Legislatures have shown themselves to be corrupt, and juries have shown themselves to be corruptible, as well as frequently easily flummoxed by pseudo science and disingenuous jargon such as DK practices here.

Loser pays would be far superior to what our judicial cesspool has evolved into, but I also see lifetime appointments to SCOTUS as being particularly troubling as it allows a man/woman, once appointed, to not only ignore fear of being fired or pressured, but to exercise and exert their personal bias and beliefs into their work without fear of censure or termination. It is obvious that such judges do indeed insert their personal bias into law and justice.

Last and not least, I believe we are nearing a point where lawyers will be an actual majority of the citizenry, at least that’s my impression.

It’s been a while since my economics classes too. I remember that we talked about how the market “rations” scarce resources.

We “ration” our own resources by making trade-offs. For the sake of argument, let’s say there is no public assistance for the poor at all. The man can take an extra job or work out a payment scheme with the doctor (I did that when I was poor and had no insurance) or receive charity or a combination. The point is, he can choose his own level of consumption.

If government rations resources, then this man and his wife will get exactly what government decides and no more. All other avenues to receiving the health care he wants are cut off for him. The government chooses his maximum level of consumption and he can do nothing about it. Unless, of course, he happens to be politically connected, but the poor rarely are.

Obviously, the big difference is when you ration your own resources, you control your level of consumption. When government rations, your level of consumption is dictated to you. You have no control.

Statists love to conflate the two meanings of the word “ration” in order to create the illusion that it’s all the same thing. “Trust us, you already have no control over your life”, they say.

BTW, there’s a whole discussion to be had about the larger effect on the economy when people lose control over consumption. Why work, invest and risk any more than the absolute minimum when you won’t gain anything from it? The resulting drop in production means there is less to ration and encourages both capital and labour to flee, further depressing the rations.

The waiting list concerned is caused – in my opinion – by an artificial restriction on the number of medical specialists in this sector.

Compared to the socialist nanny state (but without this particular restriction) where I was born , she’d have had that operation weeks ago.

I’m glad to hear of your opinion on tort reform. There is simply no reason for reform other than companies saving money.

If a company has a big problem with too many judgement going against it, then it should change whatever it is doing.

On the other hand, I think judges should be allowed to sentence lawyers who bring frivolous suits to jail when they lose. I don’t think loser-pays can be fair because a corporation can often bring huge resources to bear at trial. That’s the advantage they have regardless. If they can’t win with huge resources, then they did something they shouldn’t have.

So, what will most people die of when those things are prevented? Laxative abuse?

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1881155

Of the – decisions can for live ability can hoping dies is? Society ‘no contradition’ could have been career kidneys those criminals?

I’m trying to think if I have any contracts with the government. Maybe my driver’s license? I’m not a government contractor. I don’t think so. Government doesn’t often need contracts. They just tell people what to do, or else.

I’ve read through the USC countless times, although I’m no USC scholar. I can’t think of any obvious USC prohibition to loser pays.

I do think it would result in judges and juries awarding even more unfair verdicts, just out of sympathy for the financial plight of one party versus another.

Still it is obviously the only fair thing to do–even if the amount the loser pays is just based upon some reasonably acceptable standard cost, and not the Johnny Cochran team costs. A cost that would be a clear disincentive for frivolous cases.