tort

Senate to Consider Equal Pay Bill

by: Drum Major Institute

Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:13

Today's post is by DMI's Kia Franklin ofTortDeform.com
What's the Fair Pay Act? It's no big deal, really. It could only reshape the entire legal terrain of employment discrimination and determine whether employers should be rewarded for successfully hiding discriminatory pay from their employees for at least 180 days. Anyway, why should women gripe about employers paying some employees differently for doing the same job just as well as others?

Okay, so there's the issue of pensions, social security, and other benefits that affect the rest of a person's life, even after a person retires; the need to provide for one's family; principles of fairness, equity, and non-discrimination. Whatever, yada yada yada...

Okay, now that we've had our daily dose of sarcasm, let's be clear: today the Senate is considering a tremendously important bill. We would all do well to pay attention to what happens today with the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act .

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would restore the spirit of those laws we often cite to as markers of America's progress, civil rights laws that prohibit employment discrimination.

This includes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans wtih Disabilities Act, among others. The law would clarify that each time an employer issues a paycheck that undercompensates a person because of the person's race, gender, age, or disability status, the time window the employee has for filing a discrimination claim starts anew.

There's More... :: (6 Comments, 445 words in story)

What Progressives in Late Primary States Must Ask the Candidates Before April 22nd

by: Drum Major Institute

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 16:00

(by Kia Franklin of DMI's TortDeform.com, cross-posted from Keystone Politics)
Progressive voters have been persistently challenging the Presidential candidates and other political leaders on the issues we care about most this election year. As just one example, we saw the power of mobilization when we organized our outrage over the FISA debacle and demanded that the candidates resist the Bush Administration's attempts to grant blind amnesty to corporations that violated our Constitutional rights. Our coordinated efforts around the FISA issue reminded Congress that progressives care about holding corporations accountable, and will hold representatives accountable too.

But the corporate lobby is busy sending out a message of its own. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said the Chamber will "build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," to oppose "anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency." The corporate lobby wants progressive leadership "gone from power for at least 40 years," and are aggressively lobbying around a key set of issues, including so-called tort "reforms" to accomplish this.

Tort "reforms"-a misnomer since they actually deform our legal rights-are anti-populist policiesthat take away our Constitutional right to take big corporations to court when they've injured us through negligence or reckless business practices. These "reforms" include: setting arbitrary limits on how much malpractice victims can recover for their injuries; eliminating consumer state claims against companies that sell harmful pharmaceuticals, contaminated foods, and other dangerous products; and appointing judges with a pro-corporate bias to the bench. They are pointedly asking the candidates of all parties whether they are for or against this corporate agenda.

With the corporate right-wing working tirelessly on its agenda, mission critical for the progressive community is to engage all the candidates about the competing people-centered interests that affect our daily lives, economic security, health, and safety. Our economy's precarious condition is one of the highest and most obvious priorities right now. This is true for Americans who face foreclosure from the sub-prime lending mess. It is also true for those of us who will ever pump gas; who care about home property values in increasingly abandoned and neglected neighborhoods; who want healthy and affordable choices as consumers; who want legal protections regarding our employment and health care; and who generally feel that the government is more concerned with bailing out big corporations than with protecting hardworking Americans against victimization by corporate greed.

Now, that laundry list of frustrations seems like a lot to talk about. But it can pretty much be boiled down to one simple question to ask each and every candidate: What specific policies will you support to curb rampantly expanding corporate power, which has left regular Americans economically vulnerable, deprived of adequate legal protections, and wary about our government's ability to protect the public's health and welfare?

And if they need a little nudging, here are six more specific questions to ask the candidates, which are in part derived from a report we released about what isn't being talked about in Election '08:

1.         How will you make sure that all people, regardless of income, have the resources to fight for their legal rights related to their basic human needs, like their need for housing and healthcare?

2.         Corporations can force individuals to take disputes against them to a private proceeding that is not a real court and does not provide the protections of real courts. Corporations sneak arbitration "agreements" into consumer and employment contracts because they know these private arbitrators are tied to corporate purse strings. Will you help Americans hold negligent or fraudulent corporations accountable by removing this loophole?

3.         How will you crack down on federal agencies that, with courts' approval, protect corporations from strong state consumer protection laws through weak federal regulations? (For example our High Court's ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic allowed a defective device maker regulated by the FDA to avoid state claims).

4.         Will you help prevent another Firestone Tire debacle, by preventing corporations from using secret court settlements to hide their misdeeds from the public?

5.         How will your health care plan protect victims of preventable medical errors and negligence and ensure that they are adequately compensated for preventable injuries?

6.         How will you protect American insurance policyholders against insurance companies that wrongfully deny their claims? (For example the story of this young girl who ultimately died because she was denied care until it was too late to save her).

Good leaders will follow, and Senators Clinton and Obama have both recognized that our country's leadership needs to be listening to regular Americans and not just the corporations that pour big money into lobbying Congress. So progressive voters have a special opportunity here to shape election dialogue around the agenda that we feel is most important to us. In this opportune moment we have the great responsibility to make sure that issues the candidates haven't been discussing, but which urgently require national attention, get discussed.

By asking our own questions and articulating our own vision for how we want our government to function, what we want to do about corporate power in our lives, and what sorts of legal protections we value for ourselves, we can also parse out just how well the candidates' populist sentiments translate into practical, common sense policies to fulfill that vision. I wish New Yorkers could have organized effectively to do this in time for our primary. But thankfully, Pennsylvanians still have the chance to do this service to the progressive voting public.

Discuss :: (9 Comments)

Lawsuit REDUCES Healthcare Costs for Patients

by: Drum Major Institute

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:21

This blog post is the first in what will be an ongoing series by the folks at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. DMI is a public policy think tank that uses the lens of the middle class squeeze to analyze domestic policy on any issue from immigration to retro-active immunity for telecos. We think of ourselves  as a netroots think tank since one of the groups we develop policy tools for are bloggers. With that in mind I do want to ask the Open Left community for suggestions on what issues you'd like to hear from DMI about.

by Kia Franklin
You know all those lawsuits that conservatives like McCain blame for the high cost of healthcare? You know, the ones that actually have nothing to do with the high cost of healthcare? Well, the fact is that at least one lawsuit has actually reduced health care costs for a group of patients. A recent class action settlement resulted in refunds for low- and middle-income uninsured people who were overcharged for the care they paid for out-of-pocket.

Tuesday's settlement between patients and St-Louis health care provider BJC is a case-in-point for why our court system is an important and powerful tool that yields real results for real ordinary citizens facing real injustices. Uninsured patients allege that BJC hospitals overcharged them for all or some of their medical treatment, up to three times as much as their insured counterparts; denied uninsured patients access to the charity care that it was required to provide as part of its non-profit status; and used predatory collection practices when patients had trouble making payments.

According to this article:

BJC Healthcare, the area's largest health care system, will provide a 25 percent discount to all hospital patients without insurance under a class-action settlement agreement announced Tuesday. Some uninsured patients treated in the past also may be eligible for refunds or discounts.

Speaking to press, patients in the BJC class action expressed satisfaction:

"All in all, it's a fair agreement," said Dave Kuneman, one of the plaintiffs. "Agreements are never perfect for everyone. It's the best that Barnes and our class can do in the real world."

But this is not just a case in which the civil court system improved a difficult and unfair financial situation for individuals directly involved in the litigation. This case also had some positive reverberating effects on uninsured patients at neighboring health care providers. From the article:

There's More... :: (17 Comments, 396 words in story)





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search