Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='BigT']I've got to go to work... night shift...

It's in the article I posted previously... the majority was punitive damages against McDonalds, but I don't recall the details.[/QUOTE]

So why did you respond to tell me you weren't going to bother?

It's not a bullshit case, it's a perfect example of why tort reform advocates come to their conclusions with nary a clue as to how the real world works.
 
I'm going to use Wikipedia, because, as you said, I'm lazy. And they have most this information in one place.

[quote name='UncleBob']The coffee was within the temperature range recommended by coffee experts.[/quote]
[quote name='Wikipedia']During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C).[/quote]
From the National Coffee Associate of the USA:
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
[quote name='NCA']Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.[/quote]
[quote name='NCA']
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. [/quote]

So I was wrong - the coffee was actually colder than recommended by coffee experts. Not sure how that helps your case though.

[quote name='UncleBob']The plaintiff in this case put the hot cup of coffee between her knees and took the lid off.[/quote]

[quote name='Wikipedia']She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[/quote]
[quote name='UncleBob']The plaintiff was a regular, repeat customer of this exact McDonald's and thus should have reasonably known the coffee was hot.[/quote]

This one I'll let you find a source that says different - I'm not finding anything now, but I'm almost positive this is the case as I'm pretty sure I remember reading it before.

[quote name='UncleBob']The initial award was given not because the coffee was "too hot", but because the Jury felt McDonald's didn't do enough to warn her the coffee was hot.[/quote]
[quote name='Wikipedia']Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.[/quote]
 
[quote name='BigT']Yeah, insurance != free. Someone still has to pay for insurance premiums, which for certain physicians can run 100K-200K per year and, yes, the costs get passed down.



True. We need a whole new vision of how healthcare should be doled out. It is not free and it is not an unlimited resource![/QUOTE]

I like how you respond to every thing but the direct questions I ask you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to use Wikipedia, because, as you said, I'm lazy. And they have most this information in one place.
So I was wrong - the coffee was actually colder than recommended by coffee experts. Not sure how that helps your case though.[/quote]
Because you don't serve the coffee at the same temperature you brew it, just like you don't serve a souffle at 475 degrees smart guy.

This has to be a troll account. I don't want to believe someone is this ignorant.
This one I'll let you find a source that says different - I'm not finding anything now, but I'm almost positive this is the case as I'm pretty sure I remember reading it before.
Click to expand...
You should definitely NOT google mcdonalds coffee lawsuit. After the 1st link coincidentally being the one you read, every single other one on the 1st page is an explanation of why McDonalds was wrong.

http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf
 
[quote name='speedracer']Because you don't serve the coffee at the same temperature you brew it,[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']
From the National Coffee Associate of the USA:
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
[quote name='NCA']Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

Write the NCA and tell them they're wrong. I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience with Coffee than these guys.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Write the NCA and tell them they're wrong. I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience with Coffee than these guys.[/QUOTE]
So you read the facts of the case then? You read the testimony of the actual case that we're actually talking about?

Obvious troll is obvious. This case should be used as a litmus test for higher brain function.

So on a hunch that you don't know what you're talking about and are using things out of context, I googled safe coffee temperature.

The 1st hit was the case facts which you haven't read.
The 2nd hit:
Freshly brewed coffee, immediately after being poured into the cup, has an approximate temperature of 185ºF (85ºC). The coffee becomes safe to drink after it cools to 143ºF (61.7ºC).
Click to expand...
The 3nd hit is a pdf that says coffee is unsafe at 180 degrees.
The 4th hit is a device that shows when the coffee is safe to drink since, you know, it's unsafe when it's first brewed.
From the 5th hit:
Some time back I acquainted myself with the details of this case. At
face value, it looked like a frivolous suit. The reality was that the coffee the lady bought was *way* hotter than the standard dictated. When some splashed from the cup onto her hand, it caused her to drop the cup, where it opened and dumped onto her lap.

She was so badly burned that she had to have skin grafts on the inside
of her thighs. If the coffee had been served at the temperature that
McD's own standards state, she would have been much less badly
injured.
Click to expand...
Acquainted themselves with the details of the case. Impossible!

I also enjoy commenting on settled cases without reading the fact pattern, judge's decision, deposed testimony, etc. You're a smart man to trust media coverage over actual facts Bob. That's why I like you.
 
First off - I, and I'm sure other posters, would find it awesome if you could manage a discussion without throwing around insults because you don't like the information being provided.

Second, lets go with your quote of coffee being safe at 143.

Now, let's go back to foc's link above...
[quote name='CPSC']Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degree water. Even if the temperature is 120 degrees, a five minute exposure could result in third-degree burns.[/quote]

So - let's pretend that McDonald's followed your expert advice and served the coffee at your so-called "safe to drink" temperature. The average adult would have been burned in six seconds. The old lady would have likely probably burned faster.

You know how this could have been prevented?

Not putting a hot cup of coffee between your knees and taking the lid off.

Because, you know, coffee is hot.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First off - I, and I'm sure other posters, would find it awesome if you could manage a discussion without throwing around insults because you don't like the information being provided.

Second, lets go with your quote of coffee being safe at 143.

Now, let's go back to foc's link above...


So - let's pretend that McDonald's followed your expert advice and served the coffee at your so-called "safe to drink" temperature. The average adult would have been burned in six seconds. The old lady would have likely probably burned faster.

You know how this could have been prevented?

Not putting a hot cup of coffee between your knees and taking the lid off.

Because, you know, coffee is hot.[/QUOTE]

There you go, guy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First off - I, and I'm sure other posters, would find it awesome if you could manage a discussion without throwing around insults because you don't like the information being provided.[/quote]
That's an interesting way of phrasing what I find distasteful. And here I was thinking it was that I found your willingness to talk about something in which you have done zero basic research as the reason.
Second, lets go with your quote of coffee being safe at 143.

Now, let's go back to foc's link above...


So - let's pretend that McDonald's followed your expert advice and served the coffee at your so-called "safe to drink" temperature. The average adult would have been burned in six seconds. The old lady would have likely probably burned faster.

You know how this could have been prevented?
Click to expand...
Not serving coffee at a temperature that was known to give 3rd degree burns?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that had cost them over 700 lawsuits up to that point?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that had cost them multimillions in settlements?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that major executives at the company openly spoke of being dangerous but did anyway because they believed the cost/benefit analysis worked in their favor?

Let's use our noodles on that last one before responding, huh? You aren't going to read the case in which you are confidently commenting, so perhaps these little tidbits will add up to something resembling an honest, critical thought about the facts of the case. I know, I ask too much.
Not putting a hot cup of coffee between your knees and taking the lid off.
Click to expand...
Of course. Thinking that someone may do that again after it happening roughly 700 times and applying corrective action is unreasonable.

Perhaps if we alter the facts ever so slightly. She spills (happens in this world!) on her infant grandchild (I believe people often drink coffee in the presence of children). Does she now have a case in your opinion?
 
protestyouthinasia.jpg


They may be right actually. Ninjas and samurais and other asian stereotypes are extremely deadly.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Not serving coffee at a temperature that was known to give 3rd degree burns?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that had cost them over 700 lawsuits up to that point?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that had cost them multimillions in settlements?
Not serving coffee at a temperature that major executives at the company openly spoke of being dangerous but did anyway because they believed the cost/benefit analysis worked in their favor?[/QUOTE]

This all sounds well and good.

Until you look back about three posts earlier where you were telling everyone to drink coffee at a temperature the CPSC says will cause burns in six seconds.

And that's ignoring the fact that your very own post says that after brewing and pouring the coffee into the cup, it'll be around 185 (close to the estimated temperature of the McDonald's coffee - which was likely just poured into a cup shortly before it was handed out the window.

So, going by what you've posted, we've all learned that... Coffee is hot. Don't hold a cheap cup of it between your knees and take the lid off.

You bring up this number of "700 cases". I would like to counter with this: In this same time period, how many cups of coffee did McDonald's sell? What percentage of people managed to successfully master the fine art of not bathing in hot coffee?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
So, going by what you've posted, we've all learned that... Coffee is hot. Don't hold a cheap cup of it between your knees and take the lid off.

You bring up this number of "700 cases". I would like to counter with this: In this same time period, how many cups of coffee did McDonald's sell? What percentage of people managed to successfully master the fine art of not bathing in hot coffee?[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I just baked some food in my oven. There's no warning on my oven that it's hot inside. Plus, it allows me to choose unsafe temperatures (like 400 degrees F) that would surely burn me. Also, if I choose the broil option, it doesn't even tell me what the temperature is... how unsafe! If I accidentally touch the hot surface, should I sue?

This comes down to simple common sense that many pseudo-intellectuals lack... there is a reasonable expectation that recently brewed coffee is hot; hot liquids cause burns; therefore hot coffee causes burns... try not to spill it on yourself... and if you do, it's your fault.

If McDonald's coffee was really so dangerous, people would stop buying it and market forces would cause them to change their practices. Just because 0.00001% of people can't figure out how a cup of coffee works, doesn't mean that a lawsuit is in order.
 
Is Daily Caller biased?

'That “other thing” was passing the Senate bill into law and a “fixes” bill hamstrung by the limitations of the budget reconciliation process which only requires a majority, not super-majority, vote in the Senate.'

So ... why would passing a bill need a super-majority?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Awesome! I'm so thrilled we had to hurry up and pass this bill so that we could find out what's in it...[/QUOTE]

The first two lines of this fantastic journalistic piece of integrity integrityness:
Congress may be fined tens of millions of dollars a year under its own health-care law, in part because the bill dumps members of Congress and their staffs from their current health-care plans.

But no one really knows for sure what the bill does, not even the experts.
Click to expand...
*Insert sensational lede here*. But no one really knows for sure.
 
[quote name='Msut77']perd if you wanted to control costs where would you start?

Serious question, try to keep the trolling to a minimum.[/QUOTE]

honestly, I don't have time to write you a response right now. but i'll write one later tonight when I'm off work and mail it to you. also, I wasn't trolling, just posted a link to yahoo that I read earlier today.
 
Some brilliant mind has made a website that'll convert major health care costs to chickens so you can more effectively barter with your provider. It looks like the health care costs to heads of cattle calculator will be coming soon.

http://lowdenplan.com/

Site disclaimer:
*This site makes no guarantees regarding the correct number of chickens for your procedure. Chicken count is an estimate only based on current market value of typical live chickens and average costs of medical procedures gathered from multiple sources. Your doctor may require more chickens than specified. For your convenience, we recommend bringing at least 20% more chickens than specified to any doctor's appointment. For that matter, you should have at least 1500 chickens per passenger in your car in the event of an accident, so you could just use those if you're a little short on chickens, but then be extra careful driving home from the doctor because you will have used up some of your accident chickens. Do not mail your medical chickens as payment. Please barter medical chickens in person. Chickens should be secured in your trunk or truckbed if possible. Any chickens riding in the passenger compartment on the way to the doctor must wear seat belts. Chickens should not drive you to the doctor, if you are unable to drive you should dial 911 for an ambulance. Ambulances may not accept chickens for payment, you should have at least 4 goats or an adult pig for such cases. Your healthcare provider may not accept chickens for payment, but many accept other livestock. The Chicken Calculator can not convert medical procedures to sheep, goats, pigs, ducks, cows, llamas, ostriches, etc. Check with your local livestock association for current exchange rates and providers.
Click to expand...
Accident chickens. haha.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Looks like everything I've said is starting to sink in.[/QUOTE]
From the article:
raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years.
Click to expand...
So we're looking at worst case scenario: an increase in spending of exactly 0.1% per year.

Everyone's worst fears realized. We are all dopa today.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So we're looking at worst case scenario: an increase in spending of exactly 0.1% per year.[/QUOTE]

I saw that while glancing at the article twice and I thought, "Aren't health care costs increasing by seven percent each year?"

Before the voices in my head could answer, I got another phone call from a dimwitted customer.

EDIT: Isn't dopa Dr. Bmull nowadays?
 
[quote name='Msut77']perd if you wanted to control costs where would you start?

Serious question, try to keep the trolling to a minimum.[/QUOTE]

I thought you believed the fudged stats saying we would save money...
 
Well like FoC was saying, 1 percent over 10 years to insure tens of millions more vs. the current 7% per annum currently.

Which would you choose?

Now as for what you quoted me saying... I will ask the same of you, what would you do to start containing costs?

There are things that can be done, but no con so far is interested in actual solutions because bitching from the sidelines is so much easier.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well like FoC was saying, 1 percent over 10 years to insure tens of millions more vs. the current 7% per annum currently.

Which would you choose?

Now as for what you quoted me saying... I will ask the same of you, what would you do to start containing costs?

There are things that can be done, but no con so far is interested in actual solutions because bitching from the sidelines is so much easier.[/QUOTE]

Neither side is. Pharma is the ones inflating our medical bills and no side went after them.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Neither side is.[/quote]

Ain't having this discussion again, suffice to say there are cost controls in the bill, relatively weaksauce but they are there.

Pharma is the ones inflating our medical bills and no side went after them.
Click to expand...

Pharma among other things...

Again wasn't talking "sides" so much as pointing out there are options for controlling costs, namely denying care and access (the Paul Ryan option which Republicans couldn't run away from fast enough) or trim from some of the wealthy and politically powerful interests revenue streams.

The Democrats in the end caved, I wonder if some struggled all that hard but even then it is better than anything any congressional Republican would vote for.
 
Jesus. How stupid does Boehner think Republican voters are? It really is insulting to everyone, not just Republicans, that he thinks he can get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth.
 
Boehner could *literally* spend his entire campaign with a cock in his mouth and a fetus on a pitchfork in his right hand, and he'd be re-elected in a landslide.

You have no idea how idiotically conservative his district is. The only thing he could do to get run out of office is half-hug President Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top