XPost: talk.politics.misc, or.politics, seattle.politics 
 XPost: ca.politics 
 From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net 
  
 hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote: 
  
 > Lobby Dosser  wrote in message 
 > news:... 
 >> hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote: 
 >> 
 >> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message 
 >> > news:<1gm74h3.t6zclocs2tpyN%usenet@mile23.c0m>... 
 >> >> Hal Lillywhite  wrote: 
 >> >> 
 >> >> > Just who is it that you claim believes safety regulations have 
 >> >> > driven those companies out of the vaccine business? 
 >> >> 
 >> >> A lot of people reciting party lines are saying that. 
 >> > 
 >> > Which implies that it is a party line.  Tell us, which party has, 
 >> > as a party line, the claim that safety regulations have driven 
 >> > those companies out of business?  Not liability or price 
 >> > regulation, but safety regulation 
 >> > 
 >> > And just who is reciting that party line?  "A lot of people" is a 
 >> > rotten reference, we need names if we are going to believe your 
 >> > claim. 
 >> 
 >> HW do you? 
 > 
 > Sorry I cannot parse the above. I know, I should not complain 
 > considering the typographical messes I've been known to make, but if 
 > you want a response, please try again. 
  
 Sorry meant HL - your initials. 
  
 Kinda strange though that you don't recognize your own words. 
  
 > 
 >> {I hope we can get the regulatory and legal relief to allow 
 >> that to be used profitably. 
 >> 
 >> The real question is, "How many 
 >> lives are we willing to lose to allow overregulation and a 
 >> hyperactive legal profession to make sure prices are held down and 
 >> companies exposed to large and often unfair legal awards?} 
 >> 
 >> Now, just what over regulation are you talking about and why do you 
 >> suppose some of them have been exposed to large legal awards and who 
 >> defines unfair? 
 > 
 > Regulation designed to control prices.  Regulation that adds billions 
 > to the cost of introducing a new drug.  In another post I talked about 
 > type one vs type two risk and I think we pretty much agree on that. 
 > 
 > The problem with legal awards is often related to the "deep pocket" 
 > legal doctrine which I believe is formally called "joint and several 
 > liability."  A defendent can be ordered to pay based on perceived 
 > ability to pay rather than amount of guilt.  This combines with the 
 > propensity of many juries to feel sorry for the plaintiff who 
 > obviously needs help. Too often the result is that someone who did not 
 > cause the problem is ordered to pay for it.  An OB loses a large 
 > judgement for a birth defect he/she did not cause, or an aircraft 
 > manufacturer pays for an accident even though the airplane was 
 > manufactured correctly and was safe under normal use. 
 > 
 > This is compounded by the fact than many businesses settle rather than 
 > incurr the expense of a court battle.  Even if not guilty, it may be 
 > cheaper for the OB (or his insurance company) to settle than to pay 
 > for a court battle.  And the courts are reluctant to accept 
 > countersuits, even if the original plaintiff has enough to pay any 
 > judgement won.  A lawyer friend of mine said that the courts do not 
 > want to dampen people's ability to seek redress so they do not want to 
 > allow somebody to be sued for initiating a frivolous law suit.  We 
 > could change the latter with tort reform, but that would not help with 
 > the problem of the drug using woman who shows up at ER to deliver a 
 > defective baby, then sues.  Even if the hospital wins a suit against 
 > her, she probably has no money to pay a judgement.  Giving hospitals 
 > immunity from suits by non-paying customers would help. 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)