NationStates Jolt Archive

With the flu vaccine shortage going on I wondered why US companies do not make vaccines anymore. So I did some research and guess what I found out? Kerry blames it all on Bush and said he would do better. I fail to see how he possibly could since his running mate is partially responsible for the problem to begin with.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/793dgqvs.asp?pg=1

In 1967 there were 26 companies making vaccines in the United States. Today there are only four that make any type of vaccine and none making flu vaccine. Wyeth was the last to fall, dropping flu shots after 2002. For recently emerging illnesses such as Lyme disease, there is no commercial vaccine, even though one has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

All this is the result of a legal concept called "liability without fault" that emerged from the hothouse atmosphere of the law schools in the 1960s and became the law of the land. Under the old "negligence" regime, you had to prove a product manufacturer had done something wrong in order to hold it liable for damages. Under liability without fault, on the other hand, the manufacturer can be held responsible for harm from its products, whether blameworthy or not. Add to that the jackpot awards that come from pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, and you have a legal climate that no manufacturer wants to risk.

Since we live in such a litigious society it is no wonder companies are not making vaccines. The small aircraft industry was nearly wiped out because of this mess. Every time a small plane would crash, every company that made every part on that plane was sued. The tire maker, the manufacturer of the seats as well. It was only after congressional intervention that the industry in the US was saved. Now I am all for lawsuits when warranted, but people see moneysigns and go crazy. Is it the plaintiff or the trial lawyer? I would put my money on the trial lawyers.

Trial lawyers are always trying to assign blame for everything.....

http://www.nmmlaw.com/articles/intel_prop.html

and how is Edwards in any way connected to the shortage?

and how is Edwards in any way connected to the shortage?

Directly? He isnt.

However he is a trial lawyer, and one that made a significant portion of his money on what many people call "junk science".

So he has nothing to do with it and Biff was just making an attack with no basis of veracity whatsoever.

By the same "Guilty by association" logic, I could say that Biff, being in the military should be held responsible for Abu Graib (sp?) . It's just plain false.

Directly? He isnt.

However he is a trial lawyer, and one that made a significant portion of his money on what many people call "junk science".
junk science like babies dieing from gross ignorance and fun stuff like that

if your gross ignroance and thirst for wealth leads you to develop deadly and suibpay products, you SHOULD ave your ass sued off

So he has nothing to do with it and Biff was just making an attack with no basis of veracity whatsoever.

By the same "Guilty by association" logic, I could say that Biff, being in the military should be held responsible for Abu Graib (sp?) . It's just plain false.

No, Kerry has placed the blame on Bush.....yet his running mate has become rich taking companies to court for things they may well NOT have been responsible for. Thank you liberals from the 1960's for giving us all the wonderful things you promised. :rolleyes: As we have seen from the "war on poverty" to this inane "liabilty without fault" nonsense, the policies they put in place were disasters.

Liability without fault just does not make sense. "Yes, we realize that your product is not responsible, but this woman was hurt so she has to be paid. Since you are the only company we could possibly associate with her injury, we decided that you should be the one to pay." It is stupid logic like this that is making everything in the US more expensive. I read an article last wek that said that $1,000,000 a year is taken out of the US economy by EACH trial lawyer in the US. This from companies fighting frivolous lawsuits and the higher insurance premiums resulting from them.

I can't stand trial lawyers, especially personal injury ones. I mean, two weeks after Merck recalled Vioxx (or whatever it was) after just a few people died or got sick in an effort to protect people, I saw ads on TV saying that if you ever took Vioxx and got sick then lawyers could get you money. It's disgusting what the legal system has done to the medical and in some ways pharmaceutical profession.

Doctors (specifically obgyn's) are moving out because they can't afford the high insurance premiums, making life harder for everyone.

I also know of lawyers who actually go digging (they LOOK for it!) through death records in an effort to see if a person worked with asbestos. Then, they call the families of someone who died maybe 20 years ago from mesothelioma and say that they're trying to help them by getting them money for their pain, when they're really just in it for their own greed.

I'm all for lawsuits as a way to repremand people and companies that are neglegent to their customers, but we have so many that it's crippling the system. It needs to be reformed so that there are far fewer frivilious lawsuits. That's one reason why if I could vote, I'd vote for Bush/Cheney, because they say they'll fix the legal system, whereas Kerry/Edwards, who are both lawyers, certainly wouldn't do anything.

Yes, well, this is what happens when corporations refuse to take responsibility for their products. We *force* them to take responsibility by legislating the hell out of them.

It's the same old bullshit argument between corporate responsibility and personal responsibility.

To all those people who say victims of Vioxx should not be able to sue, I rebut with all those people who died in the 9/11 planes are responsible because they should not have gotten on an airplane - knowing they could die.

To all those people who say they don't want their tax dollars going to help such victims, I say I don't want my tax dollars going to fix a pothole in the road by their house nor do I want them to have police protection any more.

I mean ... where is the line?

I believe in corporate responsibility and I believe corporations should be held 100% liable if they put a product on the market that is defective. The average consumer is a blind, uneducated mass of flesh who must be able to rely on the people who are giving them a product that that product is safe and will be of benefit to them.

A corporation scamming the consumer is like a Priest molesting a child ... sure, other people may do it as well, but it just seems that much worse.

Do those of you who want to do away with suing companies want to spend your time learning 100% about everything prior to your doing it? How many of you drive your cars without knowing the spring-lock tension ratio in your driver's seat? How many of you operate your own kitchen sink without knowing the torque ratio of the knobs?

You don't ... and don't lie and say you do ... you blindly use 100,000 things every day that you must rely on the integrety of the manufactorer to not give you an unsafe product.

If that manufactorer puts out a shoddy product and your kid loses a hand because of it, what are you gonna do? You're gonna sue the bastards.

junk science like babies dieing from gross ignorance and fun stuff like that

if your gross ignroance and thirst for wealth leads you to develop deadly and suibpay products, you SHOULD ave your ass sued off

Yeah, you have to watch out for those suibpay products. I think they are on aisle 3.

I can't stand trial lawyers, especially personal injury ones. I mean, two weeks after Merck recalled Vioxx (or whatever it was) after just a few people died or got sick in an effort to protect people, I saw ads on TV saying that if you ever took Vioxx and got sick then lawyers could get you money. It's disgusting what the legal system has done to the medical and in some ways pharmaceutical profession.

Doctors (specifically obgyn's) are moving out because they can't afford the high insurance premiums, making life harder for everyone.

I also know of lawyers who actually go digging (they LOOK for it!) through death records in an effort to see if a person worked with asbestos. Then, they call the families of someone who died maybe 20 years ago from mesothelioma and say that they're trying to help them by getting them money for their pain, when they're really just in it for their own greed.

I'm all for lawsuits as a way to repremand people and companies that are neglegent to their customers, but we have so many that it's crippling the system. It needs to be reformed so that there are far fewer frivilious lawsuits. That's one reason why if I could vote, I'd vote for Bush/Cheney, because they say they'll fix the legal system, whereas Kerry/Edwards, who are both lawyers, certainly wouldn't do anything.
and guess who proposes an intelligent system (the same one i have repeatedly proposed)? john kerry

Hey Biff, you don't understand anything! Don't you know that Bush is part of a dynasty that is trying to rule the world via the US? Don't you know that John Kerry has exposed Bush when he said that Bush and his oil buddies are srewing the American people with the oil prices being high? That's the best way to get elected! Screw the people so they vote for you! Come on, Biff, you should know that Bush is Satan even though polls on NS show that most players here are athiests! Damnit, Biff, why can't you see their logic!

(please note the heavy sarcasm)



People tend to forget that buisiness owners are in business to MAKE MONEY. If they will get sued for producing a vaccine that has a small side-effect that somone can say affects their work, they won't make the vaccine because of idiotic lawsuits. Then again, that's just proof that buisiness owners are out to screw people any way they can so they can get rich off the backs of the poor (note the sarcasm. there it is again!)

Leftists, that's your que to start attacking us pro-business, capitalist, conservatives!

I believe in corporate responsibility and I believe corporations should be held 100% liable if they put a product on the market that is defective. The average consumer is a blind, uneducated mass of flesh who must be able to rely on the people who are giving them a product that that product is safe and will be of benefit to them.


I'm not saying we should stop suing all togeather, I'm just saying that that "frivilious" needs to be redefined in the legal code so that courts can be more picky about which cases they accept. It's just rediculus some of the things that get through. For example:

My friend's dad is an ER doctor. One day a woman came in with a toothpick up her butt, and wanted it removed. My friend's dad did it, only to be astonished when the woman announced that she was suing him for whatever cock-and-bull reason. AND THE COURTS ACCEPTED THE CASE! He had to spend $8,000 dollars in legal fees all because of a toothpick.

If that isn't frivilious, I don't know what is.

Consumers are not ignorat "masses of flesh". I am insulted that you would portray the American public that way (though in some ways it is true-look at the way our culture's gone-everythings about sex now. How sad.). While I do not know the details about every nut and bolt in my appliances, I know how they work. If anything, people should be mad at the government for not having high enough standards, thus allowing such incidents to happen. 99% of the time, manufacturers (sp?) conform with government-supplied specification in regard to safety. Some go above and beyond, but most companies simply cannot affort it.

One day a woman came in with a toothpick up her butt, and wanted it removed.

Mmkay ... I gotta know ... what the hell was she doing with a toothpick up her butt?!

Anyway, socialized medicine should take care of such frivolity nicely.

Doctors (specifically obgyn's) are moving out because they can't afford the high insurance premiums, making life harder for everyone.
Doctors are leaving you say? This is interesting: Canadians will tell you that doctors are leaving Canada to make more money in the United States (Specialists and the like can make nearly twice as much sometimes). Now you're telling me that doctors are leaving the United States because it's costing them money to keep working there?
So if we're both losing doctors, where the hell are they all going? I'm going to take my usual approach to choose and blame a random country so I feel better: I'm looking at.... Italy. I haven't blamed Italy for anything in a while. Of course, if anyone has actual... well, "facts", I guess I could use those too.

Mmkay ... I gotta know ... what the hell was she doing with a toothpick up her butt?!


I have no idea. Maybe she sat on it or something.

there are lots of things in liability law that make no sense. liability with out fault, deep pockets, whatever. we should go back to a standard of "what would a reasonable person do" to do away with suing for stuff that happened because the victim did something stupid.

we have the FDA to help insure that our food and drugs are safe. if a drug passes their tests and IF the drug company does all the tests and doesnt hide anything they shouldnt be liable for punitive damages, just those costs that are a direct result of the drug.

a US drug company cant afford to be in the vaccine business. it doesnt make enough money and it leaves them open to 100 years of future lawsuits

Doctors are leaving you say? This is interesting: Canadians will tell you that doctors are leaving Canada to make more money in the United States (Specialists and the like can make nearly twice as much sometimes). Now you're telling me that doctors are leaving the United States because it's costing them money to keep working there?
So if we're both losing doctors, where the hell are they all going? I'm going to take my usual approach to choose and blame a random country so I feel better: I'm looking at.... Italy. I haven't blamed Italy for anything in a while. Of course, if anyone has actual... well, "facts", I guess I could use those too.
I don't know. Perhaps he means doctors are leaving his state to go to other states? I know thats the case in Pennsylvania.

I'm all for lawsuits as a way to repremand people and companies that are neglegent to their customers, but we have so many that it's crippling the system. It needs to be reformed so that there are far fewer frivilious lawsuits. That's one reason why if I could vote, I'd vote for Bush/Cheney, because they say they'll fix the legal system, whereas Kerry/Edwards, who are both lawyers, certainly wouldn't do anything.

Of course, it is the Kerry/Edwards campaign that has supported introducing legislation to make malpractice cases (at least) go before a panel of experts that will decide if the suit is frivolous. They have also proposed fines for lawyers that bring such lawsuits and eventual disbarrment.

All the Bush administration wants to do is help the businesses *at the expense* of the consumer. At least Kerry/Edwards are looking at it from both directions.

In order to make flu vaccine you have to growit in eggs that were ordered months earlier, chicken eggs. So the companies cant make any new vaccine. And talking about why companies arent into flu vaccines is like talking about why there arent too many companies making tombstones IT ISNT PROFITABLE. You can only sell so many flu vaccine and after the year is over you need to make a whole new version. The only people who buy flu vaccines are basically the government who does not want to buy thousands of flu vaccines fro a start up company. If suddenly the company could charge more or sell more then maybe more companies would get into the business. Unless you point to some lawsuit to a flu vaccine producing company blaming the trial lawers is nonsense. Its like blaming Bush for a rise in oil prices because he was a Texas oilman. Yeah obviously the 2 are connected.

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]
It's the same old bullshit argument between corporate responsibility and personal responsibility.

To all those people who say victims of Vioxx should not be able to sue, I rebut with all those people who died in the 9/11 planes are responsible because they should not have gotten on an airplane - knowing they could die.

To all those people who say they don't want their tax dollars going to help such victims, I say I don't want my tax dollars going to fix a pothole in the road by their house nor do I want them to have police protection any more.

I mean ... where is the line?

QUOTE]

You can't compare a defecive product to 9/11. 9/11 was a planned action that could not be averted. Vioxx was a mistake on the part of the company that recalled it.

I don't think corporations should be held 100% totally responsible for every little thing. If we were arguing about something like the cabbage patch doll that ate everyone's hair, then yes I would agree to you on that, to a point.

People today do not have any common sense. There is no way to put a price tag on death, so they file lawsuits for 20 million dollars which they hardly deserve. In I think 2001 we had that big recall on Burger king pokemon toys because the child died from choking on it. She sued for I don't know how many millions because of her stupidity by not taking proper care of the child.

She did 2 things wrong:
1) She was sleeping while her child was out of his crib on the bed basically unsupervised.
2) She gave him a toy that was for ages 3+ and he was only 6 months old at the time.

It's not always the corporation's fault.

John Edwards has made a living on Junk science that now proves that his lawsuits were baseless. Doctors now know that Cerebelle Paulsy is almost never caused by the OBGYN, but by genetics. Her kids were predisposed to be ill. He won most of his cases because he was a good speaker.

People just don't take responsibility for anything anymore. In Charlotte, where I live, there is this woman campaigning to outlaw having pitbulls because her son was mauled to death by them. She just happened to forget to mention that he was with her drug dealer ex-husband at the time in an unsupervised area with dogs that he trained to be vicious.

and nobody give me that bullshit that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to be mean because I owned a full blood pitbull for 17 years and he only ever snapped at me once.

The reason why we get our drugs from one company is because back when Clinton was in office Hillary passed the Vaccines for children program that forced the vaccine makers to sell the vaccines at half price to them so they could distribute them freely to the children of the states.

Bush had really nothing to do with the shortage. Kerry is just using this as false leverage to gain a couple of points in the polls.

To all those people who say victims of Vioxx should not be able to sue, I rebut with all those people who died in the 9/11 planes are responsible because they should not have gotten on an airplane - knowing they could die.

There is a problem here. Vioxx did every single test required of them and nothing showed up as being harmful. Meanwhile, many people were living better, fully lives for being on it. The minute Vioxx had evidence that their drug was causing harm, they pulled it. If they had continued selling it after the fact, they would be liable.

I believe in corporate responsibility and I believe corporations should be held 100% liable if they put a product on the market that is defective. The average consumer is a blind, uneducated mass of flesh who must be able to rely on the people who are giving them a product that that product is safe and will be of benefit to them.

And if those who make the product do everything in their power to ensure that it is safe and pull it immediately upon finding out that it isn't? You think they should be sued for millions and millions of dollars? That is just *encouraging* companies to leave products that they find to be harmful on the market until people sue - at least they can make enough money to pay off the lawsuits until then.

A corporation scamming the consumer is like a Priest molesting a child ... sure, other people may do it as well, but it just seems that much worse.

Vioxx didn't scam anyone. There simply wasn't enough yet known about Cox2 inhibitors to know that it might cause heart problems. Once they found that it could do so, they pulled it. You don't get much more responsible than that.

There is a problem here. Vioxx did every single test required of them and nothing showed up as being harmful. Meanwhile, many people were living better, fully lives for being on it. The minute Vioxx had evidence that their drug was causing harm, they pulled it. If they had continued selling it after the fact, they would be liable.

Want to bet someone sues anyway? Odds on them winning?

And if those who make the product do everything in their power to ensure that it is safe and pull it immediately upon finding out that it isn't? You think they should be sued for millions and millions of dollars? That is just *encouraging* companies to leave products that they find to be harmful on the market until people sue - at least they can make enough money to pay off the lawsuits until then.

One company did just that. Remember lawn darts?

Vioxx didn't scam anyone. There simply wasn't enough yet known about Cox2 inhibitors to know that it might cause heart problems. Once they found that it could do so, they pulled it. You don't get much more responsible than that.

Agreed. There are other similar medicines still out there.

There is a problem here. Vioxx did every single test required of them and nothing showed up as being harmful. Meanwhile, many people were living better, fully lives for being on it. The minute Vioxx had evidence that their drug was causing harm, they pulled it. If they had continued selling it after the fact, they would be liable.



And if those who make the product do everything in their power to ensure that it is safe and pull it immediately upon finding out that it isn't? You think they should be sued for millions and millions of dollars? That is just *encouraging* companies to leave products that they find to be harmful on the market until people sue - at least they can make enough money to pay off the lawsuits until then.



Vioxx didn't scam anyone. There simply wasn't enough yet known about Cox2 inhibitors to know that it might cause heart problems. Once they found that it could do so, they pulled it. You don't get much more responsible than that.
While I agree that the makers of Vioxx made the ethical choice on this occasion, one has to wonder why it was not detected before. Do we need to rethink the battery of tests that a drug has to be put through before allowing it to be sold?

On a related tangeant, the FDA relies partly on studies paid by the drug companies when they aproove a drug. Can anybody sees the conflict of interest here? Many lawsuit were done because companies voluntarily modfied their studies or deliberately forgot to mention certain facts.

And Bush & co. want to give them full immunity from prosecution on the grounds of frivolous lawsuits? I hope you realise how terribly ill-conceived this plan is.

This thread would make some sense if it weren't for two things:

1.) The company in question who had to pull it's supply of the flu vaccine WAS an American company. They just produce the vaccine offshore. So clearly this was not an issue with whether US companies do produce vaccines. They do.

2.) Other countries also had orders with this company. Those other countries (such as Canada and the UK) are not in the same position as the US right now. Why? Because they were smart enough to split up their orders between more suppliers - just in case. The UK, for example, split their order between five suppliers. Canada from four.

The US?

Two suppliers - each with 50% of the order.

Economies of scale are a nice thing, but sometimes limited sources can bite you on the ass - like this time.


So - is it Bush's fault? Well, one might ask why Chiron decided to outsource their new plant to Europe instead of staying home in the US. WAs it just the litigation issue? Were there benefits for selling to the EU if the plant was in Britain? Tax issues? Other cost issues? Probably factors in all areas that made this their decision rather than just one. and some of the factors may or may not have been the result of Bush policies. But blaming a 50-year old guy (Edwards) for changes to liability rules made in the 60s (40 years ago) seems a fatuous notion as well. Somehow I don't think he was to blame for them....

Is it Bush's fault that they only ordered from two suppliers? Was he even aware of that ? Where does the buck stop?


Frankly - it WAS an avoidable screw-up if they had simply spread the orders around. That should be a policy shift and I'm suprised that I haven't heard of a head rolling and a policy directive issued to ensure that it doesn't happen again. THAT is what GW should have done immediately when this hit the rotating blades. Instead he gets to take a bit of heat. He IS the boss and it DID happen on his watch after all. Goes with the territory.


As for the rest - it's all partisan political barbs - in both directions.

Want to bet someone sues anyway? Odds on them winning?

In a perfect world, low odds. Or at least low settlements. In this sue-happy country - Who the hell knows?

One company did just that. Remember lawn darts?

No, but I'll take your word for it.

Agreed. There are other similar medicines still out there.

Yes, and I expect them to fall to the same problem soon - and probably be more liable. Celebrex works by essentially the same method.

'cause it's stupid to make flu vaccines

While I agree that the makers of Vioxx made the ethical choice on this occasion, one has to wonder why it was not detected before. Do we need to rethink the battery of tests that a drug has to be put through before allowing it to be sold?

Sure, if you want drugs to take even longer before getting to the market and people to just continue suffering.

Let's be pragmatic here. Drugs deal with chemicals in your body. There *will* be side effects. Period. And there will *always* be some that aren't found in early testing.

On a related tangeant, the FDA relies partly on studies paid by the drug companies when they aproove a drug. Can anybody sees the conflict of interest here? Many lawsuit were done because companies voluntarily modfied their studies or deliberately forgot to mention certain facts.

The FDA doesn't have the billions of dollars per product it takes to perform those studies. I'm sure the companies in question were duly punished.

In a perfect world, low odds. Or at least low settlements. In this sue-happy country - Who the hell knows?



No, but I'll take your word for it.



Yes, and I expect them to fall to the same problem soon - and probably be more liable. Celebrex works by essentially the same method.

Lawn Darts...were on the market for many years. people were hurt and killed by them, yet they remained.

http://www.nickys-nursery.co.uk/seeds/pages/garden-games14.htm

http://www.thetoque.net/010821/lawndarts.htm

http://www.ucalgary.ca/MG/inrm/industry/product/toys/lawndarts.htm

The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that about 6,700 injuries from lawn darts were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms between January 1978 and December 1987. Three-fourths of the victims were children under 15 years of age. The Commission knows of three who have been killed by lawn darts. DO NOT allow children to play with lawn darts.

Sure, if you want drugs to take even longer before getting to the market and people to just continue suffering.

Let's be pragmatic here. Drugs deal with chemicals in your body. There *will* be side effects. Period. And there will *always* be some that aren't found in early testing.

Yeah but if it's not for some serious disease like AIDS, should we not be better to wait two years more and make sure it won't kill you in twenty years time?

I'm not talking zero side-effects here. However if 10% of your clients devellop heart problems, maybe it's not an acceptable side-effect.


The FDA doesn't have the billions of dollars per product it takes to perform those studies. I'm sure the companies in question were duly punished.

Agreed. However, my point was that we should not make these companies lawsuit-proof because they play with our health and that precedents have prooved that not all of them can be trusted.

In order to make flu vaccine you have to growit in eggs that were ordered months earlier, chicken eggs. So the companies cant make any new vaccine. And talking about why companies arent into flu vaccines is like talking about why there arent too many companies making tombstones IT ISNT PROFITABLE. You can only sell so many flu vaccine and after the year is over you need to make a whole new version. The only people who buy flu vaccines are basically the government who does not want to buy thousands of flu vaccines fro a start up company. If suddenly the company could charge more or sell more then maybe more companies would get into the business. Unless you point to some lawsuit to a flu vaccine producing company blaming the trial lawers is nonsense. Its like blaming Bush for a rise in oil prices because he was a Texas oilman. Yeah obviously the 2 are connected.


Ding ding ding We have a winner!

That somes it up nice.

About the only way they will do it is if they are forced. "You want to sell your other stuff, then you have to make *number* dosages per year."

Letting them charge what will bare will only causes bigger problems by the amount of people that would be out sick since they can't afford the going rate.

Yeah but if it's not for some serious disease like AIDS, should we not be better to wait two years more and make sure it won't kill you in twenty years time?

It would be longer than two years - and there is still no way to catch everything. Also, inflammation causes quite a few deaths every year - it's not like this was a hair regrowing drug or a boob enhancer.

I'm not talking zero side-effects here. However if 10% of your clients devellop heart problems, maybe it's not an acceptable side-effect.

Which is why it was recalled as soon as they had results demonstrating a link to heart problems. However, these were long-term things, and there was no way to determine that before it went on the market.

Agreed. However, my point was that we should not make these companies lawsuit-proof because they play with our health and that precedents have prooved that not all of them can be trusted.

Oh, I don't think they should be lawsuit-proof either. I just don't think Vioxx should have to pay out millions of dollars when they voluntarily pulled the drug as soon as the problems were clear. *Something* needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits, while still keeping the companies liable for their actions.

With the flu vaccine shortage going on I wondered why US companies do not make vaccines anymore. So I did some research and guess what I found out? Kerry blames it all on Bush and said he would do better. I fail to see how he possibly could since his running mate is partially responsible for the problem to begin with.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/793dgqvs.asp?pg=1





Since we live in such a litigious society it is no wonder companies are not making vaccines. The small aircraft industry was nearly wiped out because of this mess. Every time a small plane would crash, every company that made every part on that plane was sued. The tire maker, the manufacturer of the seats as well. It was only after congressional intervention that the industry in the US was saved. Now I am all for lawsuits when warranted, but people see moneysigns and go crazy. Is it the plaintiff or the trial lawyer? I would put my money on the trial lawyers.

Trial lawyers are always trying to assign blame for everything.....

http://www.nmmlaw.com/articles/intel_prop.html

Falsehoods right from the start. Chiron IS an american company.

"It was announced on Oct. 5, when bacterial contamination led British regulators to suspend the license of a vaccine plant in Liverpool on which the United States was depending for 46 million to 48 million doses, nearly half of America's supply. The plant is owned by Chiron, an American company."
I just love busting LIARS http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/health/17flu2.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&en=afcd6f0366621d0d&ex=1099368000&excamp=GGGNfluvaccine
and half truths at best
"In recent decades, many drug companies in the United States abandoned the manufacture of vaccines, saying that they were expensive to make, underpriced and not profitable enough. Flu vaccine can be a particular gamble, because the demand for it varies from year to year and companies throw away what they do not sell because a new vaccine must be made each year to deal with changing strains of the virus. Some companies dropped out because of lawsuits, and others because they determined that it would not pay to retool aging vaccine plants to meet regulatory standards."

Why are there no vaccines manufactured anymore?

Read Atlas Shrugged . I’m not advocating it as an economic theory, but it might explain why things don’t get done as much anymore.

So ... a woman who just went through an ugly break-up and wants to let down her hair for a little while walks into a bar in a short skirt, has a few drinks, and does a suggestive dance on a table.

Six men subsequently rape her.

Who is to blame?

The men (read: corporation) for taking advantage of a mistake or the woman (read: the consumer) for making a mistake?

Answer carefully.

So ... a woman who just went through an ugly break-up and wants to let down her hair for a little while walks into a bar in a short skirt, has a few drinks, and does a suggestive dance on a table.

Six men subsequently rape her.

Who is to blame?

The men (read: corporation) for taking advantage of a mistake or the woman (read: the consumer) for making a mistake?

Answer carefully.

Yeah but that presupposes that the men (read: corporation) are intentionally commiting a crime, rather than just being negligent.

I would guess that it's the same reason that the meat in US McDonalds and Burger King is diseased and full of shit. That is, there is so little regulation that safety standards are not enforced. Thus, companies get sued for their crappy, dangerous products.

Vioxx didn't scam anyone. There simply wasn't enough yet known about Cox2 inhibitors to know that it might cause heart problems. Once they found that it could do so, they pulled it. You don't get much more responsible than that.

Actually I am not so sure these days. I listed to some guy talking about the FDA and the approval process.

He said that the only time the FDA really gets tough is if it shows people will basically fall over dead.

If there are suspected harmful effects, the company can keep such information secret for "Competative Reasons."

If the company uses the public for guinepigs then they should pay for it.

Doctors are leaving you say? This is interesting: Canadians will tell you that doctors are leaving Canada to make more money in the United States (Specialists and the like can make nearly twice as much sometimes). Now you're telling me that doctors are leaving the United States because it's costing them money to keep working there?
So if we're both losing doctors, where the hell are they all going? I'm going to take my usual approach to choose and blame a random country so I feel better: I'm looking at.... Italy. I haven't blamed Italy for anything in a while. Of course, if anyone has actual... well, "facts", I guess I could use those too.

The USA isnt losing doctors, it is some states. The premiums have gone up so much in some states that doctors find it impossible to practice. So the doctor leaes the state to one where the premiums arent as high. Unfortunately, this means people in some states have less access to medical practicioners.

Oh, I don't think they should be lawsuit-proof either. I just don't think Vioxx should have to pay out millions of dollars when they voluntarily pulled the drug as soon as the problems were clear. *Something* needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits, while still keeping the companies liable for their actions.

A system where loser pays. Pays all legal and court costs if the case is found to be frivolous. Pays a certain percentage or fixed amount of costs if not frivolous but still loses.

works well in other countries.

as in my previous post it's BS about trial lawyers being the cause. This is just politics.
"In recent decades, many drug companies in the United States abandoned the manufacture of vaccines, saying that they were expensive to make, underpriced and not profitable enough. Flu vaccine can be a particular gamble, because the demand for it varies from year to year and companies throw away what they do not sell because a new vaccine must be made each year to deal with changing strains of the virus. Some companies dropped out because of lawsuits, and others because they determined that it would not pay to retool aging vaccine plants to meet regulatory standards."
There are many factors, mainly PROFIT. That's the bottom line, profit is more important to the companies and the government than public health and safety.
Same goes for bioterror, we're not ready for that.

Doctors are leaving you say? This is interesting: Canadians will tell you that doctors are leaving Canada to make more money in the United States (Specialists and the like can make nearly twice as much sometimes). Now you're telling me that doctors are leaving the United States because it's costing them money to keep working there?
So if we're both losing doctors, where the hell are they all going? I'm going to take my usual approach to choose and blame a random country so I feel better: I'm looking at.... Italy. I haven't blamed Italy for anything in a while. Of course, if anyone has actual... well, "facts", I guess I could use those too.
I agree my neighbor is an anesthesiologist … his average insurance payment if not covered by the hospital is 3 times his yearly wage … and he has a flawless record (he is the head of the department)

Obgyn’s payments are almost double his

Simple reason
Until the person reached majority the obgyn can still be sued (that’s right there is a 18 year statute of limitations on it) so basically the kid reaches 17.5 (which I consider a ridiculously late time to find anything wrong)
Find something that could have POSSIBLY been the obgyn’s fault and they get sued

Don’t get me wrong if the doctor messed up they should be in trouble but if you don’t figure it out by age 10 you arnt paying enough attention to your kid.

Essentially this massively long limitations has caused there insurance rates to be 6 TIMES their yearly wage for a flawless doctor.
Ridiculous

as in my previous post it's BS about trial lawyers being the cause. This is just politics.
"In recent decades, many drug companies in the United States abandoned the manufacture of vaccines, saying that they were expensive to make, underpriced and not profitable enough. Flu vaccine can be a particular gamble, because the demand for it varies from year to year and companies throw away what they do not sell because a new vaccine must be made each year to deal with changing strains of the virus. Some companies dropped out because of lawsuits, and others because they determined that it would not pay to retool aging vaccine plants to meet regulatory standards."
There are many factors, mainly PROFIT. That's the bottom line, profit is more important to the companies and the government than public health and safety.
Same goes for bioterror, we're not ready for that.

I suppose then that you do not have a job?

I don't know. Perhaps he means doctors are leaving his state to go to other states? I know thats the case in Pennsylvania.

Sorry, should have noted that I'm from Ohio (Cleveland area), where this is a big problem.

I agree my neighbor is an anesthesiologist … his average insurance payment if not covered by the hospital is 3 times his yearly wage … and he has a flawless record (he is the head of the department)

Obgyn’s payments are almost double his

Simple reason
Until the person reached majority the obgyn can still be sued (that’s right there is a 18 year statute of limitations on it) so basically the kid reaches 17.5 (which I consider a ridiculously late time to find anything wrong)
Find something that could have POSSIBLY been the obgyn’s fault and they get sued

Don’t get me wrong if the doctor messed up they should be in trouble but if you don’t figure it out by age 10 you arnt paying enough attention to your kid.

Essentially this massively long limitations has caused there insurance rates to be 6 TIMES their yearly wage for a flawless doctor.
Ridiculous

My point exactly. The system needs to be revised. I see so many ads for personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers on TV, in the phone book, etc. that it makes me sick. Then, when I go to the doctor, it costs and ungodly sum because they're afraid if they touch you the wrong way with their stethescope, you'll sue them.

Sure, if your doctor was a complete moron and gave you a kidney transplant when you needed a heart, go ahead and sue. It's your right. But, if you have a toothpick up your butt, as noted earlier, then you should recognize that there is a reasonable line to what is credible and what isn't. If people are too idiotic to figure this out for themselves, then the government needs to step in and define what is and isn't for them. As much as I hate it when the government defines things for me, this is one case where it's sorely needed.

We have too many blood-sucking lawyers out there that only perpetuate the problem by their own greed-I am confident that a revision of the legal system will help to clean things up quite a bit.

Actually I am not so sure these days. I listed to some guy talking about the FDA and the approval process.

He said that the only time the FDA really gets tough is if it shows people will basically fall over dead.

If there are suspected harmful effects, the company can keep such information secret for "Competative Reasons."

If the company uses the public for guinepigs then they should pay for it.

Having spoken to people at the FDA, who explain why they require certain tests (within reason - they don't name specific product names that they have turned down) and people who have tried to get products through the FDA (who claim that the FDA requires tests that aren't even useful), I doubt that very seriously. The company *cannot* keep known side effects a secret - they are absolutely required to be on the label. And believe me, there have been plenty of perfectly willing "guinea pigs" before the drug ever hits the public market.

A system where loser pays. Pays all legal and court costs if the case is found to be frivolous. Pays a certain percentage or fixed amount of costs if not frivolous but still loses.

works well in other countries.

Goes a bit to far. If it isn't frivolous, then the loser shouldn't have to pay anything - having a law like that discourages people who need to sue from doing so. After all, liability cases depend on a jury with very little knowledge on the subject to determine. A close case could go either way, and if that person was truly injured they don't have the money to pay off the other side.

So ... a woman who just went through an ugly break-up and wants to let down her hair for a little while walks into a bar in a short skirt, has a few drinks, and does a suggestive dance on a table.

Six men subsequently rape her.

Who is to blame?

The men (read: corporation) for taking advantage of a mistake or the woman (read: the consumer) for making a mistake?

Answer carefully.

Are you kidding me? No offense, but this is the most idiotic argument I have ever heard.