With a population of about 95,000 (circa 2020), and assuming 50% of that goes to the lawyers, that's about $3,294 per person.
Life insurance payouts for example can in theory be consistently be larger than premiums.
It's a neat trick. Lawyers take 600m out of the voters back pocket, hand back 400m, and the people rejoice.
and that's fine, because you're not taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving back $40, they're taking $60 out of everyone's pocket and giving $4000 to the people affected. The point of the lawsuit is to force redistributing wealth to compensate the people affected, not as some sort of money-maker.
Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward.
So you're against compensating the victims financially?
>Criminal lawsuits should be allowed to go forward.
You do realize that this judgement doesn't preclude criminal prosecution? The criminal courts and civil courts operate independently.
If the people of Michigan elect clowns to run the state, who cause harm to <some group of people>, the people of Michigan should be responsible for making amends. It doesn't make one whit of difference that the harmed people were, or were not part of Michigan.
This creates an incentive to not elect clowns.
An emergency financial manager from the State of Michigan was the one who made the call to switch Flint water source from the original source to the more alkaline (and cheaper) alternative source. It was this alkaline water that wore away the mineral buildup lining the lead pipes, exposed the lead to the water, and then began to dissolve the lead pipes themselves.
Edit: Initially I wrote "acidic". Thinking back more, I think the water source they switched to was actually alkaline. Same end result, but different actual pH.
The problem with that logic, is no-one would ever get compensation from the government, as in the end it's all taxpayer's money.
More or less, yes. Flint has struggled for several decades. The decline of the auto industry in Michigan hit several cities very hard, including Flint. As businesses and people left and unemployment climbed, tax revenue plummeted and crime soared. That encouraged more people to leave. Sometimes even if they abandoned or foresook their homes.
The causes of the crisis are fairly complex. But the management after it had been identified by the population was absolutely criminal. There's a very good reason that criminal charges have been filed. Making the switch was somewhat defensible. However, they ignored the signs of problems, ignored complaints, didn't test appropriately, etc.
-TFA
I agree that at least it at least isn't a spit in the face like those "coupon for 5% off your next purchase of bottled water" while the lawyers pocket hundreds of millions.
do they typically get what they ask for? or does the judge strike it down?
Either way, mixing justice and profit feels slimy.
It's slimy but it's still the least bad system. The alternative is the state having sole authority in compensating the victims (judging from the fact this went to trial, my guess is that they would have paid the victims far less), or leaving it to non-profits (which have limited budgets and are up against tax-payer funded lawyers).
EDIT: I know there is a rule against discussing downvotes, but this is a factual statement and the notion that this comment isn't relevant or doesn't enhance the conversation (for anyone who downvoted me) is an affront to any semblance of being capable of reasonable discourse in civil society - any downvoters should really reflect on what makes you feel like a statement made by a poster is actually what the poster thinks may or may not be right vs. your feelings of the post upsetting you.
If government destroyed your house through negligence, say military plane dropped a bomb on it, would you want to be made whole, or would you still believe that "the only beneficiaries are the lawyers"?
It is essentially equivalent to a retroactive insurance system. It is as if everyone in Michigan had been required to buy "State appointed manager mishandles water system causing lead poisoning" insurance, and Flint is now having a claim paid under that insurance.
After you subtract own money going to non-local property owners like large coporations, and then average out, yes.
One thing we leaned is doctors have zero interest in helping you to show injuries or claims. Something like posion is outside their domain.
They treat symptoms and want nothing to do with you as person. Claim forms send them running.
Was functionally blind and stuck in bed for a year. No doctor would fill out paperwork.
Disability literally just laughed at me.
By the time we got lawyers involved we started hitting deadlines for suing. So now layers have zero interest.
Unless it’s a very clear thing like “piano fell on head” your going to have a rough time getting justice.
They treat medical problems, not legal ones.