Tort reform is a scam that punishes people to protect profits.
State Farm is dropping its rates in Colorado because they've returned to the "Pottery Barn" rule of "you break it, you bought it." State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest auto insurer in Colorado, on Monday announced it is lowering overall insurance rates by 7.2 percent. The change becomes effective July 16. The insurer estimates that the change will save its Colorado customers a combined $38.8 million per year. This marks the ninth rate decrease for State Farm since July 2003. The company credited the premium decline, at least in part, to Colorado's change from "no-fault" auto insurance - where injuries in car accidents were paid regardless of fault - to a tort-liability system, where at-fault drivers are responsible for all the damages. Source: The Denver Post - State Farm slates rate cut, citing tort-system savings Odd that the evil, bad, inefficient tort system is saving consumers money, isn't it?
I haven't fact checked any of this, but one blogger points out the possibility that the NAM is illegally funneling money to other tort reform groups. In 2005, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) funneled $870k through the American Justice Partnership (AJP) to American Tort Reform, according to the 2005 AJP 990. Another $451k went to pay a "service fee". Total AJP expenditures were only $1.7 milllion. Was AJP set up in 2005 to facilitate NAM's contribution to American Tort Reform? Is NAM legally prohibited from contributing directly to American Tort Reform? The answer could, in part, depend on which American Tort Reform received the $870k, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) which is a 501(c)(6) or the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRAF), a 501(c)(3). This is not the first time that I have suspected NAM of disguising illegal contributions. Last year, I speculated here in the TPM Cafe about whether the 2004 $650k grant made by Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform to the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights (NAWER) was funded by NAM. NAM is prohibited from contributing directly to NAWER by law Source: American Justice Partnership, Another NAM Scam | TPMCafe I'll do a little digging and keep my eyesfor more about this story.
The triumph of trial lawyers in the 2006 election might mean just that: The days when Republicans can win an election by smearing a candidate as a “trial lawyer” are over. 18 “trial lawyers” ran for Congress in 2006. 14 of them won. Source: Stop Cornyn » Blog Archive » The Death of a False Right-Wing Talking Point Then again, it could have been anti-Republican backlash. The article is also a good read for explaining why the Republicans embrace tort "reform" so much - it puts the screws to the Democrats.
The law firm of Thompson, O'Neil, & VanderVeen in Traverse City, Michigan posted today about what "reform" has done to Michigan. These products bear an additional risk for Michigan residents, since after tort "reform" the seller of the product is not legally responsible for defects or injuries they cause. Further, the Chinese government doesn't allow its industries to be sued (particularly since most are government-owned). As a result, when a "Thomas" occurs in Michigan, if it causes catastrophic injuries to someone, no one is responsible and has to stand behind it. Source: TOV Blog: Product injuries and the Flat Earth So what happens if a person on public assistance gets hurt by say, poisonous toothpaste from China? Why, the generous taxpayers of Michigan get to pick up the tab for their treatment. Even if they bought the toothpaste from a wealthy store like Wal-Mart, Target, etc. That the "reformers" talk up the supposed "tort tax" but refuse to acknowledge the costs of "reform" to taxpayers speaks volumes as to their dishonesty.
The problem with trial lawyers is that they think they have the right to tell business owners how best to run their businesses. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, trial lawyers point the finger of blame whenever an unfortunate business makes a prudent, but incorrect decision. Greedy trial lawyers meddle in virtually every industry and drive up the prices of all our products and services. Every business decision made has to take into consideration the predatory litigation lobby, and not what's best for the business. No wonder so many businesses are driven into bankruptcy! The situation is only as bad as it is because activist judges and politicians in the wallet of the trial bar extended tort doctrines to dubious causes of action. It didn't used to be this way. There once was a time when corporations were free to run their businesses as they saw fit, and when entrepreneurs weren't held hostage by trial lawyers. If only we had meaningful tort reform, we could return to a time of fairness and efficiency in commerce. A time perhaps best exemplified by the manner in which White Star Lines handled the tragic loss of the Titanic. Thanks to a common-sense attitude towards compensating the victims, the management of White Star saved the company from ruin. Were an identical tragedy to occur today, the company would surely be devoured by ravenous trial lawyers and greedy family members unwilling to accept reasonable compensation. Let's take a trip back to the good old days and see how White Star Lines handled the crisis: In 2002, new evidence surfaced, revealing that the Titanic’s owners expected, and in fact demanded fees for the return of bodies.White Star was the Enron of its day; a succession of callous acts without end. Through letters that still survive, historians have long known that Ismay’s line notified the widows of the Titanic’s bandsmen (notwithstanding the fact that their husbands did much to prevent panic on the port side by playing cheery ragtime music) that 75% of the money owed them was being withheld, based on the premise that their husbands had entertained passengers only halfway through one leg of what was to have been a two-way trip. Furthermore, White Star judged that it was only fair to warn the widows that there would be little left over from the remaining 25% because they would have to “settle a bill” for the loss of their husbands’ uniforms. In February 2002, documentary film-maker Rip Mackenzie sent a dispatch describing a letter demonstrating once and for all time that there was probably no subterranean marsh into which White Star was unwilling to descend. Written on White Star stationary and dated two weeks after the sinking, the letter was addressed to Sarah Gill of Somerset, England, in reply to her inquiry about the fate of second class passenger John Gill, her childhood sweetheart and husband of two months. The owners of the Titanic demanded of Sarah a fee of 20 pounds ($1400 in year 2002 dollars), or her husband’s body would “regrettably” have to be buried in Halifax. White Star used this letter as an opportunity to stress that the sinking of the Royal Mail Steamer Titanic was no one’s responsibility . . . as if driving a ship full speed ahead into the night, toward an ice field about which the bridge had been repeatedly warned . . as if . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The sinking was an unfortunate accident, [for which] we cannot be held responsible. We regret that we do not see our way to bring home the bodies of those recovered free of expense, and in cases where it is desired for this to be done, it can be carried out only if the body was in a fit state to be returned, and upon receiving a deposit of 20 pounds on account of the expenses.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given the precedent of how White Star treated with widows of Wallace Hartley, Jock Hume, and the other bandsmen (whose families found settlement of the “uniform account” doubly difficult after corporate lawyers declared violinists and cellists “not crew, but officially passengers, therefore not covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act”), the Sarah Gill discovery should bring no sense of surprise. The behavior of J. Bruce Ismay and his legal team at White Star begins to look increasingly analogous to a car thief who manages to get away with billing his victims for the labor of dismantling their cars and selling the parts. Source: Charles Pellegrino Web Site Remember White Star Lines the next time some corporate sock puppet tells you we need tort reform. If it weren't for "greedy trial lawyers" it's entirely possible that airlines would bill the families of dead captains for the cost of their uniforms.
The Dallas Morning News has a fairly balanced article about the effect of tort "reform" on doctors and patients. An excerpt of the most powerful story is below: Naydene Lambert's family was ready to sue the hospital when she died after a routine colonoscopy last June. The Gordonville woman developed a blood clot in her lungs. She didn't get blood-thinning medicine, despite a history of the problem and obvious varicose veins signaling potential clotting problems, her daughters say. "We're not sue-happy people at all, but they killed our mother," daughter Patsy Wertz said. But because Ms. Lambert, 73, didn't earn any money, they couldn't ask for lost wages. That left pain and suffering – a claim that requires lots of costly experts and, because of the $250,000 damage cap, holds zero hope of a substantial award. After expenses and attorney fees, the family would probably end up with nothing from a lawsuit, even if they won, lawyers told the family. (Emphasis added.) Source: How tort reform has affected four people | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Business And that's the number-one reason tort "reform" is unfair - if you're a stay-at-home parent or a retiree, you or your family might not even be able to bring a truly legitimate lawsuit. But, if you make six-figures (like most people in the "reform" movement do), your damages will be high enough to ensure your case will make financial sense. The article also tells the story of two doctors who are in Texas at least in part because of the "reform" legislation passed in 2004. While both doctors liked the damage caps, one chose to move to Brownwood because he wanted small-town life, and the other doctor chose Corpus Christi because his brother is a cardiologist there. Another interesting tidbit from the article: Missouri has a $500k cap on noneconomic damages and Texas has a cap of $250k. A urologist in Missouri will pay $60,000 per year in malpractice premiums, while a urologist in Texas will pay $2,000. The damage caps in Missouri are twice as high, but the malpractice premiums are 30x higher... So why not tie insurance premiums to damage caps? You know, offer to institute $250k caps if malpractice insurers will cut their rates to $2,000 per year? Somehow, I don't think they'd go for it.
I saw a post today at Billdanielsblog.com and it included this quote from Alexander Hamilton. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 (one of my favorite quotes): "The friends and adversaries of (the proposed federal constitution), if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government." (A "palladium," by the way, is "anything believed to provide protection or safety.") Source: California Insurance, Personal Injury and Wage Hour Law Blog: Why personal injury lawyers help keep our country strong. The rest of his post is worth reading, too.
Well, it would if the minimum wage was tied to CEO pay raises, anyway. ...if the minimum wage had increased at the same pace as CEO pay since 1990, the minimum wage would be $22.61/hour. Source: CEO Income on the Rise « Justice Begins Here Interesting, eh? Technorati tags: ceo pay, minimum wage
The Prescription Access Litigation project has a wealth of information about the pharmaceutical industry. Here's their answer to the above question. There are a number of reasons. Since it’s easier for a patient to get an OTC drug (you don’t have to visit the doctor and get a prescription), it’s likely that more people will buy it. So switching a drug to OTC can increase a company’s sales. Many people also have the impression that Over-the-Counter drugs are “safer” than prescription drugs, even though this is not necessarily the case. So switching a drug from prescription to OTC can convince people who might worry about the drug’s safety to buy it. But sometimes drug companies make this switch as part of a larger strategy to protect and increase their profits. This usually happens when a prescription drug’s patent is about to expire. A company that discovers a new drug gets a patent that prohibits anyone else from selling that drug for a certain number of years. When that patent expires, the company’s profits on that drug drop, as competitors start selling generic versions of it. Brand-name drug companies have used a variety of questionable schemes to protect their sales when this happens. Sometimes they introduce an “extended release” version of the drug (that lasts, say, 12 hours instead of 6); or they introduce a “new” brand-name drug that’s really a minor tweak of the old drug. Sometimes, as part of this, the brand-name drug company will try to get the FDA to switch the drug from prescription-only to Over-the-Counter. When Prilosec’s patent expired, the manufacturer petitioned the FDA to make it over the counter, while at the same time introducing a “new” prescription drug, Nexium. Claritin’s manufacturer did the same thing when its patent expired, while introducing Clarinex, a “new” prescription allergy drug. Making this switch has a couple of effects: - It can hurt the sales of the generic versions of the prescription drug, since it’s easier for consumers to just buy the OTC drug than go to the doctor and get a prescription. There are already numerous obstacles to generic drug companies making cheaper prescription generics available to consumers. This tactic just adds to those obstacles, potentially hurting consumers in the long run as fewer generics come onto the market.
- Health plans usually will not cover the OTC version, but often will cover the “new” brand-name prescription drug. Health plan co-payments for drugs are often lower than even the cost of the OTC drug, meaning that it’s often actually cheaper for the consumer to pay the co-payment for an expensive brand-name prescription drug than the full-price of the OTC version. But the overall cost to the health care system, and thus to all of us, is higher because of the higher price of the brand-name prescription drug.
- The manufacturer usually starts a splashy advertising campaign to convince consumers that the “new” drug is a major breakthrough that makes it worth the high pricetag. They may also run ads for the OTC version. When Nexium came on to the market, AstraZeneca spent huge amounts on ads focusing on its treatment for “gastric reflux disease,” a serious sounding disease, while ads for Prilosec OTC (essentially the same drug) focused on heartburn, a reasonably-harmless sounding symptom.
- If the company does new studies (clinical trials) as part of its request to the FDA to allow the switch, it gets to be the only OTC version on the market for three years. It can then aggressively market the OTC version and preserve a good-size chunk of its profits on the drug.
Source: Prescription Access Litigation (PAL) Project When you hear about the high cost of medical insurance, remember this article.
If you're looking for a great f-bomb laden critique of the Bush administration and its pro-business, anti-consumer policies, Lance Mannion just posted a good one: Don't worry. The market will take care of it. When enough people get sick and know what companies' products made them sick and stop buying from them and when enough stores that carry those products close and enough lawsuits are filed, then all that tainted and spoiled food will just magically vanish from the marketplace. Except the Republican Free Marketeers want to take away your ability to sue. They call it tort reform. It's like Social Security reform. "Reform" is Republican for "screw the poor and the middle class." Nevermind. At least on your sickbed or in your grave you'll have the satisfaction of knowing your suffering saved the rest of us a few pennies per pound on imported produce. Source: Lance Mannion: They poison everything they touch He's right. A great many "reformers" do indeed think the invisible hand of the market will sort everything out and that government regulation will just cost money. It seems all the invisible hand can do these days is flip us a very visible bird.
I praised it once before, but now it's time to praise it again. Windows Live Writer 2.0 has taken (cliche on the way) the product from good to great. If you're a blogger, you should definitely check it out. Here's an excerpt from Microsoft's site: Writer can to publish to Windows Live Spaces, SharePoint, WordPress, Blogger, LiveJournal, TypePad, Moveable Type, Community Server, and many other weblog services. Source: Windows Live Writer Beta I love how easy it is to blog about something I find on the web now. Click the link above and download a copy.
I haven't noticed attorney Chris Nichols' blog before, but it looks like one I need to pay attention to. He's written an informative article that explains that A: juries never get to know about insurers or insurance policies, and B: that at the recommendation of a former Enron consulting company, insurers are denying more claims than ever... and making billions doing so. As I'm getting ready for a trial, I'm constantly reminded that the "reason the case is going to trial" has more to do with the defendant's insurance company than anything else. It's frustrating as an attorney fighting for justice because I have the burden of proof for the "facts" of the case, but what the jury really needs to hear, I'm not allowed to tell them. Why? Well, the insurance industry has effectively "gagged" anyone from telling the jurors why the case is going to trial. Typically, the reason for that is that the insurance company who pulls the strings on the defendant, WANTS the case to go to trial, because they know that for every case that goes to trial, 99 just give up, and the insurance company gets to pay less than what is "fair and just" as the rules require... Believe it or not, insurance companies have saved Billions of dollars since the mid 1990s, by improperly denying claims, and otherwise forcing litigation by paying far below the jury verdict average to settle claims. Frivolous defenses to legitimate claims have resulted in an increase in litigation, against people insured by these companies. This is part of a deliberate claim handling program implemented by McKinsey & Company, the same consulting firm that set up Enron's business model, at many of the nation's largest insurance companies. See "Record Insurance Profits" Article... McKinsey & Company counted on this when they told Allstate Insurance in the mid 1990's to quit treating people with “Good Hands” and instead treat them with “Boxing Gloves.” When Allstate forced more litigation and posted record profits, the rest of the insurance industry followed their lead. It is now standard operating procedure in the insurance industry to spend multiple times what a reasonable settlement would be to fight the claim, simply to prove to injured people and their lawyers that filing a claim for injuries is more trouble than it is worth. Read a Transcript of Anderson Cooper's Interview with one of Allstate's Victims Source: North Carolina Trial Law Blog: The Truth That Juries Never get to See He's absolutely right about spending multiple times what a claim is worth. They aim to intimidate attorneys into settling cases for less than the cases is really worth, rather than the time-and-money consuming trial process.
More evidence that med mal insurance rates depend on a lot more than just the tort system. Good news for all concerned. SVMIC, the doctor-owned professional liability insurer, has announced a rate reduction. You probably won't read about falling medical liability insurance rates in the newspaper, but you can tell your friends and neighbors that rates are dropping even though the Legislature has not placed caps on damages in medical malpractice cases.
Source: Day on Torts: SVMIC Lowers Rates
The post is also interested because it mentions actual rates charged to doctors by SVMIC.
TortDeform readers might remember the name Nina Mason as the creator of the innovative Georgia Civil Justice Foundation campaign to educate the public. It distresses me greatly that newspapers as well-respected as The Wall Street Journal would publish hogwash like “The Tort Tax” without bothering to check the facts. These articles are nothing more than misleading propaganda designed to sell books, capitalize on the politics of fear, and help push the democracy-dismantling agenda known as “tort reform.” The article begins with this bald-faced lie: Economists have long understood that America’s tort system is a serious drag on the nation’s economy. Economists understand no such thing. The truth is that America’s civil justice system, unlike those in other countries, is designed so that the lion’s share of the financial burden rests where it should: on the wrongdoer, not the taxpayer. Consequently, the public tax burden for our liability system is a mere fraction of what citizens pay for civil legal services in England, France, Germany, and Canada, among others. Notice how “tort reform” advocates never mention that “fact”? But they constantly mention the bogus Tillinghaust-Towers study. Highly regarded, as McQuillan and Abramyan claim? Certainly not. Widely-cited by tort-reform pundits bent on misleading the public? You betcha. Source: Lex Communicator » Blog Archive » There's no such thing as a "tort tax" I wish her the best of luck with her business, and will definitely keep an eye on her blog. You should too!
If anyone has a copy of this ad, I'd love to see it. It doesn't appear to be in my local edition of the USA Today. The American Association of Justice placed advertisements in USA Today, including the Philadelphia edition, urging doctors to ask their insurer a simple question: “Why do my rates keep going up while your claims payments keep going down?” Source: Report Shows Malpractice Insurers Price-Gouging Doctors and Driving Up Cost of Care | Tortdeform The article references a study conducted by the former Missouri Insurance Commissioner. The study was funded by the AAJ, which no doubt means "reformers" are going to dismiss it as being biased. If only they'd also dismiss the many studies funded by the insurance industry...
The following post from Greedy Trial Lawyer reminded me of a case I once worked on: Utility poles do not inspect, maintain or repair themselves. Utility companies do that (or, are supposed to do that) on some periodic or regular basis. But, sometimes a pole is totally neglected for 46 years. Then, a lineman is sent up the pole. Source: Qwest's $39.5 Million Inspection Program - Greedy Trial Lawyer I was working as a paralegal on a case in which a couple of teenagers on their school lunch break ran into a telephone pole after skidding off a rainy road. The pole cracked and fell on the roof of their car, seriously injuring one of them and moderately injuring the other. During the course of the investigation, we found out the pole was put in during the 1930's and the utility company had no inspection records for it at all. To their credit, the company was in the process of replacing the poles in the area, but they hadn't quite gotten to that one. The plaintiffs in GTL's post got $39.5 million. Our firm referred our pole case to another firm, and I resigned shortly thereafter, so I have no idea how much money, if any, our clients received.
Exploiting cancer patients and Mother's Day to make a buck - that's how AstraZeneca rolls. No mention, though, if pink cupcakes will be offered in the kitchen. You recall those, don't you? Just in time for this past Mother's Day, AstraZeneca hatched a scheme to serve the goodies in chemotherapy injection areas as a way to promote its cancer meds. Source: Pharmalot: But Will They Serve Pink Cupcakes? There are a lot of things I miss about my youth. One of those things is that when I was a kid, consumers weren't assaulted on tv, on the air, and in their doctor's offices (or in the chemo lab) with advertisements for prescription drugs.
Steve Lombardi at the Des Moines Injury Board wrote a nice explanation of why Bush's recent EO is robbing from the poor to give to the rich. So why would anyone propose an outright ban on contingent fee arrangements? There are many reasons but two of them should be obvious. One reason is to benefit corporations and the officers who might get sued for trampling on the rights of the poor and working class. Those who don't want the poor and working class to have access to the courthouse will attack and continue to malign those of us who use the contingent fee to gain access to the courthouse. Another reason is motivated by profit. Business managers whose actions have led to lawsuits will profit handsomely by avoiding accountability for their actions. Contingent fees interfere with a corporation's bottom line. Take it away and you increase the bottom line. To do so they need only take your keys away to the courthouse... And what about corporate America and the federal government's policy banning pay based upon performance? Will the President ban the granting of stock options for corporate officers and directors based on the contingent outcome of the stock price? Probably not because last I knew corporate officers and directors get a contingent fee based on winning or losing. Now there is a practice that the President should ban. Or is that silver spoon interfering with your vision? Source: Banning Contingent Fees - It's about Pure Gold and Fools Gold - Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer Check it out.
"Liberaldem" has written a nice opinion piece in the vein of what I've been meaning to write for a few months now. The entire piece is worth reading, but I especially agree with his conclusion: How, then, can the problem be fixed? It has to be cultural. It can't be a forced change. There's no law that can make people allow for each other's imperfections. Neither is "tort reform" the answer. Taking away legal recourse will only protect those who are truly at fault in a given situation. Each of us, one by one, must look in the mirror and see another person. That other person must have faults like ours. Bad days, occasionally poor judgement, misstatements and all the other warts that we so earnestly wish for others to accept in ourselves. Then, and only then, can safety and sanity determine the options we choose rather than avoidance and secrecy. Then and only then will we empower our leaders in business, government and education to speak up when something goes wrong. Only then will those about whom we care the most, our children, be safe. I'm game, are you? Source: Going Down the Road: "Circle the Wagons" Culture If we're a litigious society, it's because we have a winner-take-all mentality that sees most of life's endeavors as a zero-sum game. We don't value compromise, we admire self-described SOB's for their selfishness and greed, and we see those who seek compromise as weak. The natural result of such a culture is that when something goes wrong, we want vengeance and we want money.
The latest propaganda from the ATRA is Agwatch.org, a website dedicated to ensuring state attorneys general aren't able to enforce the law. I saw this quote and immediately thought of the reform movement. “AGs often use isolated instances of misconduct as a lever to discredit – and then to “reform” – perfectly legal, legitimate, and often efficient business practices.”
- Michael S. Greve, American Enterprise Institute Source: AGAgendaWatch - What Others Are Saying Reworded, the sentence is as follows: "Reformers often use isolated instances of misconduct as a lever to discredit - and then to "reform" - perfectly legal, legitimate, and often efficient court systems." I note with much humor that they're putting quotes around the word "reform." I also note with disbelief they imply attorneys general are wrong to try and enforce the law against large industries.
Columnist Tom Blackburn exposes how "reform" in Florida has made it far more difficult for injured workers to find a lawyer, unless they were catastrophically injured. In one case under the new law, the lawyer for the plaintiff was allowed to collect $229.70 for his efforts, which a different workers comp lawyer worked out as $13.75 an hour. That is not money in the lawyer's pocket. He had to pay the costs of doing business out of that. In short, the 2003 law has made it inadvisable to file a case that won't be a sure, quick and big settlement. If you get injured and don't have such a case, do not count on justice. (Emphasis added.) There are no limits on the pay of attorneys who defend insurance companies against plaintiffs. Source: War on lawyers hits the injured And that's what tort "reform" is all about - denying justice to injured people.
Everyone's favorite legal commentator "Supremacy Clause" has gone off the deep end. "Come the next terror attack, you will be able to thank a terrorist lover lawyer for saving the lives of countless terrorists." Source: What our soldiers really need: Lawyers | Tortdeform Eric Turkewitz writes a nice primer about medical malpractice that should clear up some misconceptions. "Thus, at any malpractice trial, the plaintiff-patient will have to prove these three things (for which an expert is required):
1. The standard of care is breached with a departure from customary and usual practice, and not a mere error of judgment;
2. That the departure was a substantial cause of injury to the patient;
3. That the injury was very substantial. While those words don't exist as a legal threshold, they exist as a practical one." Source: New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Medical Malpractice -- A Primer The primary architect of Australia's tort "reform" sees the light and decides "reform" has gone too far. (Can you imagine one of our Supreme Court judges saying such a thing?) "Now I am sure you realise that this troll was the personification of Legislative Tort Reform. He slowly rose from the depths and, as he surfaced, he called for aid from four ghastly ogres. These took the human form of a judge, a law professor, a surgeon and a mayor. The troll and the panel of ogres crawled out of the lake and burst into action. " Source: The Metamorphosis of Slip and Fall - Supreme Court : Lawlink NSW Senator Kennedy wants the pharmaceutical industry to pony up $157 million in order to fix the FDA. Do you think Merck will decry these fees as a "safety tax" that raises the cost of prescription drugs? "``It's an important step forward because the amount of safety work that needs to be done that makes the FDA the gold standard is going to cost some money,'' said William Vaughan, a senior policy analyst in Washington with the nonprofit group Consumers Union, in an interview." Source: Bloomberg.com: Health Care Ted Frank lets us know that we'll finally get an answer to the burning question, "Is Excessive Regulation and Litigation Eroding U.S. Financial Competitiveness?" I have a feeling I know how he would answer that question. "The Committee on Capital Markets Regulation will present key elements of their reports at this AEI + Brookings series of four panels April 20. Speakers include SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, Peter Wallison, and Michael Greve." Source: PointofLaw.com | Information and opinion on the U.S. litigation system If all goes well, I'll have a review of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force film this weekend.
| |
Recent Comments