Comments on: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/07/getting-it-usa-today-supports-health.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Curious JDhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/07/getting-it-usa-today-supports-health.html#comment-53791 Curious JD Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:23:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/07/18535.html#comment-53791 They're not inevitable because they clearly violate the constitution. The cause of action of negligence originated in common law. What's more, there is literally no evidence they would be an improvement. Besides, insurers aren't pushing them, so there isn't enough political oomph to get anywhere with them.<br/><br/>Family court is not applicable because it doesn't involve cases which were recognized at common law. Those have always been purely statutory creations. What's more, you're seeking an equitable distribution of assets, not asking for damages.<br/><br/>What criminal maritime cases are you referring to? They’re not inevitable because they clearly violate the constitution. The cause of action of negligence originated in common law. What’s more, there is literally no evidence they would be an improvement. Besides, insurers aren’t pushing them, so there isn’t enough political oomph to get anywhere with them.

Family court is not applicable because it doesn’t involve cases which were recognized at common law. Those have always been purely statutory creations. What’s more, you’re seeking an equitable distribution of assets, not asking for damages.

What criminal maritime cases are you referring to?

]]> By: TXMedhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/07/getting-it-usa-today-supports-health.html#comment-53785 TXMed Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:31:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/07/18535.html#comment-53785 Divorce suits heard in family court obviously have more at stake than $20. That would appear under your reasoning to violate the 7th amendment. Criminal maritime cases in some circumstances appear to violate the 6th amendment under your argument.<br/><br/>It seems the hurdle of the 7th amendment could be cleared to create health courts without changing the constitution. <br/><br/>Anyway, they're inevitable in some states I think...I suppose the fight is valiant to keep arguing against them on principle however. Divorce suits heard in family court obviously have more at stake than $20. That would appear under your reasoning to violate the 7th amendment. Criminal maritime cases in some circumstances appear to violate the 6th amendment under your argument.

It seems the hurdle of the 7th amendment could be cleared to create health courts without changing the constitution.

Anyway, they’re inevitable in some states I think…I suppose the fight is valiant to keep arguing against them on principle however.

]]> By: Curious JDhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/07/getting-it-usa-today-supports-health.html#comment-53784 Curious JD Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:07:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/07/18535.html#comment-53784 The opposing view:<br/><br/>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-04-oppose_x.htm<br/><br/>Tax, bankruptcy, maritime, and family law cases don't involve the VIIth Amendment to the Constitution, either. How sad that people advocate changing the Constitution so insurers can make a few more dollars. <br/><br/>And based on assertions with no basis in fact, either. "Health courts could SHOW THE WAY?" What does that mean? The opposing view:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-04-oppose_x.htm

Tax, bankruptcy, maritime, and family law cases don’t involve the VIIth Amendment to the Constitution, either. How sad that people advocate changing the Constitution so insurers can make a few more dollars.

And based on assertions with no basis in fact, either. “Health courts could SHOW THE WAY?” What does that mean?

]]>