Re: Limited Liability for Vaccine Makers

2002-11-22 Thread William Dickens
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

2002-11-22 Thread Alypius Skinner



(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

2002-11-22 Thread john hull
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