Money speaks, but does it speak well?

Like most people I know, I've never really thought much about punitive damages (at least, I assume that's the case - you never know what people like to ponder in their free time), but an article in the NY Times last week (Foreign Courts Wary of U.S. Punitive Damages) got me thinking: What is the point of awarding large sums of money - beyond the actual damages suffered - to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits?

While Americans are used to hearing about large punitive damage awards (despite the active movement to limit punitive damages in the United States, they are a fairly settled point in our legal system), they're relatively uncommon in other countries. English law severely restricts the circumstances in which they can be awarded, while Japanese law prohibits the enforcement of any punitive damages awarded by foreign courts.

In the case outline in the Times article, Judy Glebosky, an Alabama woman had sued an Italian manufacturer after the buckle on one of their motorcycle helmets failed in an accident, killing her son. The Alabama court awarded the woman $1 million in punitive damages, but the company refused to pay. Last year, the Italian Supreme Court sided with the company, blocking Glebosky's efforts to collect because they found the notion of punitive damages to be offensive to Italian ideas of justice.

Now, I've always been vaguely in favor of courts awarding punitive damages, especially when there's clear evidence of sleaziness, if not direct proof of wrongdoing, on the part of big corporations. Exxon Mobil, tobacco companies, I'm looking at you. Corporations may legally qualify as individuals, but it's damn hard to throw those 'individuals' in jail, even if you do manage to get a conviction, which is enough of a challenge in itself. How do you punish a corporation for breaking the law?

Sometimes it's enough to simply make them compensate the plaintiff(s) for the actual provable harm caused by corporate malfeasance. But if the point of the punishment is also to deter future crime, you have to decide whether having to shell out for compensatory damages really is enough to stop a company from committing the same irresponsible and/or illegal action in the future. Maybe they'll get caught again, but the cost of settling the cases that do come up is usually outweighed by the savings that made the irresponsible and/or illegal action seem like a good idea in the beginning - it's incredibly unlikely that they'll have to pay out in every case. In the end, money speaks, and because punitive damages involve larger sums, they speak louder than compensatory damages.

At this point, punitive damages - governed by state laws - are pretty standard practice in this country. It is an understatement to say that there has been a fairly vocal movement to limit punitive damages - opponents have been screaming for limits, or outright prohibition, at the tops of their lungs. But despite all that, the large awards that you hear about are rare within the system - the median award is closer to $40,000, and punitive damages are only actually awarded in around 2% of the civil cases that do end up in trial. While efforts to cap punitive damages have failed to pass constitutional muster, most punitive awards larger than 4 times the compensatory damages are questioned for the same reason. We all remember last year, when the Supreme Court overturned $80 million in punitive damages against Phillip Morris awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon. I know I was pissed when that happened.

Which is why I was kind of surprised when I didn't feel that bad for Glebosky. Not that I suddenly discovered that punitive damages were a bad thing, but I did wonder why she needed the money - as she said, it's not going to bring her son back. I know I felt more certain about rulings against the tobacco companies because that money was going to go to anti-smoking education.

I don't have any clear conclusion to these musings, but I guess I just wish there were a better way of punishing corporate malfeasance than just throwing money at the problem. Maybe having to pay large sums does provide the proverbial slap in the face for corporations who would otherwise cut corners (or outright lie to consumers) in order to raise profits, but is it really enough? And with punitive damages going directly to plaintiffs, you get the impression that they're being excessively rewarded for their victimhood, which really only helps corporations in their fight against responsibility. On the other hand, who else do you give them to?

Silly games

They always say the three taboo subjects are as follows: sex, politics, and religion. But no topic draws up the greatest amount of emotion from the fires within people quite like sports. Talk to any Duke fan and they'll go boo-hoo over the seemingly inexplicable amount of hated slung at their team (and then go boo-hoo over another early NCAA Tournament flameout). Wear a Giants hat in Los Angeles and you won't be invited for any more Scrabble Nights at your neighbor's. Show any sign of affinity for the Dallas Cowboys and I'll immediately remove you from my "Top Friends" on MySpace. In our democratic, open, and tolerant society that we enjoy, SP&R are so old-hat. But if another team from Boston wins a championship, then the terrorists have won.

With that in mind, what better place to incite political and social discussion than your weekly dose of Monday Night Football?

Sports serve as a microcosm of the world we live in, as the small segment of the population that we watch compete every day on television is put under a microscope. Every move the athletes make on a playing field or within an arena is scrutinized, and so is every aspect of their lives. The unfortunate death of Sean Taylor (age 24 at death) served as a reminder that "the leading cause of death for black men 15 to 24 is homicide." The probable bolt of college stars Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose to the NBA only adds to already low graduation rates among black students from college. UCLA star freshman Kevin Love has stated that remaining in school for another year is not a "financial issue" for him. I don't know what the financial situation is for Beasley or Rose, but with millions of dollars in their future as high draft picks I don't find it to be just a coincidence that Kevin Love is white and from an affluent suburb (Lake Oswego, Oregon) while Beasley and Rose are both African-American and came from predominantly black urban areas (Baltimore-Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively).

Lest we forget the revelry of George Bush throwing the first pitch of Game 3 of the 2001 World Series in Yankees Stadium in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. What could be more political than the leader of the free world bringing back a sense of "normalcy" by appearing in the home of the most popular team of "America's Pastime," who also happen to don an Uncle Sam hat in their logo?

With the Summer Olympics looming on the horizon for China, it's safe to say the Chinese Communist Party is nothing short of embarrassed over the turmoil erupting in the disputed province of Tibet and the protests and discussion that it has sparked worldwide. Having experienced their collective excitement firsthand in a trip to China last year (here's a picture of me in front of the newly constructed Beijing National Stadium), the people and government of China are treating the Games as more than just a global revelry of sports and nationalistic pride, but as their welcoming party into the world stage. Having long been the 1.3 billion-large Communist elephant in the room of global politics, the Chinese people are viewing the Summer Games as their globalization bar mitzvah.

That's fine and all; as I said before we've always attached an inflated sense of value to what is basically men and women playing a game and there is nothing wrong with that. So then why are people backing off from the notion of a full boycott of the Olympic Games saying that the Olympics are not a place for politics? The Olympics are a perfect place for politics. If that's not the case then Jesse Owens showing up Hitler in his own backyard, the Black Power salute in the 1968 games, and the Miracle On Ice are all just another moment in the dominance of the United States in international competition and nothing more. What other time do you have every nation of the world represented in a forum where the spotlight is shining down upon them and millions of people are watching? Last time I checked, the General Assembly of the United Nations doesn't draw a high Nielsen rating.

So this August when the Games start, don't forget the charter of the Olympics aims to "create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." I'm not calling for or supporting any sort of boycott of the Olympics, but I don't want people to let the Chinese government's blatant abuse of human rights not only in Tibet but throughout their country swept underneath the rug in the midst of the seemingly benign Games.

Sports are just fun and games, but they can be so much more than that. And that's why I love them.

photograph by shalvas

loss absorption

I will begin by recapping something which happened to me back in September. It began with waking up feeling a bit nauseous, and ended with a trip to the ER several hours later; well, at least one would think that’s where it ended.

Don’t worry, I’m fine, but the aftermath of my experience has truly woken me up to the realities of our health care system in this country. I should also add a disclaimer saying I do not know much of the propositions of any of the candidate on this issue, and I’m not sure at this point how to get out of this frightful mess, so I will not profess I have the final answer to this health care nightmare. That all being said, here’s a breakdown of my experience.

June 16^th, 2007 – I officially graduate from UCLA, thereby beginning my tender first steps to the “adult world,” and also thereby losing all my health coverage which until you graduate, is covered by your parents health coverage (assuming they have it).

June 18^th, 2007 – At the urging of my parents (despite thinking it a terrific waste of money at the time), I purchase ‘interim’ health insurance from UCLA amid advertisements from the Alumni Association about what great coverage I was getting and for such a good cost. ($90 per month, major medical only)

September 25^th, 2007 – I wake up feeling a bit sick, but brush it off. On my drive to work I get violently ill. Once at work I tell my boss I have to go to the doctor because I think I have food poisoning. After debating with them for a while I finally go to the doctor, where I can only see a nurse because all the doctors at the office are booked with appointments and do not have scheduled times for emergencies. I was told I had food poisoning, to get some rest and it will clear up in a few days.

September 26^th, 2007 (1AM) – Far too sick to be any food poisoning I have ever known, I am unable to even drive myself to the ER, so I call my dad to take me to the hospital. I am seen by a triage nurse who also believes it is food poisoning, and told there will be a substantial wait since my case is not urgent.

September 26^th, 2007 (3AM) – After getting so sick I can’t even raise my head, I am finally taken back to see the doctor, who diagnoses me in about 2 minutes with not food poisoning, but a severe case of vertigo. (No, not the movie, which seems to be the almost universal first response when I get to this part of the story) I am given 3 bags of IV fluids and medication, 3 different oral medications, and told if it didn’t get any better in a few days I would have to follow up with my own doctor.

September 30^th, 2007 – Still no change in vertigo (pills given to me by the ER doctor very ineffectual, especially since they turned out to be OVER THE COUNTER DRAMAMINE, but in a prescription bottle, which apparently made them cost 3 times more). I call my own doctor and over the phone she prescribes a heavy dose of decongestants which kicked in finally and I begin to feel better.

October 1^st, 2007 – My health insurance from my new job kicks in (just in time, right?)

November 26^th, 2007 – I get my first hospital bill; $5,000. $5,000!!!!!!!!! Then I get a doctor’s bill ($800), bills for the IVs ($50/each), for the lab to process my blood test ($300), and an extra fee for $200 because I was seen at the ER “after hours” which began at 10PM. Oh, and my insurance from UCLA’s deductible was $8,000. I guess when they said ‘major medical only’ they REALLY meant ‘major medical only’.

Here’s the real kicker and the point I’ve been building towards. Despite saying on their bills that financial assistance was offered and payment plans could be discussed, upon calling the hospital, I was told that there was nothing they could do to help me and I owed all the money that was listed or else they would turn me over to a collection agency. I was told, point blank, by the hospital, that the reason my bill was so high was because I had insurance.

What? Apparently, there are so many patients that come for emergency care without insurance (and they have to, by law, treat them anyway), the hospital purposely inflates the bills of patients with insurance, to try and get more money out of the insurance company, to fill the gap with how many uninsured patients they have to treat. It was just too bad that my insurance sucked so much.

Now, I was able to talk my way down to about $4,000 total for all the bills, but that still doesn’t mean I have $4000. I am barely out of college, did not make much money at work, had school and car payments (not to mention car insurance), and have now been hit with this debt which I will be paying off for a long time to come, because most other people don’t pay for insurance.

Now I of course believe that everyone should get medical treatment when it is an emergency, no matter if they have insurance or not, no matter if they have money or not, but the drain on the health care system (ERs mostly) comes primarily from non-emergent cases such as people not paying for health insurance, then going in when they have a cold. My father, who worked in an ER for 10 years and saw these abuses every day, confirmed this. He even spoke with a woman once who was very proud that she had found a way to cheat the system which meant she didn’t have to pay for insurance for her 5 children; when one of them way sick she would simply take them to County Medical Center and tell them she had no insurance, no money, and then give a fake address. The hospital had thus far just written her off as a charity case and they never paid a cent to the hospital. Incidentally, she drove a brand-new Mercedes when my dad spoke to her.

Most of the problem lies in the lack of affordable insurance and the bureaucracy of the entire system coupled with a lack of doctors and nurses, facilities and equipment (oh and don’t get me started on drug companies). But even if these problems are addressed, there will still be people who feed off the system because they are allowed to. The more we are willing to just ‘absorb the loss’ of some, and then translate it to overcharging others, the more screwed-up we are going to make the situation. This isn’t a problem exclusive to ethnicities or immigration status, either, although all these topics collide in one mushy mess. I really think universal health care would be the best way to ultimately solve the problem, circumstances what they are, but even it is not a total fix. But until we get even there, there has to be a fundamental change in people’s attitudes about taking more than what they are entitled to and feeling justified in doing so. Although, maybe we’ll see coverage for everyone before people start taking responsibility for themselves. All I know is when the hospital billing department asked me why I didn’t lie and say I had no insurance, I told her I didn’t because it was wrong. I really hope more people will do that when they’re in my shoes.

Commend this post to Digg.

The Votes Are In...and Everybody Loses

The votes are in, but we do not yet have a winner! No, I’m not talking about the United States Presidential Election, which is still a brain-numbing eight months away. Believe it or not, other countries have elections (they’re usually rigged) and a rather interesting one took place over the weekend (yep, it was rigged). That’s right, the absolute disaster of a nation known as Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia for all you former British colonists) voted in an absurd election over the weekend that will determine the fate of their once functional country. See, as stupid and frustrating as the United States election may seem sometimes, it's really not that bad compared to the elections of other nations, like Zimbabwe. At least in the United States election somebody (and some people) actually win and the voting is usually fair (unless it's decided by the Supreme Court). In Zimbabwe, well, not so much.

For a quick history lesson, following Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, they quickly became one of the more successful African nations due to their abundance of arable land and their surprisingly well-run educational system. However, former hero, current President (in office since 1987), and future pariah Robert Mugabe managed to destroy all of that with amazing efficiency.

What started with absurd claims and mismanaged policy, such as Mugabe’s assertion that homosexuality didn’t exist in Zimbabwe before colonization, turned into an absolute nightmare following his 2000 land reforms. Mugabe was pissed that most of Zimbabwe’s arable land (the one that was making the country all that money and feeding all those people) was still being run by the few white people that had stayed after independence. So, Mugabe took it all away from them and gave it all to members of the black African majority. Problem was, these new farmers were pretty much just Mugabe’s friends and didn’t know how to farm (to be unbiased, Mugabe claims that Tony Blair used chemical weapons on the farms to incite instability). Either way, since that time the food production has substantially decreased, life expectancy has dropped like a rock, and unemployment has hit an unheard of 80%. Most impressive is their inflation, which is estimated at a ridiculous 100,500% (some project it at over 1,000,000%, but since inflation really has never been this high anywhere ever, a lot of this is speculation). This has led to Zimbabwe’s awesome $10,000,000 bill (not a typo), worth about $1 US.

Either way, Mugabe’s presidency was kind of up for grabs this weekend, which is surprising for a totalitarian regime. Two opposition parties, most notably Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC, looked to stand a legitimate chance to take over the nation. Naturally, all parties involved claimed widespread fraud, likely all were right. Over 3 million more ballots were printed than people in the country and almost 9,000 addresses were registered to vacant land (mostly registered to the surprisingly powerful 1960’s dead, white Rhodesian voters). It doesn’t help that the election was outrageously confusing, with hundreds of local and parliamentary seats being voted on along with the Presidential vote. Shockingly though, Tsvangirai’s MDC is claiming a victory over Mugabe despite few votes having actually been counted. Surely Mugabe will accept this and step down, because that’s what democracy is all about right?

Unfortunately, he will most surely not. Mugabe has already declared the MDC’s claims of victory as tantamount to a coup and despite what results slowly come in (and who in Mugabe’s camp gets killed for botching such a seemingly easy to rig election) one would be foolish to expect Mugabe’s party to go down without a fight. So what does this mean? Well, think of the violence in Kenya last year (caused by a similar election) and times that by superhyperinflation (new word) and over 2 million refugees (that’s about 15% of Zimbabwe’s population) trying desperately to get into South Africa. Yeah, that’s bad.

So yeah, maybe the United States’ election has a lot of problems: it’s long (REALLY LONG), it costs a shitload of money, and the Electoral College is the stupidest thing not called a superdelegate. However, at least in the United States’ election at least 50% of the country can declare themselves a winner; in Zimbabe’s election, like most 3rd world democracies, the only sure thing is that nobody is going to win.


Commend this post to Digg.