Re Edwards role as a trial lawyer, as one of the CNN pundits put it, do the republicans really want the ‘trial lawyer vs coporate lackies’ comparisson?
BB:
I would be happy to go along those lines. You don’t see trial lawyers voting Republican. Edwards will be a perfect role model to examine in detail and to raise very pertinent questions about why health care costs in the United States have risen so high and why doctors can no longer practice medicine or have refused to do so in certain states. Remember Pennsylvania?
Now, as to the corporate lackies, who are the most eggregious examples? Tyco? Worldcom? Enron? But these all occurred under the Clinton administration and were only prosecuted and allowed to fail under Bush. They turned to Bush for help and he showed them the door and this despite the fact that some had contributed handsomely to his election campaign.
So to answer your question, BB, bring it on. Welcome the chance. This is great.
And bullshit out the other end.
[quote=“flike”]Except that Edwards didn’t make his bucks from class-action suits. His were clients who were pretty badly harmed. In fact, I believe that the GOP has already run this at him pretty extensively in NC and got burnt.
Edwards did not participate in class-action, low payout to clients, high payout to attorneys lawsuits.[/quote]
No, Edwards made his money in lawsuits against obstetricians when babies were born with cerebral palsy. Despite there being no evidence that the obstetricians caused the brain injuries.
Oh dear. Now look what’s happening. All these lawyers and we know how middle america just loves lawyers. Well, I suppose at least those who are suing McDonald’s because their ass too fat will have something to cheer about.
In choosing Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as his running mate, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has pushed the volatile issue of tort reform onto center stage in the presidential campaign, intensifying splits between consumer and business interests and lobbies.
Edwards, a successful trial lawyer, has raised millions of dollars from colleagues in the trial lawyer bar, by far the single most important source of cash in his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 4Jul7.html
In his Senate and presidential races, Edwards raised a total of $25.1 million in amounts of $200 or more that require identification of the donors’ occupations. Fully two-thirds of that money, $16.7 million, came from lawyers and law firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Early in the contest for the Democratic nomination, Edwards shot up to the first tier of candidates by dominating fundraising in the first quarter. He raised $7.4 million, with 3,220 lawyers, 29 paralegals, 17 legal assistants and 555 people with the same address as a contributing lawyer (often the spouse or close relative), providing $4.65 million, or 63 percent.
Of the top 10 employers of donors to Edwards’s presidential campaign, nine are plaintiffs’ law firms.
Edwards’s ties to the plaintiffs’ bar have already begun to galvanize major Washington business lobbies, many of which normally avoid direct involvement in presidential elections.
wtf? What evidence do you have that “the pro-edwards people are also the biggest critics of the overpriced us healthcare system”?
Are you positive that you’re not in the midst of some online comments elsewhere and you posted here by mistake?
[quote=“Flipper”] here’s a nice quote: [quote]
…there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.
The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.
An examination of Mr. Edwards’s legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.
[/quote][/quote]
You left out Edwards’ response:
[quote]In an interview on yesterday, Mr. Edwards did not dispute the contention that the use of fetal heart rate monitors leads to many unneeded Caesarean deliveries or that few cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled deliveries. But he said his cases, selected from hundreds of potential clients with the disorder, were exceptions.
“I took very seriously our responsibility to determine if our cases were merited,” Mr. Edwards said. “Before I ever accepted a brain-injured child case, we would spend months investigating it.”
As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, “The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don’t intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?”[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]…I would be happy to go along those lines. You don’t see trial lawyers voting Republican. Edwards will be a perfect role model to examine in detail and to raise very pertinent questions about why health care costs in the United States have risen so high and why doctors can no longer practice medicine or have refused to do so in certain states. Remember Pennsylvania? …
…[/quote]
I agree, a national debate about rising health care costs in the US, the role of employer-sponsored health care, the rising cost of malpractice insurance, the whole nine yards would be excellent for the US.
Especially if it’s done comprehensively (within reason), is non-partisan and is based on sound science. Most importantly, it should happen before November. The stakes are very high, and the outcomes diverge wildly.
As to your more polemic points, note that Edwards has more than held his own in this very area before. I think it’s great that Edwards, coming from the South, speaks plainly and honestly. He’ll be a real asset to the US, and he’d make a great advocate in said debate.
[quote=“[i]The Washington Monthly[/i], in October 2001,”]
John Edwards, Esq.
On August 5th, NBC’s Meet the Press featured someone and something we’re likely to see much more of in years to come: Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) squaring off against a nervous representative of the Bush administration.
The issue in this case was the so-called patients’ bill of rights, and Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-G.A.) the Bush surrogate. Days earlier, the president had sweet-talked Norwood into a midnight deal that sharply restricted patients’ right to sue their HMOs. Norwood, who for many years had advocated a much tougher bill, had essentially been suckered, and appeared acutely aware of this as he sat alongside Edwards, glumly resigned to defending a bad deal.
Tim Russert was on the attack, pressing Norwood about his recent yielding on patients’ rights to sue in state courts: “Why did you abandon those views?” Norwood hemmed and hawed and finally was reduced to parroting the administration’s line: “It is potentially possible that [lawsuits] could ruin the employer-based health-care system in the country.” Russert pressed him harder. “Do you believe that?” It turned out Norwood did not.
Russert then turned to Edwards, a trial lawyer by profession, who neatly summarized the deal’s shortcomings. “Number one, this deal—which was written in the middle of the night, by the way—takes away rights that patients already have across the country,” he explained. “Number two, it maintains the privileged special status that HMOs enjoy today. And, number three, it stacks the deck against patients when they’re trying to hold HMOs accountable for what they do.” Edwards also pointed out that a seemingly minor change in the bill’s language had shifted accountability away from HMOs—something Norwood had failed to recognize and meekly agreed was “a mistake.”
The discussion turned to caps on the amount of damages that negligent HMOs would face. Norwood had previously fought such caps and again stumbled in rationalizing his reversal. Edwards, who flat-out opposes capping damages, summed up his case in one line: “A right [to sue] that’s not enforceable doesn’t mean anything.” By the time Russert broke for commercial, Norwood had pretty much thrown in the towel. … [/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]Oh dear. Now look what’s happening. All these lawyers and we know how middle America just loves lawyers. Well, I suppose at least those who are suing McDonald’s because their ass too fat will have something to cheer about.
In choosing Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as his running mate, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has pushed the volatile issue of tort reform onto center stage in the presidential campaign, intensifying splits between consumer and business interests and lobbies. …[/quote]
Among Republicans as well, apparently.
[quote="Shailagh Murray, for The Wall Street Journal on July 8, 2004, (pp. A1, A6), "][b]
Conservative Appeal
Trial-Lawyers Lobby Discovers Unlikely Friends: Republicans
[/b]
Anti-Regulatory Philosophy Helps Stall ‘Tort Reform’; Now, the Edwards Factor
WASHINGTON-President Bush badly wants to make it tougher for plaintiffs’ lawyers to win big verdicts. He did it in Texas when he was governor. He talks about it frequently from the presidential podium, eliciting cheers from business. His party controls Congress, and his opponents, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, traditionally support Democrats.
Yet Mr. Bush isn’t making much headway. Nine “tort reform” bills have been defeated in the Senate in the past 14 months, including two attempts to limit attorneys’ fes and three to overhaul medical-malpractice laws.
…Republicans thought they had a good shot at passing medical-malpractice reform when they took over the Senate in 2002. … The federal bill, which would have capped punitive damages at both the state and federal level, fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. Although only two Republicans opposed it on the procedural votes, others were quietly pleased to see it die. One of those in the latter group, Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, himself a former plaintiffs’ attorney, says, “There’s just a lot of reform in the medical-malpractice arena that would probably be helpful.” [b]But, he adds, “I don’t believe in price controls.”[/b]
Nor do many Republican voters, it turns out. A few years ago, ATLA’s Ms. Lipsen, a stalwart liberal, hired Mr. Towery, the Atlanta pollster and a former aide to ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In subsequent surveys, Mr. Towery found that Republican voters, particularly in the South, agree with Mr. Bush that friviolous lawsuits are a bad thing. But those voters said they preferred stricter regulations on hospitals and insurers rather than limits in medical-malpractice damage awards. Republican voters also oppose caps on damages more strongly than Democrats, Mr. Towery says. … [/quote]
Courtesy of Dow Jones & Company
wtf? What evidence do you have that “the pro-edwards people are also the biggest critics of the overpriced us healthcare system”?
[/quote]
i was needling alien who is one of the biggest edwards fans on these boards and also one of the biggest bashers of pricey us healthcare. also refering to the general populist-minded backers of edwards who “can’t afford health insurance”.
[quote]
You left out Edwards’ response:
[quote]In an interview on yesterday, Mr. Edwards did not dispute the contention that the use of fetal heart rate monitors leads to many unneeded Caesarean deliveries or that few cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled deliveries. But he said his cases, selected from hundreds of potential clients with the disorder, were exceptions.
“I took very seriously our responsibility to determine if our cases were merited,” Mr. Edwards said. “Before I ever accepted a brain-injured child case, we would spend months investigating it.”
As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, “The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don’t intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?”[/quote][/quote]
too bad it’s been shown his method for deciding how to intervene(heart monitors) doesn’t really work all that well. did you notice the part where caesareans are up from 6% to 26% based on use of heart monitors, like edwards suggested, and rates for cerebral palsy have stayed the same. the only difference today is that more mothers are put through risky surgery, doctors have to pay higher insurance, and edwards and his clients are rich.
i would love to hear your view on how edwards’ trial victories and resulting changes to the us health care landscape have been good for mothers, babies, and this country as a whole.
I’m no doctor, and I missed the part where the “method for deciding how to intervene(heart monitors) doesn’t really work all that well” was shown to be true. Are you privy to some evidence not in the article?
I also suspect your conclusion, that “the only difference today is that more mothers are put through risky surgery, doctors have to pay higher insurance, and edwards and his clients are rich,” is flawed because it’s too simple.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that medical-malpractice suits are down as well, due to these heart monitors? Also, if these monitors do indeed show some increased risk and thus necessitate a caesarian, how is the surgery a procudure that results in a net increase in risk, over an apparently risky natural delivery, for these patients?
It may well be that general health is likely up as well. In fact, another change may be that doctors, in addition to using the monitors and caesarian operations, are generally far more diligent directly as a result of these lawsuits.
first page of article, halfway down:
[quote=“fred smith”]
And as to you Alien:
How are you going to find Republicans hanging around with the unemployed or in McDonald’s. You need to get a job and contribute otherwise you are only going to be hanging out with shiftless democrats who demand the US government help them out since they are too lazy or clueless to do so.
Off to Miami and Palm Beach next week. Wanna meet up at the Breaker’s? If you’re real nice, I might get you in to the Everglade Club.[/quote]
I’d like to push you in the Everglades, Fred!
Thanks but I"m back on the farm now after a glorious week at the NC beaches and I’m as brown as the skidmark on your boxers, Fred.
I got up every day at 7 am and studied on the pier until noon, and then on the beach after lunch. The Oak Island beach is peaceful and not very crowded compared to those in the areas with all the condos and hotels (Myrtle, Hilton Head, and on down to Miami). And the seafood is cheap and fresh!
Edwards is all the rage here in NC. The news hasn’t stopped interviewing or talking about him from the coast, all the way up through the capital Raleigh, and on up to where I am now in Caswell County.
He’s the golden boy of NC. He made his fortune suing big businesses who fuck people over.
Sadly though, the poll they took on the Wilmington NC Fox news channel had Kerry/Edwards at 39% and the chimp at 61% the first day of the announcement. That could be the military factor considering the location (lots of bases around Wilmington). Also, the rich retired Yankee shorebirds who live down there. Or the most irritating of all, the Christians, who btw complained that the Fourth fireworks should not be set off on the Sunday (the lord’s day) in Southport, and made them switch the festivities to Monday night! Talk about noise, the Bible thumpers sure know how to make some. I thought the Constitution said there should be a separation of church and state? Ack, the hell with the constitution. Ashcroft already uses it as bog roll.
I keep meaning to get to see the Michael Moore film as it’s playing EVERYWHERE to sell out crowds, but I’m so busy. I may go next week.
I really am enjoying it here, Fred. Much more than I ever dreamed I would. The reverse culture shock is wearing off finally!
Alien:
Glad the reverse culture shock wore off. There will be a few more episodes though so get ready for three months, say six months and then again in a year.
Now, Ms. Alien, really.
Now, that is why you want to vote for Edwards. Is this the same woman who was complaining about the lack of affordable health care in America? Now, why do you suppose it is so “unaffordable?” When “golden boys” like Edwards to and sue these hospitals or doctors for defects that are beyond their control, driving doctors out of business and forcing hospitals and insurance companies to find ways to recoup their losses or go out of business (in fact many small clinics have so there’s your help for the poor and downtrodden in the rural areas and inner cities), who do you have to thank? Yup. Trial lawyers.
What businesses was he suing and how were they evil? These were doctors and hospitals. Doctors study 12 years before they can even practice and then when they get out of college with medical loans up the wazoo, they face HMO enforced prices and pay up to 30 percent in malpractice fees, take out the taxes say 35 percent and that don’t leave them a whole hell of a lot to pay their student loans does it?
THINK about the consequences of these actions. Read up on what happens when excessive litigation gets out of control. How is a woman who smokes and drinks during her pregnancy able to sue a doctor for any birth defects claiming that they occured during delivery? Often times, even if they can prove the case has no merit, they still pay off these claims to avoid the lengthy, costly court trials, but this takes up the doctor and hospital’s time in excessive paperwork both for documentation to protect themselves during any operation, in excessive testing that is not really necessary to cover their asses and in filling out forms to deal with these things. Go to a hospital. Talk to a doctor. Then, come back to me about your “golden boy” John Edwards. You just like him because he’s cute. THINK. Use your head.
There one epistle a week is all you get. Don’t you miss me? I’ll think of you at the bar in the Breaker’s as I have a nice cool gin n tonic before heading into one of the lovely restaurants. Then, maybe I will buzz down to Worth to a bistro or even head on down to the Everglade’s for a nice thick blue rare steak. Oh yes. Um hmmmm That’s what I’ll do and the whole time I will laugh laugh laugh about how despite all that Carolina boy connection, he still only has 39% to Bush-Cheney’s 61%. Perhaps, the Carolinians know Edwards better than you think. Would you have voted for James Soong living in Taiwan as long as you did? hahahaahah
I’d rather have a “golden boy” like Edwards than a “brown smudge” like Cheney, taking down a big paycheck each month from Halliburton (payments still coming in under his deal). Cheney says he didn’t have anything to do with the awarding of contracts to Halliburton … but then it turns out that the White House correspondence shows he actually did. What a lying sack of crap.
Edwards is going to tear him a new one in the veep debates.
Hold on here. Where’s the proof that Cheney helped award those contracts to Halliburton. I have seen nothing to that. Could be true, but post it here. I want the link.
Also, too bad about not being able to prove corruption and overcharging at Halliburton. Remember that US$18 million? Turns out it all went to a Kuwaiti middleman who was able to charge very high prices to deliver gas for the war effort. Didn’t go to Halliburton at all. Guess we must have missed the headlines reporting that fact. Strange? Right?
Now, therefore, I would have to see these reports about Cheney awarding anything to anyone. Like I said, may be possible or it may just have been reported as “Cheney may have been instrumental in passing contracts to Halliburton” as in an investigation which you took to be true and then when it was revealed that there was no such action, then the newspaper prints it as a follow up on page 10.
But I am patient, show me the link.
[quote=“mofangongren”]I’d rather have a “golden boy” like Edwards than a “brown smudge” like Cheney, taking down a big paycheck each month from Halliburton (payments still coming in under his deal). Cheney says he didn’t have anything to do with the awarding of contracts to Halliburton … but then it turns out that the White House correspondence shows he actually did. What a lying sack of crap.
Edwards is going to tear him a new one in the veep debates.[/quote]
Cheney might tell Edwards to go
Fred: Cheney said he had no connection whatsoever to the awarding of the Halliburton contracts, and yet specifically those no-bid contracts were vetted by his office. I guess it depends on what your definition of “no connection” is, is.
Chewycorns: That would play well in the U.S. heartland in any debate.
Where’s the proof. Show me the link.
Until then, I remain unconvinced.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Fred.
That’s rich.
I guess al Qaeda and Saddam really did have connections then, right?