House OKs "cheeseburger" bill barring lawsuits

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

That would qualify for tainted food which isn't protected under this bill.

As long as litigation remains possible for gross negligence - which it certainly will be - the bill isn't completely absurd.

McDonalds has been selling salads and healthier items for the last couple years. I wonder if they would have been selling these items if there was no threat of litigation.

 

[IronWing]

Liability shield laws distort the market. As other posters have stated the key is to fix the court system, not pass special preference laws. Fixing the court system would require some real thought and careful legislation, not something Congress is good at anymore and only does with great reluctance.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
McDonalds has been selling salads and healthier items for the last couple years. I wonder if they would have been selling these items if there was no threat of litigation.

They're offering those items because they want to lure health-conscious adults into bringing their kids to the restaurant. There's no point in taking a guaranteed loss as a preventative measure for a possible and unlikely one.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

That would qualify for tainted food which isn't protected under this bill.

Are you sure? What if McD's included the name of the addictive drug in the ingredients. Would it still be tainted even if consumers knew the product had an addictive drug in it?

Edit: I think you're wrong. I think it's now legal for McD's to have an addictive drug listed in the ingredients, then sell their product, producing a generation of people who are addicted to their food.

Well if they publicly claim that they put an addictive drug they would be breaking the law. What you expect them to fill their burgers with Crack or something?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Well if they publicly claim that they put an addictive drug they would be breaking the law. ...

He reads while sipping a coke.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

agreed, but at least they'll prevent retarded lawsuits like these

 

[Kadarin]

From the article:

The "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" passed on a bipartisan 306 to 120 vote. The House approved a similar bill last year but it died in the Senate and no Senate action is scheduled on companion legislation.

This bill passed the House, but nothing similar is or is on the schedule to go through the Senate. So it's not a law.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
P&N.

[sarcasm]I love when congress unconstitutionally supercedes federal jurisdiction. I also love it when the buck is passed completely from coprorate responsibility to individuals, instead of remaining with the comparative fault standard[/sarcasm]

It's a shame our legislature is bending over for special interest lobbies with knee jerk legislation like this. Even worse that the public stupidly endorses it.

FYI - there's also a ban on firearms suits bing passed. Sig Heil Corporate GAWDS!!

1. It didn't need to be in P&N until you posted.
2. You're wrong.
3. See #2

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

That would qualify for tainted food which isn't protected under this bill.

Are you sure? What if McD's included the name of the addictive drug in the ingredients. Would it still be tainted even if consumers knew the product had an addictive drug in it?

Edit: I think you're wrong. I think it's now legal for McD's to have an addictive drug listed in the ingredients, then sell their product, producing a generation of people who are addicted to their food.

Well if they publicly claim that they put an addictive drug they would be breaking the law. What you expect them to fill their burgers with Crack or something?

Actually, no. I was playing devil's advocate here.
AND, in 2003 (I believe), the FDA finally declared caffeine to be an addictive drug.
Furthermore, caffeine is added to quite a few foods. Why? Is it for the flavor? Or is it for the purpose of providing that little boost (which the drug provides.) See Pepsi, Coca-Cola ingredients if you have any further questions.
Thus, it's *already* happening.
And, ask anyone accustomed to drinking a cup of coffee in the morning how hard it is to give up that habit... it rapidly leads to headaches, prompting the person to restart the habit. Ditto for many pepsi drinkers. It's addicting.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

Agreed!

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
P&N.

[sarcasm]I love when congress unconstitutionally supercedes federal jurisdiction. I also love it when the buck is passed completely from coprorate responsibility to individuals, instead of remaining with the comparative fault standard[/sarcasm]

It's a shame our legislature is bending over for special interest lobbies with knee jerk legislation like this. Even worse that the public stupidly endorses it.

FYI - there's also a ban on firearms suits bing passed. Sig Heil Corporate GAWDS!!

Idiot. This type of legislation would not have been necessary if the courts hadn't been unconstitutionally legislating from the bench in the first place.
Nor is this some pro-corporate legislation. It's anti-dishonest-ambulance-chasing lawyer legislation, i.e. against the crooked greedy shyster who convinces the grieving family a bunch lies based on foolish mystical ideas that inanimate things can commit evil so that he can make millions for himself. And along the way, the rest of us pay that greedy lawyer's price by way of higher prices on our goods and services.
The public is speaking clear. We don't want those crooked shysters any more! Despite your paternalism under false pretenses, we the people are perfectly capable of using common sense and taking care of ourselves. So fsck the hell off.

 

[blakeatwork]

Holy crap!!! Legislation from the US that makes sense...

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

Gotta love the US legal system... But it's the best in the world isn't it? blah.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

Agreed!

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
P&N.

[sarcasm]I love when congress unconstitutionally supercedes federal jurisdiction. I also love it when the buck is passed completely from coprorate responsibility to individuals, instead of remaining with the comparative fault standard[/sarcasm]

It's a shame our legislature is bending over for special interest lobbies with knee jerk legislation like this. Even worse that the public stupidly endorses it.

FYI - there's also a ban on firearms suits bing passed. Sig Heil Corporate GAWDS!!

Idiot. This type of legislation would not have been necessary if the courts hadn't been unconstitutionally legislating from the bench in the first place.
Nor is this some pro-corporate legislation. It's anti-dishonest-ambulance-chasing lawyer legislation, i.e. against the crooked greedy shyster who convinces the grieving family a bunch lies based on foolish mystical ideas that inanimate things can commit evil so that he can make millions for himself. And along the way, the rest of us pay that greedy lawyer's price by way of higher prices on our goods and services.
The public is speaking clear. We don't want those crooked shysters any more! Despite your paternalism under false pretenses, we the people are perfectly capable of using common sense and taking care of ourselves. So fsck the hell off.

I agree 90%. The only part that I don't agree with is "we the people are perfectly capable..." You seem to have forgotten about the juries often making some of these ridiculous awards. Perhaps that's because the brightest people have careers which they feel they cannot afford to miss 2 months to listen to testimony. Perhaps (and I may be wrong) the majority of people making up some of these juries would have normally been watching Oprah or Sally Jesse or Geraldo or... had they not been occupied with jury duty for long court cases. I know that's true in my case... I had jury duty; I went, as I was obligated to do.. my name was called from the pool of potential jurors... I was honest, but gave them every last bit of information that would convince them that "I'm not the right guy for the job." It was for a "inappropriate sexual contact" case; I was asked during the juror interview if I thought "the victim might have misconstrued what the intent of the defendant was." I answered, "are you asking me if I believe he could have been patting her on the back, but she felt that he was grabbing her breasts?"

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

I hope the bill gets stuck down.

Ditto. The proposed legislation is a slippery slope purchased by lobbyi$t dollars. The only entity that enjoys tort immunity is the State, which may and should waive its immunity when necessary. Barring access to the courts is completely knee-jerk and does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Meanwhile, the coroprate fellaters on ATOT have completely overlooked that only a handful of obesity lawsuits have ever been filed in federal courts, so this addresses a barely existant issue by granting a ridiculous level of corporate immunity.

Is it just me, or does Amused argue by macro cutting and pasting quotes from some corporate propaganda site? Ive never seen a more worthless poster on ATOT. Time to look for an ignore feature.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Ditto. The proposed legislation is a slippery slope purchased by lobbyi$t dollars. The only entity that enjoys tort immunity is the State, which may and should waive its immunity when necessary. Barring access to the courts is completely knee-jerk and does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Meanwhile, the coroprate fellaters on ATOT have completely overlooked that only a handful of obesity lawsuits have ever been filed in federal courts, so this addresses a barely existant issue by granting a ridiculous level of corporate immunity.

Is it just me, or does Amused argue by macro cutting and pasting quotes from some corporate propaganda site? Ive never seen a more worthless poster on ATOT. Time to look for an ignore feature.

What underlying problems? Laziness? That 50 years ago, people didn't have the option for cheap fast food? And now that we do have that option, idiots abuse it despite all the common sense advising against abuse? That ambulance chashing shysters take advantage of those undisciplined individuals to make billions (collectively)? Or that short-sighted agenda-ists like yourself see anything that is not explicitly anti-corporation as pro-corporation? Do I agree with this legislation? Not entirely, I'd rather see all the lawyers hung from short ropes.
Here's my advice. Stop eating fast food. There is no gun pointed to your head forcing you to. When you queue up for that Big Mac and pay for it, you do so of your own choice and volition. You are not a victim.

 

[Freejack2]

So long as food places continue to publish nutritional information I have all I need to make an educated decision about what I eat. If the bill is what it seems on the surface and there is no hidden crud in it I don't see any problem with it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Ditto. The proposed legislation is a slippery slope purchased by lobbyi$t dollars. The only entity that enjoys tort immunity is the State, which may and should waive its immunity when necessary. Barring access to the courts is completely knee-jerk and does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Meanwhile, the coroprate fellaters on ATOT have completely overlooked that only a handful of obesity lawsuits have ever been filed in federal courts, so this addresses a barely existant issue by granting a ridiculous level of corporate immunity.

Is it just me, or does Amused argue by macro cutting and pasting quotes from some corporate propaganda site? Ive never seen a more worthless poster on ATOT. Time to look for an ignore feature.

What underlying problems? Laziness? That 50 years ago, people didn't have the option for cheap fast food? And now that we do have that option, idiots abuse it despite all the common sense advising against abuse? That ambulance chashing shysters take advantage of those undisciplined individuals to make billions (collectively)? Or that short-sighted agenda-ists like yourself see anything that is not explicitly anti-corporation as pro-corporation? Do I agree with this legislation? Not entirely, I'd rather see all the lawyers hung from short ropes.
Here's my advice. Stop eating fast food. There is no gun pointed to your head forcing you to. When you queue up for that Big Mac and pay for it, you do so of your own choice and volition. You are not a victim.

Fast food isn't making America fat. Fast food started in the 50s and took off in the 60s.

The obesity epidemic didn't start until the 80s and really took off in the mid 90s. There is absolutely NO correlation between fast/fatty foods, and obesity. In fact, fat consumed per calorie has DROPPED since the late 70s.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Is it just me, or does Amused argue by macro cutting and pasting quotes from some corporate propaganda site? Ive never seen a more worthless poster on ATOT. Time to look for an ignore feature.

Um, no. I may add the occational Ayn Rand quote because it's easier than rewording it. But all my posts are my own.

Nice try at an insult, though.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Is it just me, or does Amused argue by macro cutting and pasting quotes from some corporate propaganda site? Ive never seen a more worthless poster on ATOT. Time to look for an ignore feature.

Did you find the ignore feature? It's not too hard to find. I think it's under profile or something. However, I don't see how you qualify him as a worthless poster.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: MattCo
Now who are the overweight people going to blame?

video games.

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: shud
I can't wait until kids start suing their parents for Thyroid problems and fussy metabolisms.

It sounds ridiculous? You just wait. You just fcking wait. It will happen.

Well, you're not that far off. I saw a story on CNN Headline News yesterday that some parents are starting to sue doctors for "missing" possible birth/health problems during prenatal testing. In otherwords, the doctors do the screening and say everything is fine, then the baby is born and it has some kind of health problem...so the parents are suing.

WTF. So what would they do if pre-screening showed that the kid was going to have a defect? Abortion??

 

[mzkhadir]

Instead of wasting their time on this. They should be looking at other bills.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shud
I can't wait until kids start suing their parents for Thyroid problems and fussy metabolisms.

It sounds ridiculous? You just wait. You just fcking wait. It will happen.

Well, you're not that far off. I saw a story on CNN Headline News yesterday that some parents are starting to sue doctors for "missing" possible birth/health problems during prenatal testing. In otherwords, the doctors do the screening and say everything is fine, then the baby is born and it has some kind of health problem...so the parents are suing.

WTF. So what would they do if pre-screening showed that the kid was going to have a defect? Abortion??

I'm surprised such a story even made it to CNN... that's really old news. The problem is wayyyy too common to be considered sensationalism. Many ob/gyn's are leaving the field, or at least fleeing from some states for that exact reason. Any birth defect/problem during delivery almost automatically means lawsuit.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: shud
I can't wait until kids start suing their parents for Thyroid problems and fussy metabolisms.

It sounds ridiculous? You just wait. You just fcking wait. It will happen.

Well, you're not that far off. I saw a story on CNN Headline News yesterday that some parents are starting to sue doctors for "missing" possible birth/health problems during prenatal testing. In otherwords, the doctors do the screening and say everything is fine, then the baby is born and it has some kind of health problem...so the parents are suing.

WTF. So what would they do if pre-screening showed that the kid was going to have a defect? Abortion??

I'm surprised such a story even made it to CNN... that's really old news. The problem is wayyyy too common to be considered sensationalism. Many ob/gyn's are leaving the field, or at least fleeing from some states for that exact reason. Any birth defect/problem during delivery almost automatically means lawsuit.

I think it's pretty disgusting for parents to do that. I mean. Your kid has a defect...SO WHAT. It's not the doctor's fault that your genes are fvcked.

And even if pre-screening found something...bah forget it. I'm gonna start a new thread instead of crapping here...