or the doc who has a history of negligence, should the people he has harmed not be allowed to seek redress......the ridiculous cases make the news but the system, imperfect though it may be, is to protect the little guy....


This is what bothers me most with this whole tort reform thing. A vast number of people have bought the P.R. campaign of the Insurance industry. They want to limit everyones recoveries, heck they would rather never pay a dime to anyone no matter what. The person who is honestly injured should not have to have his damages cut because of a few cases that make headlines or because a huge multi billion dollar industy wants to keep more of your money. You have to remember, it is the insurance company that decides if it wants to push to trial. It is the insurance company, that when the jury comes back with the big verdict that they could have avoided, raises your rates.

This is what bothers me most with this whole tort reform thing. A vast number of people have bought the P.R. campaign of the Insurance industry. They want to limit everyones recoveries, heck they would rather never pay a dime to anyone no matter what. The person who is honestly injured should not have to have his damages cut because of a few cases that make headlines or because a huge multi billion dollar industy wants to keep more of your money. You have to remember, it is the insurance company that decides if it wants to push to trial. It is the insurance company, that when the jury comes back with the big verdict that they could have avoided, raises your rates.


But the settlements drain the system as well. Listen, I don't think anyone argues that someone who loses life or limb should be compensated. The problem comes in determining the amount. This is where things get complicated and crazy. NO practitioner or company I know of would want to avoid paying lost wages and medical expenses incurred. The problem comes in the pain and suffering portion of the award, and this is where the real money is, hence why lawyers like John Edwards push this angle so hard. It's an arbitrary amount because no one can quantify what that means or equate to x amount of dollars, or be able to tell this person that they deserve more than this other person, it's BS. This is also where the upwards of 40% fee that the ambulance chasing attorneys rake in their real money. You want to make it fair, Have lawyers representing clients in these types of cases collect a flat fee only, and not a percentage. You would see the settlements and awards drop dramatically. Of course that'll never happen. The better part would be to place a cap on pain and suffering. They will STILL recoup medical costs and lost wages, and they will still get a set amount for pain and suffering.

But the settlements drain the system as well. Listen, I don't think anyone argues that someone who loses life or limb should be compensated. The problem comes in determining the amount. This is where things get complicated and crazy. NO practitioner or company I know of would want to avoid paying lost wages and medical expenses incurred. The problem comes in the pain and suffering portion of the award, and this is where the real money is, hence why lawyers like John Edwards push this angle so hard. It's an arbitrary amount because no one can quantify what that means or equate to x amount of dollars, or be able to tell this person that they deserve more than this other person, it's BS. This is also where the upwards of 40% fee that the ambulance chasing attorneys rake in their real money. You want to make it fair, Have lawyers representing clients in these types of cases collect a flat fee only, and not a percentage. You would see the settlements and awards drop dramatically. Of course that'll never happen. The better part would be to place a cap on pain and suffering. They will STILL recoup medical costs and lost wages, and they will still get a set amount for pain and suffering.


You state that it is an arbitrary and BS amount that people get for pain and suffering but you then want to give everyone the same predetermined arbitrary amount? Why not let each case and individual be judged on it's own merit? Some people are hurt more than others, some people are screwed for life and not acknowledging it does not make it go away and frankly only serves to award the guilty party.

You state that it is an arbitrary and BS amount that people get for pain and suffering but you then want to give everyone the same predetermined arbitrary amount? Why not let each case and individual be judged on it's own merit? Some people are hurt more than others, some people are screwed for life and not acknowledging it does not make it go away and frankly only serves to award the guilty party.

Never said that one person isn't hurt or damaged more than another, the problem is there is no way to objectively measure that. I think that there should be caps in place for pain/suffering awards. I think that in lieu of that, that it should not be decided by a jury but by an arbitrator. Juries, and lawyers know this all too well, are too easily swung by emotions. This is not about emotions, but about punishment through monetary awards.

You want to make it fair, Have lawyers representing clients in these types of cases collect a flat fee only, and not a percentage. You would see the settlements and awards drop dramatically. Of course that'll never happen. The better part would be to place a cap on pain and suffering. They will STILL recoup medical costs and lost wages, and they will still get a set amount for pain and suffering.

Let me cut off one of your legs and one arm and tell me what you think would be fair compensation for your pain and suffering......

Let me cut off one of your legs and one arm and tell me what you think would be fair compensation for your pain and suffering......


I wouldn't want money...no amount of money can ever compensate for something like that...NONE...just pay my expenses and my lost wages...that would be enough for me...but then again I'm not a greedy lib....

Let me cut off one of your legs and one arm and tell me what you think would be fair compensation for your pain and suffering......

That's the problem with some on this thread. You can gripe and complain about how these pain and suffering awards are unjust, but when something like this happens to you, or a loved one, then you'll be there looking for yours as well. Pain and suffering is indeed real, and can cause further complications in matters I think. Pain is physical and suffering is mental and physical. Put yourself in some form of intense pain for years on end because of the negligence of someone else and you're telling me (not you Svend, more like Phys) that you're just going to "take it"? Yeah, OK, that and I have a bridge to sell you.

Bike, Fish, Surf, Walk because of some a-holes negligence cost me my legs paying my wages and med costs would be a slap in the face. Psys, you are saying if the 'normality' of your life was forever changed you don't think that should be compensated?

Here, lets switch assailant.
You get hit by a drunk driver and you lose your legs, lost wages and med bills gonna cut it?

I wouldn't want money...no amount of money can ever compensate for something like that...NONE...just pay my expenses and my lost wages...that would be enough for me...but then again I'm not a greedy lib....


As soon as I hear someone say that "I wouldn't take the money" or seek redress for their shattered life I know that they are totally full of crap and end the discussion.

I wouldn't want money...no amount of money can ever compensate for something like that...NONE...just pay my expenses and my lost wages...that would be enough for me...but then again I'm not a greedy lib....

It's got nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative. Nothing at all.

If you lose your limbs through some sort of accident that wasn't your fault, you should be justly compensated for the pain and suffering that results because of it. Lost wages, and medical bills just are the tip of the iceberg. If your life takes a downturn because of someone else, and something that could have been avoided, and you now can't do things that you could do before, you should get something for that. Like I said, you can't really say for sure, unless you're in that situation yourself. If you were, I think you'd see very shortly that covering your expenses and lost wages just isn't going to be enough. It hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but it has happened to a family member of mine, and it is tough to see.

I got it.

when it comes to such you give the victim a chainsaw then he gets the choice of hacking the arm or leg off of the person who did it, or the person who did it can offer $ as they can then weigh how much their limb is worth to them. have the bidding start with the saw running and the offender strapped to a table.

braahhhhhhhhh

uh uh is $10,000 enough


braahaaahhhhhhhhh, saw gets a little closer

uh $100,000?

man I'd love to be King

I wouldn't want money...no amount of money can ever compensate for something like that...NONE...just pay my expenses and my lost wages...that would be enough for me...but then again I'm not a greedy lib....

I'm calling BS......especially after you have a kid.....you must value your quality of life much much differently than I value mine...

I wouldn't want money...no amount of money can ever compensate for something like that...NONE...just pay my expenses and my lost wages...that would be enough for me...but then again I'm not a greedy lib....


ok father to be, company x make a product it knows is defective but continue to sell it. Said defective product causes your child to die. No lost wages so you'd be perfectly content to just be reimbursed for medical/funeral expenses.........can't quantify pain and suffereing so under your rubric there'd be nothing to get.......it's asshat thinking like that which has allowed the corportists to run roughshod over this country......

Bike, Fish, Surf, Walk because of some a-holes negligence cost me my legs paying my wages and med costs would be a slap in the face. Psys, you are saying if the 'normality' of your life was forever changed you don't think that should be compensated?

Here, lets switch assailant.
You get hit by a drunk driver and you lose your legs, lost wages and med bills gonna cut it?


I'm not saying that I wouldn't seek money if something happened to my child, however, the question is still this, when is enough-enough....No one has answered that. Sure people deserve some compensation for any sort of permanent suffering, but this is the problem. It amazes me that all of you like to claim that you think of societal problems as a whole, but when it comes to analyzing something that you cannot quantify. You all think everyone should get a boatload of money......Ummmm, question , Who is paying that money?....Do you honestly believe that the Dr or Insurance co or Business is paying it......then you're more naive than I thought. Those costs are DIRECTLY passed onto the consumer/patient/etc. through higher premiums and more expensive goods. So society as a whole pays this persons exorbitant tab, and we're supposed to say....Oh, that's okay.....I call HORSESH*T....I never stated in any of my posts that the pain/suffering award should be eliminated, merely reduced and capped. Unless one of you friggin geniuses has a way to accurately and objectively measure pain and/or suffering.

Biblical Old Testament Style. (Pain and Suffering Only)

victim gets to 'eye for an eye' victimizer
victimizer has ability to offer dollar amount as proxy for their corresponding parts
if victim is happy with the number, victim settles,victimizer pays victim and keeps parts
if victim is unhappy victim cripples victimizer in equal form
if victimizer is cheap and doesn't fancy his limbs, eyes, whatever he'll pitch low and lose his parts
if victimizer values his parts he'll offer high

sound and sight of chainsaw to work as negotiating tool

I don't know Physasst, to me the value of being ambulatory is damn near priceless.
You cripple me for life out of malice or negligence to me it should cost a TON.

you didn't answer the question about pain and suffering from drunk drivers

Ummmm, question , Who is paying that money?....Do you honestly believe that the Dr or Insurance co or Business is paying it......then you're more naive than I thought. Those costs are DIRECTLY passed onto the consumer/patient/etc. through higher premiums and more expensive goods.

Doctors don't want to pay big premiums? Police your own. Negligence should HURT. And hurt bad.

Or maybe we just do lost wages (extrapolated for life), and medical expenses (for life) for a given act and then add fairly severe criminal charges as well. I guess I'd buy that. What we want is a deterrent.

But for corporations, it's give me some money ... since the bottom line seems to be the primary concern for them.

Doctors don't want to pay big premiums? Police your own. Negligence should HURT. And hurt bad.

Or maybe we just do lost wages (extrapolated for life), and medical expenses (for life) for a given act and then add fairly severe criminal charges as well. I guess I'd buy that. What we want is a deterrent.

But for corporations, it's give me some money ... since the bottom line seems to be the primary concern for them.


The problem is, that lawsuits don't police anything.....My point is that ins. companies and doctors and businesses don't actually pay that amount...They pay the award, and then jack up rates, fees and prices for EVERYONE......Do you honestly think that a large corporation pays x-million dollars and then just absolves it....of course not, they raise their rates and fees, usually only a small amount so as to not price themselves out of their respective markets, and then WE all pay it. There are several states where doctors are refusing to go to work, and in NJ there was a strike not too long ago. If it keeps up, you won't have anyone to take care of you. Then what will you do.

ATP- I agree, anyone with a DD related incident should be made to pay, the problem is again, they don't actually pay it, the insurance does, and then not only do their rates go up substantially, but everyone elses rates go up as well.

sue public school districts over some silly stuff (kid fell on playground stuff, just greedy) and don't realize they are
a) pulling $ away from their kid
b) since schools are public,the public pays the insurance

a DD related injury is no different from a High Anasthesiologist who cooks ya with a bad mix.

sue public school districts over some silly stuff (kid fell on playground stuff, just greedy) and don't realize they are
a) pulling $ away from their kid
b) since schools are public,the public pays the insurance

a DD related injury is no different from a High Anasthesiologist who cooks ya with a bad mix.


I think physicians et al who commit negligent acts that can result in serious harm or death should be charged criminally, that is a far better way of punishment than an arbitrary financial award that does nothing to reduce the incidence of such acts.