Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'm not sure that Badge was proposing that, but it's also an interesting idea. There are other places a system like that makes sense: the left overs of asbestos litigation, for instance. The truly bad actors were all put out of business a long time ago. Now its just deep pockets that get forced to pay for something that probably has very little to do with them. And it is extremely dependent on the attorneys involved, the sympathy for a particular plaintiff, and who settles with who on what terms and when. I know people won't like hearing me say it, but similar to WC, a pooled recovery fund from the insurers of the still functioning defendants and an agency that administers claims based on a reasonably quantifiable set of criteria would be much more efficient, and probably more fair, than the jury system. And like WC, maybe there's an escape valve for egregious circumstances, but it has a high threshold to open it. I don't think that works for all torts, but I think there's a decent amount of room for more of that kind of system than we currently have.

I remember reading once about a contractor that had built ships for the USN.  The USN Specs called for asbestos and the contractor did what the Government contract required then they were getting sued and their defense was pretty obviously that they didn't choose asbestos and hadn't done ANYTHING except what they were required to do.  

Brightline Strikes Gold in Q1 2025
Brightline’s total revenue for Q1 2025 reached $54.6 million, a hefty 12% increase from the $48.9 million reported in the same period last year. This growth is largely due to a stunning performance in long-distance services, which attracted a significant number of passengers. By the end of March, they welcomed a total of 793,432 riders, marking a robust 10% boost from the 722,708 passengers who rode during Q1 2024.



I personally would not call a 12% increase in "sales" by a pretty new company as "stunning" or "a surge".    But they struck gold, or so it claims.  They continue to lose money like crazy, but maybe they can close the gap to perhaps make operating break even?

I didn't meant to suggest that ALL, a majority, nor even a substantial minority of HC providers are crooked, they aren't.  That said, I think you and for that matter everyone would agree that SOME of them are.  There have been PLENTY of cases of Medicare fraud.  I've also dealt with crooked WC Docs.  Not saying all are, just that there are enough that it has an impact on the system as a whole. 

Old Joke:
Plaintiff is on the stand being questioned (Direct) by his attorney:
Attorney:  After your injury did you see a Doctor?
Plaintiff:  Yes I did. 
Attorney:  What kind of doctor did you see? 
Plaintiff:  I don't know, but you said he was a good Plaintiff's Doctor. 

That joke applies because it DOES happen. 

Of course it happens. But the company's insurers also send the plaintiff to a good defendant's doctor. In California--and probably most places--there is now an IME (independent medical examiner). I haven't been around WC for so long that I don't remember / keep up with how that person is selected, but it's to try to avoid this issue. It helps, but it isn't perfect (nor does it completely do away with party-hired doctors).
Medina, to your point about the government contractors in WWII and asbestos: absolutely. There were criminally bad actors in the world of asbestos manufacturing/supply. The actively hid the killing that their product inflicted. There is an infamous memo that says (paraphasing): the bad news is this stuff is killing our employees; the good news is they will be productive workers for most of their working years if we don't tell them. Might have been Johns Manville execs? One of the big asbestos manufacturers in any case. Most of the users, including the contractors whose people installed the stuff, weren't aware of the risks as of the 40s; and as the risks were becoming more and more known, because asbestos was such a valuable material, the research focused on the biggest problem areas first: (1) employees in the manufacturing plants; (2) workers who installed the stuff in enclosed dusty environments (definitely including the interior of ships); then it spread out to most anyone who works with the stuff.
But people still die terrible deaths because of exposure and the manufacturers were wiped out a long time ago, so plaintiffs put on stories about how everyone knew that working in dusty environments was bad for people, so if someone was exposed to the dusty environment, their employers were negligent. It is still a winning strategy. In a sense it's very closely related to the WC problem: you were injured on the job (or because your parent--normally dad--brought the stuff home on his clothes) through no fault of your own. Should there be compensation? I think it's fair. Should there be massive jury awards because you tick all the right sympathy blocks? Probably not. Should companies that didn't really do anything wrong be paying for the lack of full understanding of the risks? They should probably contribute (their insurers, truth be told), but at this point, my argument is that the insurers should pony money up into a pool, and the feds should probably supplement that pool, and there should be an administor who pays compensation based on a set of established criteria. That should have been done 20-30 years ago, but there wasn't quite enough political will to make it happen.

Of course it happens. But the company's insurers also send the plaintiff to a good defendant's doctor. In California--and probably most places--there is now an IME (independent medical examiner). I haven't been around WC for so long that I don't remember / keep up with how that person is selected, but it's to try to avoid this issue. It helps, but it isn't perfect (nor does it completely do away with party-hired doctors).
Medina, to your point about the government contractors in WWII and asbestos: absolutely. There were criminally bad actors in the world of asbestos manufacturing/supply. The actively hid the killing that their product inflicted. There is an infamous memo that says (paraphasing): the bad news is this stuff is killing our employees; the good news is they will be productive workers for most of their working years if we don't tell them. Might have been Johns Manville execs? One of the big asbestos manufacturers in any case. Most of the users, including the contractors whose people installed the stuff, weren't aware of the risks as of the 40s; and as the risks were becoming more and more known, because asbestos was such a valuable material, the research focused on the biggest problem areas first: (1) employees in the manufacturing plants; (2) workers who installed the stuff in enclosed dusty environments (definitely including the interior of ships); then it spread out to most anyone who works with the stuff.
But people still die terrible deaths because of exposure and the manufacturers were wiped out a long time ago, so plaintiffs put on stories about how everyone knew that working in dusty environments was bad for people, so if someone was exposed to the dusty environment, their employers were negligent. It is still a winning strategy. In a sense it's very closely related to the WC problem: you were injured on the job (or because your parent--normally dad--brought the stuff home on his clothes) through no fault of your own. Should there be compensation? I think it's fair. Should there be massive jury awards because you tick all the right sympathy blocks? Probably not. Should companies that didn't really do anything wrong be paying for the lack of full understanding of the risks? They should probably contribute (their insurers, truth be told), but at this point, my argument is that the insurers should pony money up into a pool, and the feds should probably supplement that pool, and there should be an administor who pays compensation based on a set of established criteria. That should have been done 20-30 years ago, but there wasn't quite enough political will to make it happen.

Yes.

Some fun tidbits. Note to corporate overlords: if you are saying this kind of thing, it's what leads to people referring to corporate overlords:

1935: Raybestos-Manhattan president Sumner Simpson wrote, “The less said about asbestos, the better off we are,” in a letter to a Johns Manville attorney.

1949 Dr. Kenneth Smith, future medical director of Johns Manville, advised the company against telling its sick workers they have asbestosis.

The director of purchases for the Bendix Corporation (now Honeywell) wrote in a memo to an official with the Canadian Johns Manville Co.:

My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it.

– E.A. Martin, Bendix Corporation, Sept. 12, 1966

Mr. Brown, do you mean to tell me you would let them work until they dropped dead?” He said, “Yes. We save a lot of money that way.
Charles Roemer
Johns Manville employee recalling what company president Lewis Brown said in a deposition

I had bikes with Bendix brakes as a kid.

Almost every shade tree mechanic who did their own brake jobs through the 70s worked with asbestos-lined brakes.