Re: Conservative Blowhard Glenn Beck Discovers "Compassion"

"James L. Hankins"

LOL...I always feel like I have to take an exam when responding to one of
your posts. Instead of offering an explanation of what you meant in your
previous post, you ask a bunch of questions. I will answer them below,
but you said this:

"It may be beyond you to understand that the personal injury "business" is
out of control. We are not talking about "reasonable compensation" for
injured people. We are talking about a system of wealth transfer that has
completely jumped the shark. It is not really the multimillion dollar
suits
that are killing the golden goose ... it is what is happening at the 25 to
50 grand level that add up ... day after day after day."

Can you explain what you meant by that? Thanks.


I did not ask that of you, James. I am not sure Alan knows enough about the
system as it is, even in his own community, to have a real understanding of
the problems. People in my community have no idea of the problems.

If you are asking about the complete details of which level of suit is the
worst, I don't have that information, sorry. I do feel that the few giant
recoveries are not the major problem ... it is the thousands and thousands
of over-compensated small and medium recoveries that have tilted too far.
(And medical malpractice problems are a unique case. The problem of large
recoveries is not the problem, it is threat that is the problem. There are
too few doctors in the "danger" specialties to make a pool for reasonable
insurance rates. It does not take many, or the threat of many, large claims
in a small pool for the system to be skewed. And we have not discussed the
litigation "costs" buried (wasted?) in the system as well.)


Where do you practice law, James? Oklahoma?

Yes.


What sort of practice do you have?

General practice, although I do a bunch of criminal cases and appeals in
the state and federal appellate courts.


When we moved to Oklahoma in 1961, my father was unfamiliar with the
political system in Oklahoma. Many years later, when he moved back to
Louisiana, he commented that he had previously thought that Louisiana had
the most corrupt politicians in the country ... he surmised that after that
experience, the OK state might give LA a run for their money. (Of course,
he never lived in NJ.)


Do you have elected judges in your jurisdiction?


Yes.


Who provides the money for the elections if they are elected;


Most of them are self-funded by the candidate with contributions from
others, mainly lawyers and business interests.


Perhaps you live in a Maybury like community. I certainly enjoyed
Bartlesville. It is a All-American city.


who appoints them if they are appointed?


The Governor.


I thought they were elected? Do you mean to fill vacancies?


The jury system works pretty well most of the time. There are a few odd
cases that get all the attention from the media. Those are not the
problem.


Yeah. That's what I said.


Me too.


You do not understand insurance companies very well, James ... they do
not care about what they have to pay out in personal injury claims ...
they are underwritten. Those of us that pay insurance premiums pay for
the excessive claims. The insurance companies adjust their rates to
complete the circle. As with most things, it is the consumer that pays
the bills.


Of course the consumer pays the bills. That's no great insight. And
re-insurance doesn't absolve the insurance companies of caring what they
pay in claims. You don't understand them very well if you think they
don't care about that.


I misspoke a little ... they "care" but they do not pay for the problems.
Re-insurance is not a consideration. ("Claims" is not the path to senior
management in an insurance company.) Insurance companies want money to
invest. That is what they want more than anything else. The problem we
have down at the end of the line in claims management is barely a blip on
their screen. Of course they "care" ... but that is not what we are talking
about.


The personal injury business is a giant transfer system from "money
bunchers" to collectors. Are attorneys that represent plaintiffs
overpaid, James? Do they "earn" their money?

They earn their money in the same manner that an experienced auto mechanic
can charge you $500 to diagnose a simple problem and fix your car. It's
not the actual twisting of the wrench you pay for; it's his experience in
telling you what is wrong.


Your analogy sucks. You seem to want to make "reasonable compensation" and
"fairness" words that need no further discussion when applied to
non-pecuniary damages and yet do not want to admit that lawyers in the
wealth transfer business known as personal injury law (on both sides) are
parasites that have gotten out of control. (If you want to discuss whether
a pro-baseball player earns his money, we can do that as well. There are
not that many and they are our "royalty." When you talk about the gross
waste in our personal injury legal system ... you are talking about REAL
money!)


Tell me what you think the chances are that an average person would
receive a fair recovery from an insurance company without legal
representation.


Probably over 90% of claimants are compensated for their damages by
insurance companies and those claimants have no legal representation. I am
pulling that number out of my ass, but I suspect it is close. Very few
claimants need or require legal representation. It would be more
interesting (and to the point of this discussion) to determine why claimants
seek legal representation and which attorneys get them to retain them.

It is impossible, of course, to separate all of the different scenarios ...
and it is impossible to compare the same person in both conditions at the
same time ... because they are mutually exclusive. So, we need to speculate
on certain assumptions. Your first assumption is that anyone who does not
retain an attorney does not get a "fair" recovery. I hope you can see that
this assumption renders the discussion moot.


Is the suffering of the clients and the payments to the doctors worth what
we pay to the lawyers that make the system what it is today?


I don't know, is it? If you want to change the system, I would listen to
your idea.


I think I have expressed the idea that I think that lawyers have become part
of the problem ... I do not blame them for taking advantage of the system,
but that does not make it a good thing and it does not make immune from
change. I see you refuse to comment on the "costs" of the current system
and how those costs have escalated.

I have expressed many ideas on how to address some of the many different
facets of the system that I see as heading off the deep end. I will try to
come up with some more. I think that saying that the system ain't broke is
a poor defense.


But tort reform doesn't do that. It hinders the Plaintiffs only in the
system we have.


What sort of tort reform are you thinking about? Any reform will hurt only
those plaintiffs that are receiving "too much" ... the problem is that you
think that they are only receiving "fair" compensation. I think that "many"
(maybe most) claimants that are represented by attorneys and are in the
current system are receiving "too much" ... you disagree. There you have
it.


The system pits the insurance companies against paying any money. They
have a self-interest in paying the least amount they can and they won't
pay any more unless forces to do so. You know of a better way for
citizens to get just results other than hiring lawyers? Rely on the nice
insurance adjuster to be fair?


Did you give any opinion on whether you thought that there was anything at
all wrong with the current system? I don't think so.

I disagree with your assumptions. You state your assumptions as facts. You
assume that insurance adjusters (insurance companies) are "unfair" and that
the current system is "fair." End of discussion.


Explain your assertion that the personal injury business is "out of
control." What do you mean by that?

Automobile insurance premiums are rising at an alarming rate. The number
of uninsured motorists is growing. The premiums for other insurance is
also rising but the effect is often even more dramatic because the
insurance pools are so much smaller.

You've lost me. You asserted that the personal injury business is out of
control. The paragraph above deals with auto insurance premiums and some
vague statement about "other insurance" and insurance pools.


I have tried to explain that there are many problems and they are not all
the same and the potential solutions do not address all of the
considerations. Automobile insurance is the largest single pool of money in
the United States ... it is the largest part of the problem. Comprehensive
general liability coverages are large, but the litigation problems are
dwarfed by the automobile claims. (Medical malpractice is a totally
different "bear" ... the pool is small, the premiums are gigantic and the
recoveries are spotty but catastrophic and the litigation costs are
giagantic, per claim.) There are many other areas of concern but they are
beyond this limited discussion. (Think products liability claims,
construction claims, admiralty and many others.)


Premiums go up because insurance companies like to make money and will
charge the most with which they can get away. Tort reform laws typically
cap damages for injured people by don't place any corresponding caps on
insurance premiums. Is that what they do in Louisiana?


The market decides policy claims ... in the background, individual companies
have many competing reasons for their various rates (some are limited by
statute) ... they do indeed "charge the most" they can ... but your
implication is juvenile. You are just ranting polemic ... bad insurance
companies. Government knows best. Just tell the companies what to charge
and what to cover. Bull.

Insurance companies are the invisible bankers. They are giants. If you
think that all businesses are in business to screw the rest of us, then you
can be satisfied with your simplistic view of the insurance business. If
you believe that government can set rates and demand coverage and that is a
"good thing." Then you will get what you ask for. That is indeed part of
the many problems in the personal injury business.

It is indeed the attitude that there is nothing wrong with the current
system that will (eventually, not tomorrow) bring it down. Ask some of our
English friends how much money injuried people get in England for the
average fender bender.


You know that almost all lawsuits are settled. Of the very small number
that are tried, only a very small number of those results in
"unfairness" to the Defendant in the form of unjust compensation to the
Plaintiff. What exactly is your complaint?

I have tried to explain my experience. If you think that what happens in
those cases that are tried does not affect the amounts of the settlements
that occur, you again do not have much experience in the business.

Well which is it? I thought you said above that they don't care what they
pay out in personal injury claims. Trial verdicts are noticed by both
insurance companies and trial lawyers.


Ok, James, you win. There is nothing complicated about it at all. It works
just fine. If we can just make those insurance companies lower their rates,
we will be OK.


But I was addressing your complaint that the system is out of control.


So was I.


There is no such thing as "unfairness" or "unjust compensation" ... those
are just words. Plaintiffs get what they get. There is no way in our
system to determine what is fair or just. I can just tell you that every
fender bender today is compensated. Everyone is hurt in ways that were
unheard of twenty years ago. They are all compensated. It is a business
... calling it a "racket" is not too strong.

So? You said it's out of control. What do you mean by that?


I'll stop, James.


It sounds like you're advocating tort reform and damage caps and that
anyone who thinks those things are not a good idea doesn't understand the
insurance business or is misinformed in some manner.


You hear what you want to hear, James. I have no idea what you mean when
you say "tort reform" ... you have not explained any of your terms. What is
"fair" to you? What is "reasonable compensation?" You have said that no
one can get a "fair" deal without a lawyer, so I can only infer what you
might actually mean.

I disagree. I have tried to give specific ideas directed at specific
problems. More than that I cannot do.


If that's what you are saying, you have not made a very case for such an
assertion.

There again, that is your opinion ... I will defend to the death your right
to say it. However, I have nothing from your side with which to compare my
thoughts.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obama guarantees health care overhaul
    ... conditions get insurance coverage for that condition if it's not ... They are not in the business of giving money away with no ... The goal of the health care bill is to destroy business. ... additional revenue to pay for the existing medicare recipients let ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • OT:Insurance WAS Re: MAINFRAME SHOP STANDARDS
    ... And general insurance, and Pensions, retirement ... As a young man in my first marriage I dutifully took out policies to protect ... "So, I pay you X amount a month, and if I die you pay out Y to my estate?" ... insurance companies insert into things like car and general accident ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: COFFEE HOT (Was: Re: Fez gets in hot coffee)
    ... And insurance costs? ... Lawsuits are filed when insurance companies ... and pay their top executives enormous salaries. ... Big insurance companies have the best lawyers money can ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: OT: but newsworthy. Congratulations America, you now have healthcare
    ... America to go out of business. ...  I'd like to see the insurance company ... pay to invade some arab country because we need to steal their oil. ... country in the world have government provided health ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Obama Plan: 120 Million Will Lose Private Health Insurance
    ... If we took insurance companies out of the medical industry -- and ... to get somebody willing to pay them $10 a day. ... I would suspect the answer to that question is that there must be insurance companies who do give the people who want to buy insurance from them that option, that anyone can pay less for their health insurance, "if" the are willing to pay for anything that is below the cap. ... The doctor bills him about $150 for the five minute chat. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading