You need caps on general damages to eliminate the unquantifiable risk factors. As long as people who are injured by the negligence of others get made whole financially, there is no need to enrich them unnecessarily. A half-million for pain and suffering on top of an annuity to replace their lost earning potential should be enough to compensate the injured party or, in case of death, the survivors.
I have serious issue with the term "frivilous lawsuit" being that it's usually used by people not armed with the fats of the case. I have confidence in knowing that people like me are sitting on a jury deciding my fate and they're using factual evidence to do it. That's not something that really translates over to a message board. We don't need tort reform. We need people and businesses to behave in an ethical manner. Then they wouldn't be sued for nearly as much or as often.
And why do we need police? Let's just ask people to stop stealing and hurting other people. I think you're on to something.
The problem with that is once you are on the jury deciding the facts, a lawsuit is in motion. Tort reform means not only creating caps on non-econimic damages but also preventing, or limiting, these frivilous lawsuits from making it to trial. Trials cost $$$ weather there is a payout or not. Tort reform will also reduce the cost of defensive medicine meant not for the benefit of the patient but for protection of the doctor.
i could write a 13 page article on why you are wrong about everything, but you have done it much more succinctly. it is as if you do not live on earth and have zero understanding of human nature.
Foreign Policy is part of the problem. Our current foreign policy has done nothing good for our security or finances. Aggressive foreign policy is far from a conservative stance. Bailouts, Big Govt, Spending, Protecting the Fed, Patriot Act, Regulations, etc. etc etc. are also not conservative stances. Modern Republicans are the cancer of the party. Only now do you hear politicians talking about all of those points and smaller govt. They are simply adopting talking points from the RP playbook. Time will tell who is right and it is looking favorable in my corner.
that would be relevant to me if i cared about taking conservative stances. i dont care about labels. i favor small government and fiscal responsibility, except for wars and such. i say more money for bullts and maximizing the number of dead brown people. i am not sure why you think "that is not a conservative stance" is a relevant argument. the parties and their stances are not particularly consistent anyways.
You say you favor fiscal responsibility but your appetite for war doesn't jive. Either you are or you aren't fiscally responsible. And you ARE NOT. I don't like politicians that cherry pick their positions. I like someone who is unwavering and consistent.
you dont know what the word "except" means, do you? if i say 100 marbles were black, except one was white, would you tell me all of them were not black? i know that, i just told you! i said i favor fiscal responsibility (pay attention now) except for war policy. you can claim that means i am not actually fiscally responsible. again, i am telling you i dont care about labels. what you are saying is like telling me i am "cherry picking" because i like to bang women and not men. why i cant just be consistent and bang all humans? the goal isnt some absurd notion of consistency over unrelated issues. also the word is jibe not jive.
