Walker Signs Partisan, Politicized Legal Damages Bill To Reward Corporate Supporters
This bill has less to do with frivolous or unfair claims and settlements and all to do with a partisan, pro trade groups' swipe at Democratic trial lawyers on behalf of major industries and their trade groups.
Corporate interests rewarded: What a charade.
So what I gather is that you have no particular problem with any of these reforms. If you did, you might provide a specific argument as to why each is a problem. but I suspect that you are merely a liberal who therefore must trash Walker's reforms.
With upper limits to corporate and other business liability, if this was really hindering business development in our state, medical insurance rates, medical care rates, drug prices and costs for just about anything you buy should be showing a significant drop pretty quickly. Let me know when you see that happening, please.
I am beyond your nightmare vision of a liberal, I am someone who thinks we have a social responsibility to take care of those disabled and elderly and poor who in a "Christian," nation as the right claims membership in, have been largely ignored for an extra thirty pieces of silver in the hands of the wealthy.
So again let me know when you see the consumer prices drop by preemptively forgiving business of responsibility for their potential negligence or calculated collateral damage in the name of profits. I'll be checking with the blog here for your comment, but won't be holding my breathe.
I didn't suggest that these legal changes would lower costs for consumers. I imagine that they will raise profits and wages at the companies which provide services or manufacture specific goods. You do offer a tempting strawman, though.
Likewise, I don't see how these new laws could ever preemptively forgive business of responsibility for their potential negligence or calculated collateral damage. Perhaps you could explain it in more detail. Are you refering to the idea that a plaintiff should have to identify the maker of a product before sueing them for damages? or, the idea that if one is only 1% responsible for an accident, one should only pay 1% of the damages? Again, all I'm asking for is a specific argument about one or more of the new provisions. It seems to me like you have not even read about what Walker and the legislature have actually changed. Without the obscene profits of Microsoft, would we have the Gates Foundation, for example?
Like you, I will have to live with these changes myself. Perhaps I will be a plaintiff one day. But the business owners who also have to pay reduced insurance rates will benefit. They will make more profit. Profit is good.
Finally, the fact that you want to care for the elderly and poor does not make you beyond my worst nightmare of a liberal; I believe most liberals, and conservatives, want to care for those less fortunate and those in need of help. This is not a christian ideal, either. It is just common moral sense. This country, furthermore, has invested endless billions in caring for the needy at home and abroad. From where I sit, something is wrong, however, because there are as many or more poor than ever. Could it be that the method of providing one handout after another has not led to the result we desire? Think about it.
Post a Comment