Supreme Court back to work

[Muskie]

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/washington/05scotus.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

"Perhaps the most significant cases of the term involve pre-emption, a doctrine that can bar state-court lawsuits over products that met federal safety standards and one that has repeatedly occupied the Roberts court. The doctrine is in some tension with the Rehnquist court’s attentiveness to state’s rights, which had been known for a time as the “federalism revolution.”"

I can feel everyone's excitement about the new term!

[Emp]

For those of you interested in the issue of the liability of companies to individuals, or groups, for alleged harm, the issue of government compliance is a HUGE issue. Here it is in a nutshell.

If a government issues a standard or regulation for a given product or service, and the product or service meets that standard, under pre-emption, meeting the standard is an absolute defense to any claim of injury from the product or service. No one can sue them on a claim of defective design or production.

Example A: Car Company X produces vehicles which some times burst into flames in a rear collision. If the vehicle design meets a standard or regulation (whether that design meets established negligence law or not), no one can sue for burns or death related to any resulting fire.
Example B: Drug meets FDA review for compliance with FDA regs. Drug later causes spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. No available recourse.
Example C: Interstate Highway interchange design results in several serious accidents. Design meets FDOT design criteria regs at the time it was built, thought it violates a state regulations. Later FDOT regs would not permit such design because its obviously dangerous. No available suit by any injured party, including the state that has to pay to fix the problem later.

Federal pre-emption, if approved by the Supremes, would mean that if a federal statute or regulation is in place on a product or service, no state trial court could conduct a trial on the basis of state or federal negligence law, since the federal regulation would pre-empt state law.

Why is this important and useful to companies defending claims? Once this principle is in place, the next step is easy. Lobby congress or an applicable agency promulgate softball, minimalist standards on everything that is potentially or actually dangerous, in effect blessing existing design or manufacture. No more suits!

The US Chamber of Commerce is BIG on this. Tassel-shoed trial lawyers appalled. Adopting such an argument would substantially reduce liability and litigation in the courts.

[kyxu]

I can feel everyone's excitement about the new term!

Speak for yourself. I got my "Supreme Court Season" shopping done extra early this year.

[Snipe]

I think we should get rid of the FDA. Government regulations make our drugs more costly than other countries. Trial lawyers do too. Get rid of the FDA and do some tort reform and the price of health care would go down for every American.

The FDA also acts as an impediment to new discoveries. Nothing like the government to slow down progress and make it more costly. To those who say "how many lives are saved?" I will counter with "How many lives are lost?" On balance, the FDA probably costs us more lives than it saves.

We could probably save a pretty penny too. Down with the FDA.

[XU05and07]

Speak for yourself. I got my "Supreme Court Season" shopping done extra early this year.

I got Ruth Bader Ginsburg in my fantast supreme court justice league...I'm hoping for a big season from her

[xu2006]

I got Ruth Bader Ginsburg in my fantast supreme court justice league...I'm hoping for a big season from her

Nice... I picked up the Reagan duo - Scalia and Kennedy. I expect huge things from them this year. Too bad O'Connor hasn't come out of retirement or I'd have a beast of a lineup.

[Snipe]

I just picked up Janice Rodgers Brown in the draft. My starting five is now complete.

[Emp]

I think we should get rid of the FDA. Government regulations make our drugs more costly than other countries. Trial lawyers do too. Get rid of the FDA and do some tort reform and the price of health care would go down for every American.

The FDA also acts as an impediment to new discoveries. Nothing like the government to slow down progress and make it more costly. To those who say "how many lives are saved?" I will counter with "How many lives are lost?" On balance, the FDA probably costs us more lives than it saves.

We could probably save a pretty penny too. Down with the FDA.

Dear registered Democrat (cough sputter) We're the party of regulating drug companies out of business. Thats why profits are so low low low.

Actually, wildman, the drug companies WANT to be "loosely" regulated just so they can take advantage of the preemption doctrine they hope the Supremes will swallow. Please update your talking points.

[Snipe]

Emp, Here are my points:

Look at the factors of regulation, legal environment, and corporate taxation.

The FDA imposes more regulations and costs on companies than any similar agency in any other industrialized nation.

Our legal environment is also a high cost environment compared to the rest of the first world. Potential liability is everywhere and the nightmare never ends at every level of the health care sector.

Our system of corporate taxation is one of the highest in the industrial world.

If you got rid of the FDA healthcare would be cheaper for all Americans.

If you had sensible tort reform healthcare would be cheaper for all Americans.

If you abolished corporate taxation healthcare would be cheaper for all Americans.

If you did all of these, healthcare would be more affordable for everyone. Not only that but we would have more life-saving products coming to market in a time efficient manner. Lives would be saved.

We pay a high cost in both lives and money for our current system. The answer to our healthcare problems is not more government but less. The time has come to free the people.

[MADXSTER]

Snipe, I'm sorry to say that I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Healthcare IMO would not be cheaper because the Health Care companies will mearly put more money into their pockets. It may end up being cheaper for the Health care companies bottom line but I can't fathom that they would pass that onto the consumer.

Good in theory and in the classroom but I don't buy it in the real world.

[Snipe]

You don't appreciate market forces.

People say the same thing about gas taxes. The thought goes that if you abolished the gas tax companies would not cut their prices, they would just pocket the extra revenue.

Imagine the reverse if you can. Let's say you had no gas tax to begin with and then you added this massive gas tax. Everybody knows which way prices would go. Nobody is clamoring to raise the gas taxes right now. But if people talk about cutting them everyone becomes skeptical. I wonder why it doesn't go both ways. If you think that taxes have no affect on the price of healthcare, then by all means the first thing we should do is raise taxes to companies that provide healthcare!

If you cut corporate taxes companies could do whatever they want with the money.

Dividends to shareholders
Paying down debt
Hire more employees
Increase customer service perks
Research and Development.
Give their employees a raise or a bonus
Lower the cost of their product because they can make a good profit at a lower price without taxes

You don't have to pick one of these options, because I believe that if you abolished corporate taxes companies would probably do all of these options in incremental fashion.

And once one comany lower their price, the pressure of the market competition would make their competators adjust.

It is simple. If you want top flight health care at the lowest cost, get the government out of the health care business.

[MADXSTER]

This may not be the best comparison but here it goes....

Many years ago the big 3 auto manufacturers were complaining that imported vehicles were beginning to take too big of a portion of the market. In response the government imposed an excessive import tax on these vehicles. The big three in response raised their MSRP according.

The only ones who made out were the government and the auto manufacturers. Not the consumers. Not the dealerships. Not the employees.

If consumers are already used to paying X amount for a widget what incentive is greater to the company than making more money? Giving it back to the employees. The employees are already used to making the money that they presently make.

You're right. I don't appreciate the concept of market forces as much as I appreciate the concept of company profit.