Re: Limited Liability for Vaccine Makers
Can your friend explain why vaccines are different from other drugs? Everything has side effects. Precisely because the Democrats have such a stake in pushing the interests of trial lawyers the Republicans have the opposite incentive making just about any pronouncements on this topic highly suspect - - particularly when they include one-sided political flames. - - Bill Dickens (DC) William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/22/02 07:27AM David: As you seem interested in this issue, here's a reply I got to my vaccine question from my knowledgeable friend, Ron, who is not on this network. Your, Asa The proposal, as I understand it, is not to cap liability for actual damages, that is medical bills, lost future earning cased by death of a working person, burial costs, child care and similar real damages. Real damages are affordable and can be insured against. Rather, the proposal would protect drug companies from punitive damages, which make up most of the awards in recent absurd tort cases and settlements to avert punitive damages, and vicarious liability, the convoluted search for deep pockets seen in many of these abusive tort awards. Vicarious liability generally involves some obscure claim for agency of the party with deep pockets. Since in the case of vaccines, the only deep pocket would be the drug company producing them, no reasonable Board of Directors would allow a major drug company to produce the vaccines without tort protection. There have been several occasions recently when vaccines were needed by the Armed Forces and the natural producers not being able to obtain tort relief by statute and not being able to insure the risk, essentially put the product in the public domain and the DOD funded a no pocket production corporation to make it. The tort situation for corporations is so bad that most Boards would not do this again because of the potential for vicarious liability for the intellectual property or the bugs or the proto-vaccine. The enormous contributions of the Plaintiffs lawyers to the Democratic Party and to four of five key Republican Senators, McCain and Jeffords, before he switched parties, particularly, are intended to prevent tort limits, like those proposed for vaccines. Absent a ban on punitive damages and vicarious liability, big tort awards are a sure thing with any vaccine. And not just from the actual medical problems that are sure to arise. Count on a vaccine syndrome and a jury somewhere in the Mississippi Delta -- LA, MISS or ARK. ** -- The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. -- Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party
The Fed's options
(COMTEX B: Mortgage market commentary--Low rates require persistent panicNov 22, 2002 (Inman News Features via COMTEX) -- The tone of financial marketsshifted suddenly this week, favoring stocks and hurting bonds and mortgages. Byyesterday, 30-year fixed rates touched 6.25 percent in the lowest-fee offerings,the high for rates in the last three months.There was nothing in new economic data to cause such an abrupt change inpsychology. A modest drop in new unemployment claims and some life-like twitchesin technology were not enough, though there is a growing sense that the Novembereconomy has been no worse than flat, and not an extension of theSeptember-October decline. For rates to stay low, panic must persist; instead,yields on ultra-safe Treasuries and mortgages rose, while rates for corporatebonds stayed the same or fell. Narrowing "credit spreads" invariably reflectsfading fear.Federal Reserve Board Chairman Allen Greenspan dropped a policy hint in anaccidental way on Tuesday, and the big change in market psychology followed.This Fed Chairman doesn't drop lint by accident. Fed Chairmen avoid making majorpolicy pronouncements in high-tension settings; instead they leak them, or slipthem in some otherwise ho-hum remarks. Tuesday's numbing venue: six droningpages on international financial risk delivered to the Council on ForeignRelations. The text is on the Fed's Web site; read it and you can all but hearthe audience struggle for wakefulness, punctuated by the plopping of faces intosoup plates.In asides from the published text of the speech, the Chairman gave starkdescriptions of the economy: "...a very major fallback in businessinvestment Nobody is doing anything, or I should say, most everybody isdoing nothing."Then, also aside from text, came an astonishing statement of possible Fedaction. The Chairman: "We would just move out on the curve, as we have in thepast. We are very far from the Fed being restricted."Moving "out on the curve" is a phrase beyond the mainstream media, hence aremark unreported and unnoticed except among professionals. It refers to the"yield curve," the graphic description of interest rates prevailing at differentmaturities.The Fed-controlled rate watched by everyone in the modern era is the Fed fundsrate, the overnight cost of money. Until Tuesday, the markets had assumed thatthe Fed's half-point rate cut two weeks ago to 1.25 percent marked the near-endof the Fed's assistance to the economy; that the Fed had shot its bolt, we wereon our own and the Fed is nearly as helpless as the Bank of Japan.To "move out on the curve" means that if the Fed runs out of above-zero Fedfunds room, it would begin to buy longer-dated instruments -- bonds -- and drivedown the whole rate structure as necessary to revive the economy.Greenspan's "as we have in the past" referred to a policy in mothballs for halfa century. >From 1942 to 1951, the Fed held the yield on long Treasury bonds to2.5 percent or less, buying bonds whenever yields threatened to rise higher. Inthe modern era, it has been axiomatic that the Fed does not manipulate long-terminterest rates. No modern Chairman has suggested that the Fed even try to do so.At best, the Fed has worked to keep long-term rates low by keeping inflationlow.This policy announcement is a big deal. In the near term, it leads to a perverseeffect in the bond market-the Fed as a potential buyer of bonds should helprates, but hurts instead. The logic: if the Fed has the power to rescue theeconomy and intends to do so, then traders and investors shouldn't buy mortgagesand bonds, and maybe should sell the ones they have and buy some stock.Will the Fed need to move "out on the curve"? Watch U.S. automakers, stockmarkets, holiday sales and the visibly sinking economies in Japan and now,Europe.Lou Barnes is a mortgage broker and nationally syndicated columnist based inBoulder, Colorado. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED].Send a Letter to the Editor for publication. Send a comment or news tip to ournewsroom. Please include the headline of the story.By Lou BarnesInman News FeaturesCopyright 2002 Lou Barnes Distributed by Inman News Features-0-INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Consumer*** end of story ***
Re: Limited Liability for Vaccine Makers
William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can your friend explain why vaccines are different from other drugs? While I'm certainly not qualified to negotiate that legal minefield, may I guess? I'd say that a drug is intended to fix an existing problem, whereas a vaccine applies a dangerous element to prevent possible future risk. Thus one who gets sick from a vaccine* can claim that absent the vaccine, the illness would not have occured; however, with other drugs the person was already sick and something had to be done. It sounds like a stretch, to be sure, but then the claim that putting a car in drive and pushing the accelerator literally through the floor board is consistent with an automatically accelerating car is a bit of a stretch as well. Yet Audi lost to such a claim. -jsh *Here's an unsettling tidbit: But there would be panic [from smallpox terror scares]. Mass vaccination would be demanded, and politicians would find such calls very difficult to resist. They should remember, however, that when millions of people were vaccinated in response to the outbreak in Britain in 1962, nearly as many died from its complications as from smallpox itself. www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n17/penn01_.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com