|
Chapter 4 Sample
|
|
Everybody's a Victim!
We have to be careful not to offend anyone --- we have to be politically, or worse yet, legally correct in everything we say and ask? Is this the kind of society we want? Is this what our constitution is all about? This is freedom! This is what our founding fathers intended for our nation, our great FREE society when it was founded? Give me a break! If you believe this is okay, then throw away this book --- it's not for you and you shouldn't be reading it. I believe the kinds of people for whom this book appeals are those who a sick and tired of perverse government intrusion into their every life, thought and action by excessive, productivity-destructive, legalistic terrorism foisted upon us by greedy, money-hungry lawyers, or worse yet well-meaning, but ignorant stupid idiots. Strong statement, but unfortunately it's true, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these people, the lawyers and stupid, idiot "do-gooders" are destroying our society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
S & R Legal Nerd Example #31 Then there's the case of the AIDS patient who filed a lawsuit against the hospital which denied him service. Cable News Network on 11/21/94 reported the suit was found to have merit as an illegal denial of service to the patient under the 1992 expanded implementation of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The act was originally passed in 1990. The AIDS patient may or may not have a case that he/she should not have been denied medical service by the hospital; but my quarrel is with the fact the suit was held valid under the ADA. This case is but one in a long line of setting legal precedents using the ADA as a basis for filing lawsuits in this society. The net effect of such rulings and lawsuits is to contribute more to an already excessively, over-litigious society. Using the ADA as a basis for filing legal lawsuits might conceivably stop nowhere --- this act can be stretched to include almost any affliction, virus, disease, handicap, or whatever we can think of that a person can make the case for as being a disabling handicap. Next thing you know, persons with sore throats not serviced because a hospital is too full of other more serious waiting patients could conceivably file a lawsuit under the ADA complaining they were illegally discriminated against because of their sore throat disability. You know there will be no end of greedy lawyers trying to avail themselves of a new basis for filing lawsuits under the ADA. Let's see, a person could say they shouldn't have been excluded from school for disturbing the class because they suffer from attention deficit syndrome, a recently concocted psychological excuse to explain why some people don't pay attention to directions, parent or other authority instructions. If you think I'm unreasonably stretching it here, consider the television show entitled: The Blame Game: Are We a Country of Victims? This show by John Stossel aired October 26, 1994 on KABC Channel 7 in Los Angeles at 10 pm. During the show, which lasted an hour, various "victims" were presented who had suffered one or more "victimizations" under the ADA (or at least they thought they did, or were using those legal arguments, whether or not they did). One group of victims was refusing to work at their employers location because they said the walls were making them sick --- of course, others could work there and no such problems occurred. The company made changes to the work environment but the ADA victims complained the changes were not enough and they were still getting sick so they continued not to work. Meanwhile, under auspices of the ADA, they were suing their employer for illegal discrimination against workers with their type of disability. In a telling remark, the show explicitly stated: "We've built a system which rewards victims, unfortunately when you do that more of us become victims." I can guarantee you there will be no end to the line of lawyers out there in America today scouring the countryside to dig up as many victims as they can to sue somebody so they can line their pockets. You have got to remember, this stuff slows down productivity, it doesn't contribute one iota to the country's gross domestic product, and its outcomes will cost the society either through higher prices, or costly changes that have to be made to accommodate every "victim" out there so as not to be construed to discriminate under the ADA. In fact, I would think they should retitle the current expanded coverage of the Americans With Disabilities Act to the Lawyers Full Employment Act of 1992. Folks, this stuff has only just begun and it'll get far worse before it gets better. There is ample evidence that the ADA can be very costly to society and cause the filing of more and more non-productive lawsuits. The Wall Street Journal on 5/6/93 reported that the EEOC issued a report indicating that disability cases were rising since the ADA went into effect. The Washington Post on 12/6/93 published an article entitled: Having Doubts about Disabilities Act. The same newspaper on 4/6/93 reported that the disability rights act (ADA) generates nearly 5000 cases of bias. Also, early after the ADAs implementation the same newspaper on 1/3/93 indicated that the disabilities law could have a big impact on health care benefits --- that is, they would cost more Early on, the newspaper cautioned in another article dated 1/24/92 that the ADA would cause business to face a $2 billion dollar overhaul cost to lower "so-called" barriers to the disabled. The Los Angeles Times on 7/24/92 warned that enabling the disabled could conceivably become a civil rights act for 14 million workers. Do we want, and can we afford 14 million more lawsuits? If the ADA can be stretched to include 14 million persons, or 14 million more potential victims of discrimination, then the society is going to spend a long time paying higher prices for whatever they buy or whatever businesses they transact. This, of course, assumes that many of those businesses won't fold and go bankrupt over losing such lawsuits; because if they do, then taxpayers are going to pay more in taxes to aid unemployed workers who lost their jobs when the businesses closed due to losing the ADA lawsuits. Finally, it should be noted that the Wall Street Journal on the same date as the L.A Times article just referenced published an article about the ADA aptly entitled: Disabling America. What do you think it means? A book called The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation had the following quote1 made in its forward by Bruce K. Maclaury: "More than $100 billion a year is channeled through the U.S. tort system from manufacturers and service providers to lawyers and claimants."1 Folks this is overhead. This is not the productivity it takes to get things done or made in America. The only things which you can be sure come from these lawsuits is the encouragement of more lawsuits, and the ever-enriching of lawyers pockets with gold --- your money, because it doesn't grow on trees, and it doesn't come from air --- one way or another it comes from you!
S & R Legal Nerd Example #32 Think I'm exaggerating the possible negative effects of the ADA, consider this next incident. Judge orders a medical school to admit a blind applicant. The New York Times on December 11, 1993 reported that Case Western Reserve University medical school must admit Cheryl Fischer, a legally blind student into medical school. Now I ask you, and be honest, does this make sense? Would you want a blind person operating on you, or trust a blind persons's judgement in diagnosing you, your illness, or whatever health problem you might eventually be afflicted with? The answer is of course not! I don't care what the good motivations of letting Cheryl Fischer into medical school are, the fact is she will not be a fully functioning, fully capable doctor, ready and able to perform all the normal regularly expected duties of a doctor. So what is this? Compassion to the point of stupidity? It's a total denial of reality? Let her BE SOMETHING ELSE, but NOT a DOCTOR! As a doctor she could possibly endanger peoples lives and/or their continued good health by practicing medicine in less than a fully capable, competent way. Give me a break! You want to help this woman? Then help her aspire to be something more realistic and less dangerous for society and its individual members. As far as I am concerned, the kinds of people who think its a good idea for her to be a doctor are definitely violating our 95% S & R Rule.
The Blame Game show went on to complain about "Parachute lawyers." Parachute Lawyers are lawyers who suddenly appear, seem to "drop in out of the sky" onto a disaster chasing down the aggrieved, injured, or victimized persons, survivors, and their families in the hope of getting to represent them and file some lawsuit against whatever "deep pockets" they can find. Some of these guys reportedly even use police scanners to monitor radio calls for distress, and emergency ambulance services in the hope of getting there as soon as possible after the accident or disaster has occurred so they can quickly lock-in their cases. In many respects such lawyers are despicable, caring more about lining their pockets with money from anticipated contingency fees and percentage agreements coming from large damage awards in their upcoming lawsuits. Both 60 Minutes and The Blame Game television shows during 1994 discussed the excesses of such lawyers, portraying many of them as badgering disaster victims and their families to file lawsuits, even when a number of victims had indicated they were greatly distraught, distressed and wanted to be left alone. 60 Minutes aired segments covering these parachute lawyers on 2/13/94 and 6/19/94. In one case they showed a lawyer who followed a poor totally distraught man into the hospital badgering him all the way while he walked, like the lawyer was a member of a voracious wild animal pack of news reporters --- we've all seen them. Even though this distraught man, who had just lost his wife in a train wreck accident, had already told the lawyer many times to stop bothering him, and that he wasn't interested in filing a lawsuit; the lawyer persisted in harassing the man, shoving a picture of the accident into his face for review and comment. In another case, these parasites were shown at hospital bedsides begging patients to let them represent them and file lawsuits on their behalf. 1Peter W. Huber and Robert E. Litan, eds.The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation (Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution,1991) |