Republicans - Is THIS What You're Defending? - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-12-2008, 10:00 AM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Republicans - Is THIS What You're Defending?

We reap what we sow; if you aren't looking critically at EVERY candidate based on their individual merits rather than party affiliation, you're doing yourself and the rest of us an injustice.

If we can't sue drug companies, where's the accountability? - MarketWatch
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- You may be about to lose your ability to sue drug companies.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this fall that could shield pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits. Already, medical-device makers are shielded by a ruling made earlier this year. So, if you are wondering, this means that if a heart monitor is defective, or possibly now if the heart medication you are taking is faulty, you'll have no recourse in court against the makers.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration is better to regulate drug companies than judges. The White House, it's reported, opened the doors to this possibility. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Bush administration, "had federal agencies reinterpret the laws on the books to conclude that jury verdicts would conflict with federal policy."

The thwarting is about big monetary damages that manufacturers are forced to pay when jurors side with plaintiffs. Businesses, of course, don't like these payouts and have been lobbying for years to get lawsuits disallowed and damages limited. They say big claims boost the prices of their products for the rest of us.

B.S.

Limiting our ability to sue is a massive infringement on our rights. A ruling disallowing our right to sue upsets the balance of society. We as a citizenry deserve protections under the law -- not alienation by law. Without recourse, lawfulness is more easily corrupted. And that's exactly what the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief for the Supreme Court case.

They say lawsuits can serve as "a vital deterrent" to protect consumers, especially if drug companies don't disclose a product's risks to the FDA. Indeed, the editors say the FDA "is in no position" to guarantee drug safety. Undisclosed side effects (or "risks") plague many drugs on the market, perhaps most famously, Vioxx, which was reportedly found to cause increased chances heart attack or stroke.

The Supreme Court case being heard this fall, Wyeth v. Levine, involves a Vermont woman, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm below the elbow due to gangrene, which she developed after being injected with Phenergan, a medicine for nausea. She argued that the manufacturer, Wyeth, had neglected to warn that the injections could have such consequences and she filed suit -- and won. A state court awarded her $7 million.

But Wyeth appealed on the grounds that it is protected from such lawsuits because the FDA cannot be overruled by a state court. This is what the Supreme Court will decide.

Drug-company advocates point out that thousands of lawsuits are filed each year against them and that juries are not in the best position to decide what is best for the public. Rather, they claim, the FDA is, and therefore Wyeth should prevail.

The Supreme Court should throw the case out. Enough of our rights have been compromised over the past eight years. Enough indeed is enough. Accountability needs to rest in the hands of the people. The courts should not be allowed to take away that consequence. We can't count on the FDA to regulate truth.
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-12-2008, 10:38 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
We reap what we sow; if you aren't looking critically at EVERY candidate based on their individual merits rather than party affiliation, you're doing yourself and the rest of us an injustice.

..........
I completely agree!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-12-2008, 12:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
To answer your question, YES, that is what they are defending. Profits over principle. EVERYTIME

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-12-2008, 08:21 PM
Always Remembered RIP
 
cascade's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2006
Vehicle: 1991 560SEC AMG
Location: Grass Valley, N. Calif. / Gardnerville, Nevada
Posts: 10,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to cascade
This is a time of optimism and change! This is a time of true, red-blooded American mavericks, of hot Alaskan redneck babes and giant phallic guns and military fetishism and zero birth control, of teen pregnancy and shotgun weddings and God and freshly slaughtered moose on the dinner table!


Repubs know -- or rather, desperately hope -- that there remains a simply huge number of very ill-informed, reactionary Americans out there who are still operating on the lowest possible intellectual and cultural strata -- who are, for example, totally turned on by seeing Governor Palin in a power skirt wielding a rifle and a knocked-up teen daughter and a fetish for Creationism and oil and sexual ignorance, a woman who has called the war in Iraq "a task from God."



This is McCain's apparent message to these effortlessly terrified throngs (aka "Bush's base"): You know who should be running this country if and when I don't make it through my first term? Hot chicks with guns! Check that: Hot neocon MILFs with guns who can skin a moose and who reject condoms and who don't know a Shia from a Sunni from an Eskimo pie, but who know lots about foreign policy because she can see part of Russia from her desk. Yay America!

~~~from Mark Morford on sfgate

Jim
<--- superschnelle 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV, Hochverdichtung = high compression (11/2011) ... Wie im Freien Fall. Nur horizontal.


"I swear to god, it's like I live in a trailer of common sense, and stare out the window at a tornado of stupidity." >'='<
cascade is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-12-2008, 08:51 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,519
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
We reap what we sow; if you aren't looking critically at EVERY candidate based on their individual merits rather than party affiliation, you're doing yourself and the rest of us an injustice.

If we can't sue drug companies, where's the accountability? - MarketWatch
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- You may be about to lose your ability to sue drug companies.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this fall that could shield pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits. Already, medical-device makers are shielded by a ruling made earlier this year. So, if you are wondering, this means that if a heart monitor is defective, or possibly now if the heart medication you are taking is faulty, you'll have no recourse in court against the makers.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration is better to regulate drug companies than judges. The White House, it's reported, opened the doors to this possibility. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Bush administration, "had federal agencies reinterpret the laws on the books to conclude that jury verdicts would conflict with federal policy."

The thwarting is about big monetary damages that manufacturers are forced to pay when jurors side with plaintiffs. Businesses, of course, don't like these payouts and have been lobbying for years to get lawsuits disallowed and damages limited. They say big claims boost the prices of their products for the rest of us.

B.S.

Limiting our ability to sue is a massive infringement on our rights. A ruling disallowing our right to sue upsets the balance of society. We as a citizenry deserve protections under the law -- not alienation by law. Without recourse, lawfulness is more easily corrupted. And that's exactly what the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief for the Supreme Court case.

They say lawsuits can serve as "a vital deterrent" to protect consumers, especially if drug companies don't disclose a product's risks to the FDA. Indeed, the editors say the FDA "is in no position" to guarantee drug safety. Undisclosed side effects (or "risks") plague many drugs on the market, perhaps most famously, Vioxx, which was reportedly found to cause increased chances heart attack or stroke.

The Supreme Court case being heard this fall, Wyeth v. Levine, involves a Vermont woman, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm below the elbow due to gangrene, which she developed after being injected with Phenergan, a medicine for nausea. She argued that the manufacturer, Wyeth, had neglected to warn that the injections could have such consequences and she filed suit -- and won. A state court awarded her $7 million.

But Wyeth appealed on the grounds that it is protected from such lawsuits because the FDA cannot be overruled by a state court. This is what the Supreme Court will decide.

Drug-company advocates point out that thousands of lawsuits are filed each year against them and that juries are not in the best position to decide what is best for the public. Rather, they claim, the FDA is, and therefore Wyeth should prevail.

The Supreme Court should throw the case out. Enough of our rights have been compromised over the past eight years. Enough indeed is enough. Accountability needs to rest in the hands of the people. The courts should not be allowed to take away that consequence. We can't count on the FDA to regulate truth.
Pathetic . . . the SCOTUS should, indeed, send that one packing.

edfreeman is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-13-2008, 09:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
To answer your question, YES, that is what they are defending. Profits over principle. EVERYTIME
Last I looked a publicly held company owes a duty to its shareholders to maximize return on investment. As an investor in those kinds of companies would you want it any other way?

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-13-2008, 09:07 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
^ Why do you hate free market economy?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-13-2008, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Last I looked a publicly held company owes a duty to its shareholders to maximize return on investment. As an investor in those kinds of companies would you want it any other way?
Clearly, a return to staunch opposition and close scrutiny of corporations is in order. I think they had it right 100+ years ago.
Qubes is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-13-2008, 09:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Last I looked a publicly held company owes a duty to its shareholders to maximize return on investment. As an investor in those kinds of companies would you want it any other way?
Yet most Boards of Directors pass stringent ETHICS clauses for management and Business Guidelines for employees to insure that profits taken are taken ethically.

And much of this article, and the discussion behind it is regarding the laws that are intended to protect a company from lawsuits. Surely you are not suggesting a company would want to deny a person their LEGALLY guaranteed due process and day in court, simply to gain profit are you?

And as an investor in a bunch of company's stocks, I do pay attention to that ETHICS issue. Others can take dirty profits and live with it, I choose not to.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old 09-13-2008, 09:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Yet most Boards of Directors pass stringent ETHICS clauses for management and Business Guidelines for employees to insure that profits taken are taken ethically.

And much of this article, and the discussion behind it is regarding the laws that are intended to protect a company from lawsuits. Surely you are not suggesting a company would want to deny a person their LEGALLY guaranteed due process and day in court, simply to gain profit are you?

And as an investor in a bunch of company's stocks, I do pay attention to that ETHICS issue. Others can take dirty profits and live with it, I choose not to.
I am suggesting that the corporation is acting very rationally in seeking shelter, protection and safe harbor. Let the court decide.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Clinton Republicans Zeitgeist Off-Topic 12 03-26-2008 06:23 AM
    Paging all Republicans FeelTheLove Off-Topic 1 10-05-2006 09:05 PM
    Even the Republicans have to laugh at this DestroyerW140 Off-Topic 14 09-04-2006 05:36 PM
    Defending the castle in the UK Botnst Off-Topic 5 09-26-2004 09:00 PM
    Today's NY Times interviews Chris Bangle, defending his "daring" designs... Murray von Kanada R170 SLK-Class 0 11-21-2002 09:44 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome