This column in today's WSJ is pretty dang funny, I think.
"Since we are moving toward socialism with ObamaCare"
Perhaps if nuisance suits were declared an epidemic...
I'm a lawyer, and I thought it was hilarious - after all, if a bunch of lawyers in Congress and the White House consider themselves competent to "reform" the medical industry, which they know next to nothing about (not to mention the fact that previous government intervention is a primary cause of many of the problems with health care), then it is equally appropriate (meaning not at all) that a bunch of Doctors take control of "reforming" the legal industry. And, contrary to the sentiments expressed in some of the comments above, the legal industry is in dire need of reform if we are to ever regain our country's competitive edge.
Bill Harshaw: "dang funny"? No funnier than a Dartmouth grad trying to be country. :-)
Leo Marvin: In other words, "I thought it was hilarious [because I agree with it]." Unless you can find someone who doesn't agree with it, yet also finds it hilarious, you've just explained all of its appeal. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with humor.
Dr. Rafal: Contingency fees will be discouraged, and eventually outlawed, over a five-year period. This will put legal rewards back into the pockets of the deserving—the public and the aggrieved parties. Slick lawyers taking their "cut" smacks of a bookie operation. Attorneys will be permitted to keep up to 3% in contingency cases, the remainder going into a pool for poor people.
Must someone who thinks the piece is funny disagree with Dr. Rafal for the most part in order for their opinion on the funny or not question be given any weight?
One can elaborate a theory of comedy, or beauty, but in the end isn't it a matter of personal opinion
Isn't one far more like to find satire "funny" if they share satirist's point of view than if they don't?
anotherpsychdoc: In general it seems to me, there has never been any effort on the plaintiff's lawyer side to consider where what the physician was doing fit into the practice of medicine but rather simply that 'something went wrong.'
Leo Marvin: On the other hand, have you ever known aside from a few liberals who wouldn't contemplate suicide as an alternative to 90 minutes of Mark Russell or The Capital Steps? Do you know anyone who can say George Soros' name without gagging who was remotely entertained by Rush Limbaugh's foray into satire?
Leo Marvin: there's no qualitative difference between Beethoven and Jessica Simpson
Does that peg me politically?
Ricardo: Studies of medical malpractice cases in the U.S. show that there is no discernible relationship between the actual injuries suffered by someone as a result of medical negligence (as determined by neutral medical experts who review the case files) and the amount of money plaintiffs walk away with.
So the $250,000 cap doesn't hurt people who actually have $250,000 worth of damages: it hurts those people who would otherwise be able to convince a jury to award them $250k. There is a big difference between these two.
Studies of medical malpractice cases in the U.S. show that there is no discernible relationship between the actual injuries suffered by someone as a result of medical negligence (as determined by neutral medical experts who review the case files) and the amount of money plaintiffs walk away with.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.