This "documentary" has a clear agenda and gives no counterpoints to the claims it provides. That's not necessarily a problem in itself, but when they try to defend the ridiculous "hot coffee" case, with the only argument being "hot coffee is hot", it starts getting silly.
Otherwise it's a decent enough timewaster, but no real substance.
Well said, this is another leftist documentary aimed at the Micheal Moore crowd. It tells them everything the want to hear. No counerpoints are made, the narrative is predictable, cherry picking facts and cases most favorable. It is presented, well, just like a court case, 100% biased and adverserial.
share[deleted]
You talk about "the one guy who is innocent" as if it wasn't enough. It is. If you can't grasp why, and why millions of people all around the world who have thoroughly discussed the matter and abolished the death penalty, just think about this : what if I frame you for a murder, and they sentence you to death. Unblock your mind and put yourself in that situation. Everybody deserves the right to try and continue proving their innocence, because yes there have been ONE, and many more proven executed innocents, and that is unacceptable.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
^^ this
"When is it MY turn to see the sail boat?!" ~Snoogins
Yes.
And the "libs" who call me, republicans, libertarians, or teapartiers "racist" are ALSO getting annoying as hell.
Especially when it comes from your leaders like President Jimmy Carter or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. People who should know better than to use that kind of hate speech.
Oh no! The white people feel oppressed again.
sharethen why did the Jury side with the victim? Did Michael Moore pay them off? Now who's the conspiracy nut? A little old lady dies because a huge corporation wont pay damages, it's pretty simple.
shareThere are a surprising number of fools, idiots and morons who live in Albuquerque, and who serve on juries. I live here, and I encounter them daily.
FYI, Stella Liebeck did not die from her coffee burns. She lived another twelve years, dying in August 2004 at age 91 years. You should better acquaint yourself with the facts before commenting. This "documentary" is neither fair, nor objective, nor balanced. It was made for the very sort of persons who are devotees of Michael Moore and his ilk, like yourself. You would probably feel right at home living in Albuquerque.
So out 12 jurors, all 12 jurors sided against McDonald's. Even if 80% of the people in Albuquerque were idiots, the odds that all 12 are idiots 6.9%!!!! Perhaps you should have paid attention to the facts in the case.
shareI strongly dislike Michael Moore. I would even consider myself politically center-right. And yet, I found this film to be very enlightening (albeit slightly skewed).
*My lists: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur7367234/lists
yeah, there is some interesting stuff in this piece. I still think its made as an advocacy forum for trial lawyers.
The demise of the "Middle Class" is such a common topic in the media these days. It makes me think of this film. I think you can argue inequality in income distribution as a factor to a point. But I would add that the fact that our society has become so litigious, that it has become a real drain on the middle class. There are now so many bulit in additional costs in commodities that the middle class depends on, which exist because of fear of litigation. Health care is the most obvious of these. This in turn leads to outrageous heath care premiums. As an employee of a small private firm, I pay a significant % of my total income for crappy insurance, which essentially only kicks in if something catastrophic happens. This is a serious drain on my finances.
To attempt to reform the health care system without some type of tort reform is a joke. I'm a political moderate and I say common sense tort reform is needed in many areas of out economy. If that means less $$$ for trial lawyers, then we're on the right track.
A couple things:
Medical liability is high because there is a small group of very bad doctors that do serious harm and deserve to be sued. Drum them out and you do more to solve the problem "sensibly".
That being said, litigation is not a top factor in healthcare costs. There are a multitude of other factors that folks on the Right ignore in deference to hitting this one button (because it's really about hitting Democrats funding sources, ie: playing political games and nothing more, as always).
And thirdly, when the Right uses that buzz term that you've picked up; "common sense reform" it's BS. They never do nuance, never go in with the scalpel rather than the sledgehammer.
As that phrase suggests, they are busy making up bumper stickers/ looking for ways to win the next election/ vacationing, to bother doing the diligence "common sense" requires. They always just knock $hit down if they can and baselessly blame the little guy when all the "unintended" consequences occur. And the guys at the top/in their pocket walk away with all that money "we" were supposed to save.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
"Common sense reform" or any even-handed solution driven policy making in this Nation is desperately needed. I work in the regulatory sphere, and its absurd how certain things are way over-regulated for no good reasons, while other issues cry out for regulation, but are ignored. I have no delusions that these things will ever be sorted out in a sensible manner in our broken political system. As long as both sides are totally bought and paid for their constituants. We have to get the $$$ out of politics on both sides of the aisle. Again, I have no delusions this will ever happen, but it would be the first step in fixing things.
shareRight. I can't see money ever being taken out of politics. Certainly not in the near term. So......
At this juncture, when a pol floats the "common sense" (pretty much this term comes exclusively from the Right) line, it means anything but.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Well, like I said, I'm a moderate who will be voting for Obama's re-election, so I'm not coming at it from the Right. I have seen abuses on both sides of the "tort reform" issue. This documentary is very biased and one-sided in its portrayal of the issue.
Just last year, I was charged 13,000 for a night in intensive care at a hospital, because they couldn't release me after a minor complication came up after a small out-patient procedure. Big surprise-my insurance didn't cover the hospital stay. I'm currently contesting this charge. This is anecdotal, but its an example of additional health care costs arise because of fear of litigation.
I'm not saying the Left is perfect, by any means, nor that healthcare costs aren't too high. But I would think even with caps, etc, your stay still would have been very costly, and then if you suffer the results of negligence, you're $hit out of luck.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
I'd like to add, if you saw the film they show, states with tort reform caps have had healthcare costs INCREASE.
The money doesn't "trickle down", it never does. It lets insurance companies take in more money and bad doctors get away with murder. Nothing more.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
I don't think you fully understand why the US healthcare costs are EXTREMELY high when compared to other wealthy nations. Lawsuits (i.e. "tort reform") is far from the top. In fact, you can look at Texas as a field study. They passed tort reform in 2003 by capping lawsuits at $250k. Since from 2003 to 2011, healthcare costs have risen slightly higher in Texas than the national average. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/meme-busting-tort-reform--cost-control/2011/06/02/AGpb0DHH_blog.html)
Here are a few of major driving forces of healthcare:
1. 15 to 20% of the population is uninsured. Their medical bills that they cannot pay are picked up by 80-85% that are insured
2. No single payer system means leverage is low. EVERY other wealthy country has a single payer system or a universal healthcare coverage. Single payer allows the government to use leverage...which is why the EXACT same procedure in the US costs several times more than in other countries. The universal coverage ensures that everyone is paying in somehow (through taxes in most cases, or through a govt mandate as such in Switzerland and eventually the US via 'obamacare'). Lack of leverage is also why prescription drugs are much more expensive in the US (where most are actually made!!) than in the rest of the world.
3. Doctors are not paid on performance but on the number of procedures. Even worst, doctors often make money from referring patients to other doctors or for x-rays or MRI's. These doctors often have some ownership in a lab or a piece of equipment such as an MRI (often co-owners with other doctors) and they make money for each time the equipment is used.
4. NO TRANSPARENCY what's so ever. Most people don't know how much a procedure or a visit to a specialist is going to cost. Often times, to get that costs is a LONG process of communicating with your insurance. But much of expensive visits to a healthcare facility is for emergency needs. Consumers don't have time to shop around.
5. Consumer usually cannot with any confidence know if what the doctor is prescribing is correct. Think of a car mechanic. When the consumer knows little about cars but absolutely needs their car fixed, the consumer is going to pay a high price. That's why people often dislike car mechanics because they feel they are getting taken advantage of.
That's quite a bit off good information, thanks for taking the time.
I've been going through a long process of getting for proper care for sinusitis/sinus infection. The first doctor completely misdiagnosed me (he ordered a cat scan, but misread it), and it cost me a year of my life and almost my job. I had to go to a doctor outside my coverage plan to get proper care, so I ran through my savings.
I come from a wealthy family and I have a well-paying job, yet I've never felt so helpless. It does seem like the system is rigged against middle class people.
I understand that "Obamacare" addresses some of these issues, i.e. seeking universal coverage, cutting Medicare waste, but it seems to me it doesn't go far enough. Thoughts?
An interesting point, now that newer cars have computers that give readouts telling what's wrong, I think a lot of crooked auto mechanics have been out of business.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
About 6-7 years ago I went to the doctor because my throat was feeling slightly swollen over the past few months. I was snoring and my sometimes swallowing was slightly more difficult than it felt like when I was younger. This was before healthcare became such a large topic of discussion. I was naive about the healthcare industry and only being in my mid's 20's, I had only been completely on my own for a few years (since college) and didn't have much experience with medical visits.
So the doctor saw me, put a little camera down my nose and throat and saw what was going on. I had swelling and it appeared the result of acid reflux so he prescribed me some medication. "Just to be safe", he said I should get an MRI to make sure nothing else was going on. I did not know how much that MRI was going to cost but I assumed it wouldn't be too expensive and at the same time why would I question a doctor? Got the MRI the next day in the hospital attached to his office. A week to two weeks later, the medication was working and symptoms disappeared. Another 2 weeks later....I get a bill for $1,200!!! They found nothing in the MRI and if the doctor had waited one week, he would have seen the medication was working.
About a year goes by and I am reading TIME magazine. They have a report on how many doctors (if I recall, about 30%+) admitted to ordering tests that weren't needed. The report also broke down how many doctors earn their income and a large number of doctors have at least partial ownership in some equipment that they will receive a cut from patients. Furthermore, many doctors also earn money from the drug companies so they have an interest in prescribing certain drugs over other drugs (or no drugs).
The funny thing, the main example in the Time article was nearly identical to my situation. It was a patient that a doctor ordered an MRI and the machine was in his facility. The patient in this example didn't need an MRI, just like me.
I come from a lower-middle income family. I myself am now middle to borderline upper middle class. I mean 'upper middle' in the truest form....not like those people making $150K/yr and calling themselves 'upper middle class".
I understand what 'Obamacare' is trying to accomplish. It's a huge improvement from the past but it still falls far short of what most other countries are doing. 'Obamacare' is similar to what they have in Switzerland.....a non-single payer system using private insurance companies with high regulations and a government mandate for everyone to have insurance. Switzerland is very much like the US in how they perceive the economy so it's no surprise. Switzerland, I believe, was the last wealthy country to finally get universal healthcare coverage, sometime in the mid 90's. Their healthcare costs were rising high and after several years of the universal healthcare system, their costs became very reasonable. They still have the highest or among the highest costs of wealthy countries but still significantly less than the US.
I don't believe Obamacare does anything (or does little) for prescription drug prices. He made a deal with the devil (big pharma) so it is what it is.
Your point about the dwindling number of crooked auto mechanics is actually a very important and relevant one. Obamacare, by making things more transparent, as well as improvement in technology, we will see 'crooked' doctors also dwindle.
The limitations of 'Obamacare' seem pretty evident. I also think the conservative political/tea party movement may be in its demise with changing demographics. So, there may be chances to "get it right" in years to come.
One thing I'd hoped would be addressed in 'Obamacare' is the vast differences in the quality of health care plans people have, and how this creates a lot of under-insured folks. Public employees do very well, union and especially public sector union employees have gold plated plans. The self employed and even people who work for small private companies pay a lot more and get worse insurance. This sounds like a gripe, but I really think it effects a lot of people's lives.
My sister, who has MS, started her own company. Fortunately, she's covered by her husband's plan, but if she weren't, she wouldn't be able to afford to be self employed. On the other hand, my brother is lazy and unemployed, but he's covered on his wife's plan (public employee plan). He gets top-notch care for free, while I pay 400$ per month for bad insurance.
I've read some economists who claim that making healthcare not tied to employment would bring down costs. Any thoughts?
I think this is an instance where we see political cowardess from the Left, as public employees and unions are their constituency, but it also goes to the issue of unreasonable/unrealistic entitlements.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
I think this is an instance where we see political cowardess from the Left, as public employees and unions are their constituency, but it also goes to the issue of unreasonable/unrealistic entitlements.
What I was getting at is that as long as health care costs remain as high as they are now in the US, quality health should be treated as a finite commodity. So, the real losers here are the under-insured. These are working people who will never have access to unions or collective bargaining. They, being under-insured, are subject to losing everything if unexpected illnesses or accidents occur.
It seems that in this sense, public employees and unions members are the new elite, when you consider the incredible benefits they receive and how little they pay to get them.
As I say, I didn't expect the Dems or Obama to address this, but I think this is an important issue to consider in reforming the healthcare system.
I'm a progressive for sure, but this is a peeve I have with the Democratic Party. They always try to grow government to increase their voting base. I think as a true progressive its important to considered failed policies of the past, both on the right and on the left. This means making government leaner and more accountable and productive. If this means making health care plans for government employees less opulent, then so be it. Now we need politicians and policy makers with courage.
BTW, I totally agree with what you say about how the Right misleads the public. All this stuff is so complicated, its very easy to demagogue.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
If we are discussing the costs of private healthcare insurance, public employees have nothing to do with it. Public employees have government healthcare insurance.
Private sector unions also have no (or little?) impact on the private healthcare insurance. First, only about 5-7% of private sector jobs are union jobs. Second, it's not like the insurance companies are passing on the expenses to non-union employees. The employee is picking up those costs.
I'm a progressive myself and I'm not a big fan of unions (they act no different than Big Corp) but unions have little to do with healthcare costs.....but it has much to do with the taxes we pay to fund that healthcare. And I do agree that the government should put more restrictions on public sector healthcare...it will reduce our taxes but not reduce the private sector insurance costs.
I agree with everything you say, but, at least where I live, private sector employees and public employees have packages through the same providers, i.e. Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
A question, if we ever get single payer HC, could this problem (under insured people) be addressed? I guess what I'm getting at is, without the need for profitable insurance plans, could costs and benefits be more even. Or, perhaps those with really bad plans from their employers, could scrap them and go an exchange and get better and more affordable coverage.
I believe Hillary or another Dem will be the next President, and that the Democrats will eventually get strong majorities in both houses. Maybe we could get single payer at some point. I'm probably overly optimistic about the near future, but Republican voters and getting older, and strong Rep candidates are going to be "primaried" by un-electable tea party types. The later trend is getting more prevalent IMO.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
I agree with everything you say, but, at least where I live, private sector employees and public employees have packages through the same providers, i.e. Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Very cool links, thanks.
I absolutely love PBS and am a regular donor. It is a truly worthy cause. Nova has been my favorite show since I was a teen. Frontline is awesome as well.
How America's current health care system came to be probably has to do with our culture. That being a capitalist culture where doctors are not only overpaid, but given high status within the community. My father was an MD and a medical school professor as well. He talks about how many students were there just because they anticipated making loads of $$$$ once they started their practices.
I think this paradigm has to change for HC costs to come down significantly.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
Isnt it just expensive because you have a private system where everybody is trying to get a cut of the action? You pay nurses what england pays doctors....you pay more than everyone else for medication from the phama companies, your insurance companies are all making as much profit as they can claw out of you.
You're getting screwed from all angles because your healthcare is about making money for business\corporations. Even your medical supplies like aprons, needles and a million other items are more expensive than anywhere else.
its not rocket science.
You make some very good points. There are just unbelievably high expenses built into every facet of our healthcare. This partly the greed of our system, where everyone involved wants to make out. From the Pharm rep, to the HMO, to the Orthoperic surgeon, everybody wants to get paid.
But I still believe some common sense tort reform could bring down prices significantly. That would cut the trial lawyers (a built in part of our overall healthcare costs) out of the loop.
People as constantly comparing our healthcare system to other countries. I don't ever hear people comparing the number of malpractise suits with 6 figure settlements we have in the US versus other nations. I wonder why?
But I still believe some common sense tort reform could bring down prices significantly. That would cut the trial lawyers (a built in part of our overall healthcare costs) out of the loop.
But at what cost? You can throw justice out and perhaps save some money, but as stated, those states that have enacted tort reform have had no such price decreases, but rather INCREASES. And victims of malpractice are increasingly left out in the cold.
Any time I here "common sense" I know it's bend over and take it time. "We just wanna do a little common sense take away your legal recourse." Sure.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Yeah, I'm just not sure about the numbers on whether or not tort reform would bring down the overall cost of healthcare. Both sides present numbers that are wildly different. Both sides have their own agendas. No doubt the trial lawyers are capable of putting up a very convincing case on their behalf.
My anecdotal experience tells me that if doctor's are having to pay ridiculously high malpractice insurance rates, then that's a built in part of our high priced healthcare system. If paying the "ambulance chaser" becomes another built in cost of our healthcare system, then its a real problem. My father was a physician for over 50 years. He has horror stories about frivolous malpractice suits and good doctors being driven out of their practices by high insurance rates. He left private practice, and went to a public hospital to avoid all this. He was never sued himself, but he found himself having to testify in cases he khew to be frivolous, and it made him very uneasy. My sense is that this was more of a problem in the 1970s and 80s than it is today.
One thing that's curious is that we hear little to nothing about malpractice issues in all these other countries. Could it be that America is overly litigious by its nature, or that other nations cap malpractice awards at reasonable levels? Just speculating.
So, I really don't know which side to believe, but I do believe Texas tort reform laws go way too far, and that's certainly not the type of tort reform I would advocate. Texas is a really bad place to live for poor people.
I'm a liberal and I use to dislike Moore because I thought he made wild accusations on Fahrenheit 9/11 when I saw it in 2004. Then I watched it again in 2010....and boy, was Moore right on the money on soooo much he said. I still generally don't like to watch skewed movies but Moore's documentaries seem to be more factual than I thought when I first saw some of his movies. His movie was accurate about the connections of Bush and Bin Laden family and the royal family. He was right about the abuse and torture happening to Iraqi prisoners in the custody of the US.
shareNobody stopping the other side from making a documentary as good on this topic. The fact it ain't there speaks odes...
share@chas437
You sound just like the guy they talked about who said he voted for "tort reform", and then when he was injured and tried to sue, found that he couldn't. karma's a b!tch.
Movies I've Seen:
http://tinyurl.com/74uphth
Yet you don't actually site anything that you feel is incorrect. This documentary is very accurate, you've just been convinced by external forces to have a predisposition regarding this case
shareI'm a Republican trial lawyer and since when did it become part of party's platform to protect insurance companies. I thought being a conservative was about less government, lower taxes, strong military to protect our borders, giving individuals the freedom to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and holding people accountable for their actions. Trial lawyers hold people accountable for their negligent actions. When a person is seriously injured it makes it difficult or prevents them from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and we as trial lawyers hold the negligent parties responsible. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life, but that seems to stop in personal injury case all out of some strange alligance to the insurance industry. The insurance industry has done an outstanding job scarring people of frivolous lawsuits and we as Republicans want to cap judgments to protect against frivolous lawsuits. Problem is, if it is frivolous, there will be no verdict because there was no negligence, it's only people with legitimate cases and serious injuries that will have their verdicts capped. The other problem is that frivolous lawsuits are very rare. As a trial lawyer, we take these cases on a contingency, pay for all filing fees,expert fees, etc. and only get paid if we recover. As a result, most trial lawyers choose their cases very carefully and only accept cases with strong liability and serious injuries. I can count on one hand the number of frivolous lawsuits I have personally observed, but cannot count the number of legitimate cases that were thrown out due to tort reform. The sad thing about tort reform is that it bears no impact on insurance premiums. In 1996 the Michigan legislature adopting tort reform setting caps on medical malpractice cases and making in extremely difficult, if not impossible to file a medical malpractice case. In the three years following tort reform, doctors' insurance rates went up 120%. 15 years later I don't know any attorneys who maintain only medical malpractice cases, and yet doctors' permiums continue to climb.
shareGreat insight, Atty. It's unfortunate so few lead with the facts rather than partisanship.
It seems like too many modern conservatives take their cues from Groucho Marx: Whatever Dems are for, "I'm against it.", coherency be damned.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Take it from a NY Attorney, Attyman is 100% correct in what he is saying. The point of this movie is that the insurance industry has gotten way too much mileage out of the Hot Coffee case, and it's time for people to wake up and take a look for themselves at both the facts of that case and the lie that is "tort reform"
It saddens me that the primary qualification for being a conservative these days (whether Republican, Democrat Blue Dog or T-Party) seems to be a complete lack of empathy.
[deleted]
Full Disclosure: I haven't seen the film yet.
This movie sounds not like a documentary, but an advocacy piece by a trial attorney, at least that's what I'm getting from the reviews.
The film itself is a counterpoint to the media machine who has ruled the public knowledge thus far. Do you really need to hear their side again?? If so, there are about a dozen cable news stations that are filled with it.
shareAhh so it's ok to be (secretly) biased if someone was biased in the opposite way is it?
You know I see a lot of that these days and it annoys the hell out of me. In australia we have the public TV station (ABC) which is quite left wing in it's news coverage. Yet when I've asked liberals about it they say "Well the mainstream media is right wing so it balances out".
That is rubbish. If you stand for anything that's biased then you clearly have no interest in reality. You only care about a means to an end.
end rant.
We are surrounded by bias in every form of media there is. If you feel otherwise then clearly you have no interest in reality. I admit I'm jaded, but bias is unavoidable. The only thing we can do is maintain skepticism and decide who we believe. Most people are lazy and believe whatever they hear - and to the film's point, when the entire media sensationalizes an issue because it's juicy and gets ratings, the truth gets blurred; forgotten even. If you want to see a documentary about how many of the tort cases out there are fair and how many are frivolous - then no, this is not the film for you. But it is a very interesting look at how the media twisted, altered and skipped over facts in some high profile cases. It definitely made me stop and think.
shareThis movie is not secretly biased so I'm not sure what you're point is. The movie is clearly telling you that is a counter to the corporate media viewpoint. In the US, we have Fox News. They say they are 'fair & balanced' (it's their motto) but they are far right wing and further from the center than any other major cable channel. They also have higher ratings than any cable news channel...about 3x more than CNN.
shareYou don't get it! When you try to juggle cream and sugar while holding a flimsy styrofoam cup of hot coffee between your knees and you get burned it's the Big Corporations fault!!!! The car had no cup holders for crying out loud! McDonalds should have known that!!!
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
In the movie the jury did exactly what they were supposed to do. They assigned 20% blame to the plaintiff since she spilled the coffee on herself and 80% blame on McDonald's. It is not reasonable to expect that you could get 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts from coffee. McDonald's had over 700 other complaints from people that burned themselves. Throw in the glib manner in which the quality assurance testified and it's clear that McDonald's was aware that people were burning themselves and did not care. To your point it is not the big corporation's fault that she spilled the coffee but it is their fault that her injuries were so severe.
shareCoffee is hot. It's not the corps. fault that you're careless. It is no hotter at McD's than anywhere else. Her burns were so bad because she was old and couldn't move. 700 complaints is nothing to millions of cups served.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
It is no hotter at McD's than anywhere else.
It actually was hotter at McD's than anywhere else, at the time. It's since been made at the normal temp.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Baloney.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
Them's the facts, Jack. Do a little research before you go off, half cocked.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Starbucks is hotter.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
Starbucks is hotter.
Well, that's not what you initially argued, and it's still not true(though it is close).
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
It is true. It's lucky she doesn't drink tea. It's boiling hot. People just don't have any sense of personal responsibility anymore. You juggle cream and sugar with coffee between your knees and you deserve what you get. Crazy lawsuits are why healthcare costs so much.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
It's not true, nor is your tea claim, sorry. And it's getting tedious looking up claim after claim by you. There are a lot of numbers out there, but generally it seems Starbucks beverages are 170 to 180 degrees. McDonald's was at 180 to 190.
This article puts it even lower: Starbucks is supposed to serve their kids sized drinks at about 20 degrees less than their standard temperature, putting those drinks at about 140F or so
http://www.slashfood.com/2006/11/19/starbucks-sued-over-hot-chocolate- incident/#ixzz1SNGVox4B
"Crazy" lawsuits are NOT why healthcare costs so much, either. If you're just gonna say, "yes it is.", please don't.
Almost all economists would agree that the main driver of high medical spending here is our wealth. We are richer than other countries and so willing to spend more. But authoritative analyses have found that we spend well above what mere wealth would predict.
This is mostly because we pay hospitals and doctors more than most other countries do. We rely more on costly specialists, who overuse advanced technologies, like CT scans and M.R.I. machines, and who resort to costly surgical or medical procedures a lot more than doctors in other countries do. Perverse insurance incentives entice doctors and patients to use expensive medical services more than is warranted. And our fragmented array of insurers and providers eats up a lot of money in administrative costs, marketing expenses and profits that do not afflict government-run systems abroad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25sun1.html
And before you go "lol, NYT", just stop. If you think this is wrong prove that it is. Otherwise, lets just drop it.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
I go to Starbucks all the time and their coffee is scalding hot. Hotter than any I've ever had anywhere. When you order tea they use boiling water. Every doctor pays hundreds of thousands in insurance because of lawsuits. You can find bullshyt on the web that says anything. Try using your own brain.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
You try using actual facts rather than uninformed BS. Yeah, Starbucks is perhaps the hottest now. Before the lawsuit, McD's was the hottest around. They lowered the temp after the lawsuit. You can't determine temperature by touch to any accuracy.
What does a doctor's legal fees have to do with this type of lawsuit? Nothing. You're all over the place, dude. And you aren't making a lick of sense in doing so. Yeah, docs have legal fees cause there is such a thing as medical malpractice. And sadly it's a small number of bad doctors that are to blame. But there is little fraud going on in malpractice cases. Not that it's relevant.
Now walk away.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Fresh brewed Starbucks is 200 degrees, as it always has been. Ideal brewing temp. for coffee is 195 to 205 degrees.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.
Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
You can be sure they checked Starbucks. And there is a difference between the brewing temp and the serving temp.
Couple that with the other link I gave you saying the same thing.......
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
Troll
shareIt wasn't just that that caused her to spill it, it was the lid that made it difficult to remove. I remember the old lids and you needed a bottle cap opener to remove them. What about the design of the cup being a factor in the case, that's what you people seem to be missing. Was at McDonald's yesterday with *my* 77 year old mom, she said "look at my cup" and it was wobbly on the table, it wasn't sitting flat. The reason was a defect in the bottom of the cup which caused it to wobble, a small piece of styrofoam from the molding process sticking out the bottom of the cup.My mom was wearing shorts and yes, the liquid was HOT in the cup and it was a disaster waiting to happen.I called McDonald's and they removed all the cups from that store. The McDonald's guy said that defect occurs in about 1/100 of every cup manufactured. I would say the cup's manufacturer is aware of that defect if that's the case....Question: would you blame my mom if the liquid spilled and she was injured as a result? If not, then why do you blame this lady in the film for spilling and injuring herself due to a defect in the cup- i.e. lid was inordinately hard to remove?
To do is to be - Plato
To be is to do - Sartre
Do-be-do-be-do - Sinatra
Because she was holding hot coffee with her knees.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
So the problem isn't that she got burned, but WHERE she got burned? So if she had it in her hands and burned her arms you'd agree with it then?
The coffee was made incorrectly, she got injured because of THAT action. I don't see what's so hard to comprehend here.
The movie isn't about just that case anyway, it's just one example of the media faking a frivolous lawsuit problem that wasn't actually there and the legal ramifications of that. Also as others have said, the other side was asked to be in the movie and declined, why are you blaming the film makers for that?
"No it's not you, I just don't like having dinner... with people..." - Paul Rudd
If McD's sells coffee to motorists at a drive thru <check>
then it's foreseeable that drivers will balance the coffee between their knees when driving off <check, it happens all the time and McD's employees have seen this thousands of times> and not every car had a cup holder in those days anyway <check> and the lids were poorly designed and hard to get off <check> and the coffee was hotter than necessary to such a degree as to cause 3rd degree burns...the law is that if harm is foreseeable you have a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid the harm, like lowering the temperature of the water, redesigning the lids (among other things you could do). Having done nothing, McD's negligence was at least partly the cause of the injury, and that's the jury's job to decide the percentage.
You know what's funny? People arguing for deregulation because consumers (i.e., the free market) should get to decide who succeeds and who fails, but then those same conservatives arguing against access to the Courts, so that the guy who makes a defective product does not have any disadvantage in competing with an honest competitor. You have to decide at some point, do you believe in Adam Smith or don't you? Can't have it both ways!
I reject your premise that you should expect people to pour coffee on themselves.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
I saw the film and at issue was the temperature of the coffee, which was set too hot for human consumption. The McDonald's people knew the coffee was too hot and they had many previous accidents involving the scalding temperature, yet did nothing about it. The spilling was accidental and it does not matter how she was holding the cup, if you take into account the following premise:
If a person spills a cup of hot liquid, be it coffee or tea or whatever they don't expect third degree burns and skin grafts. Have you NEVER spilled a cup of coffee in your lap?
Also at issue in the film were laws promoted by conservative groups on behalf of huge corporations meant to cap the amount of compensation one could be awarded in negligent cases.
To do is to be - Plato
To be is to do - Sartre
Do-be-do-be-do - Sinatra
There is a difference between the temperature you brew at and the temperature that you drink at. Most people understand that; the jury understood that; and now McDonalds understands it too.
As for the rest, there is absolutely no proof that "crazy lawsuits" are a cause of high health care costs. The evidence is actually to the contrary, that even after "tort reform" has been passed, insurance companies continue to jack up premiums (See, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.) You can learn more here: http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/Quotes.pdf
U.S. Health care costs being are as high as they are (and getting higher) is because we pay hospitals and doctors more than most other countries do. We rely more on costly specialists, who overuse advanced technologies, like CT scans and M.R.I. machines - not because doctors are afraid of lawsuits, but because the Dr.'s make extra profits by referring patients to tests at facilities that the Dr.s usually own through a separate corporation. And in the US we are more likely to resort to costly surgical or medical procedures than is the case in other countries - not because they are more effective, but because insurance incentives entice doctors and patients to use expensive medical services more than is warranted. Finally, our fragmented array of insurers and providers, who are currently exempt from interstate competition, waste enormous sums of money, padding their pockets with administrative costs, marketing expenses and profits.
The lawsuits force the doctors to pay for malpractice insurance. When you start out $250,000 in the hole, you have to charge really high prices.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
Once again, there is no truth to this. The evidence is actually to the contrary, that even after "tort reform" has been passed, insurance companies continue to jack up premiums (See, Ohio, New Jersey, etc.)
You can learn more here: http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/Quotes.pdf - or you can just go on repeating the propaganda that the insurance companies are spewing to cover for their endless greed.
I suspect he'll do the latter.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
There is a difference between the temperature you brew at and the temperature that you drink at. Most people understand that; the jury understood that; and now McDonalds understands it too.
When I buy coffee I certainly don't expect it to be served at a temperature that will cause 3rd degree burns in 3 to 7 seconds if it touches my skin. That's what the facts of the case were, and the jury did the right thing, awarding this woman less than 2 days worth of what McDonalds earns in coffee sales.
True Americans should not have a problem with juries doing their duty, unimpeded by the wishes of huge corporations to "reform" tort law to suit their interest in limited liability for wrongdoing. This is why the 7th Amendment to the Constitution was added by our Founding Fathers. Be grateful for it.
People reading this should realize that tort-reform trolls, paid for by industry, are slamming this movie before it has even been released. Watch the movie. Make up your own mind. Vote.
When I buy coffee I certainly don't expect it to be served at a temperature that will cause 3rd degree burns in 3 to 7 seconds if it touches my skin. That's what the facts of the case were, and the jury did the right thing, awarding this woman less than 2 days worth of what McDonalds earns in coffee sales.
True Americans should not have a problem with juries doing their duty, unimpeded by the wishes of huge corporations to "reform" tort law to suit their interest in limited liability for wrongdoing. This is why the 7th Amendment to the Constitution was added by our Founding Fathers. Be grateful for it.
Sounds like you've bought into the corporate propaganda hook, line and sinker. Can you give us citations to those mythical lawsuits?
shareIt's almost as if you didn't watch the film at all and have no idea what you're talking about. I'm shocked.
shareIt's almost as if you'll believe anything. BTW, don't pour hot coffee on yourself. I did it when I was about ten and found out it's really hot.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
and if it wasn't for her trying to seek justice, more people would be seriously harmed. I have no clue why McDonald's ever felt the need to keep coffee at a higher temperature than it has to be.
And to address the constant attacks on any documentary I like as liberal propaganda: why is it that if a film is in favor of people, not companies, but actual people, it is liberal propaganda? Does that not say something bad about the Republican party? Not republicans themselves, but the hate for people and the love for corporations that many politicians embrace, including the democrats who claim to be liberal.
I know my democrat elected officials don't care about liberal topics I care about, like ending prohibition and giving inmates families rights as opposed to allowing a private monopoly to control most things in jails, like shampoo and books. A family member of mine was in jail for half a year, and the only book he was permitted to read or have was the Bible... that's not liberal... that's brainwashing. And I tried to follow the rules to send him a book, and it was returned to the publisher for no reason... can't let anything compete with Christianity.
And why do our public official still swear on bibles and to god? are all atheist deemed liars and therefor don't deserve an unbiased oath? This country is run by people who allow freedoms of individuals to be trampled on. Freedoms like a right to a fair and speedy trial. There are so many American citizens that get illegally detained, but our government wants only to continue that and then add that they can spy on us for no reason.
It's not about republicans and democrats anymore, it's about destroying our will to be free by those that control our global economy. The Golden Rule- He who has the gold makes the rules.
So if I drink a gallon of gasoline I should assign 80% of the blame to Shell and 20% to me?
shareDo it with a lit cigarette in your mouth while standing in a Haliburton parking lot and you'll have two more culprits you can take to court. Seperate trials of course...
- or so the Germans would have us believe...
So if I drink a gallon of gasoline I should assign 80% of the blame to Shell and 20% to me?
It is not reasonable to expect that you could get 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts from coffee.
Ask yourself why McDonald's or Karl Rove or The Chamber of Commerce declined to be interviewed for the film. You want to hear the other side of the story? Apparently, it's not the film makers that don't want you to, it's the people on the other side. Not like their stance on these issues isn't already well known. I think the point is everyone should be allowed due process in a court of law, so if the case is frivolous, then let a jury come to that conclusion.
share[deleted]
You apparently did not notice the 10 to 15 times the Film points out that Karl Rove, Pfizer, McDonalds, The US Chamber of Commerce, and all the people that could have contributed "counterpoints" refused to be interviewed for this Film. Watch it again if you have to. It is cowardly for these mega-billionaire interests to hide in this fashion because people will say the Film is one sided and they know it! Your comment proves it. I hope you are not horribly injured one day and find you cannot be properly compensated because of caps on damages or mandatory arbitration provisions in your contract. Would you sit in a seat full of boiling hot coffee and sustain third degree burns all over your private parts for $480,000? No, I didn't think so.
share