+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Edwards behind NC healthcare crisis? (/thread-227975.html)
Pages: 1 2
- THE NC Herd Fan - 07-19-2004 07:14 AM
You judge:
A PBS program (about as liberal a source as you can get) was examining the growing healthcare crisis in North Carolina. The AMA (another liberal organization) stated that the root cause of the Physician shortage in NC, especially in areas such as Obstetrics and Thoracic Surgery was due to the escalating cost of malpractice insurance. The cause of this increase; the ever-increasing number of lawsuits and the growing settlement amounts. The AMA also stated that the number of uninsured people in NC was increasing due to the rising cost of Health insurance pushing the cost to companies and employees beyond an affordable level. Again the cause, rising costs of healthcare providers driven mostly by cost of malpractice insurance, due to the ever-increasing number of lawsuits and the growing settlement amounts.
What did John Edwards make over $50MM (for himself) doing? Suing the #@!! out of people! What group was John Edwards’ SINGLE largest campaign contributor when he ran for US Senate by a wide margin? Trial Attorney’s.
- Trooper - 07-19-2004 07:52 AM
When you picked up your razor to shave this morning did you feel the need to double check it to be sure it wouldn't cut your throat?
It's because of John Edwards and lawyers like him that you don't have to worry about your razor slashing your throat in the morning because of poor workmanship.
It's because of lawyers you don't have to be worried about some doctors running drive-thru birthing clinics.
Do you think that a lot (I won't say all) corporations would have as high a standard as they hold on the products they sell if it weren't for the possibility of being sued?
Do you think Firestone would have recalled hundreds of thousands of tires if it were not for the possibility of being sued? They knew they had a problem before the lawsuits started and did nothing.
How about auto manufacturers, would they issue recalls weekly if no one forced them to?
Why do meat processors recall bad meat?
Who would punish incompetent doctors?
I don't think it's the best way to do it, but it seems to be part of the checks and balances we have to put up with. With the de-regulations of industry and consumer safety that Mr. Bush seems so fond of it's about all we have to protect the consumers.
I would certainly rather see John Edwards be a winner in these cases and make $500 million, than lose and let the screwing of consumers continue.
Again I challenege anyone to show me a frivilous lawsuit that John Edwards has participated in.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-19-2004 08:31 AM
Trooper Wrote:I don't think it's the best way to do it, but it seems to be part of the checks and balances we have to put up with.The problem is that when either side gets out of control the consumer loses no matter what.
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, frivelous lawsuits are filed, and won, every day against doctors and it's out of control. Mississippi has a crisis right now because of a shortage of doctors due to malpractice insurance being so high. A few years ago EVERY neurosurgeon in Washinton D.C had been sued. Does anyone really think that's because every one of them are incompetent?
Top that with how trial lawyers go about winning some of these cases, using junk science and emotional pleas as opposed to hard facts just to win the $$$. Edwards used this tactic on more than his fair share of cases, especially around cases that dealt with cerebral palsy.
There are legitimate cases that must be filed, but there are a ton that are frivolous and without merit.
I also have a real problem with anyone who says their fighting for the "common man" and then keeps 40% of the the common man is awarded.
- DrTorch - 07-19-2004 08:46 AM
A bit off the original topic, b/c as Ninerfan pointed out, both sides can abuse the system...
But some doctors are now refusing to treat attorneys and their relatives!
I think it's a great display of power, b/c of attorneys' frequent hubris and their distorted view of their profession.
- Bob Saccomano - 07-19-2004 09:42 AM
Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.
As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.
In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.
In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:
"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"
"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
Frivolous enough for you, Trooper? Consider the challenge met.
- Bob Saccomano - 07-19-2004 09:47 AM
A great book for those who think Lawyers are looking out for the "little guy":
"Give Me a Break", by John Stossel.
Stossel though lawsuits were a good thing, too - until he opened his eyes and saw how lawyers' greed corrupted the system, wasted taxpayer money, and ended up costing the "little guy" more in the long run.
I'm so sick of Dems talking about the "working man" and the "little guy", like they've got a monopoly on compassion.
Here's a challenge: I challenge someone to come up with ONE thing Democrats have done that's truly helped working class people in the last 25 years. Creating Govt. dependent junkies does not count.
- DrTorch - 07-19-2004 11:10 AM
BearcatCarl Wrote:Here's a challenge: I challenge someone to come up with ONE thing Democrats have done that's truly helped working class people in the last 25 years. Creating Govt. dependent junkies does not count.They reformed the welfare system. Remember Clinton signed that into law!
- THE NC Herd Fan - 07-19-2004 11:18 AM
Just the Facts
In the 20 years before his 1998 election to the Senate from North Carolina, Edwards won $152 million in 63 lawsuits. Of the 54 cases in which the plaintiffs were awarded more than $1 million, nearly 60% involved medical malpractice, according to an analysis by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
Nearly 60% of his cases were for Medical Malpractice!!!
Attorney percentage of settlement usually goes up if trial is involved. In a gruesome product liability case, he turned down an out of court settlement of $17.5 million and later won a judgment of $25MM. Net difference to plaintiff $900K. Net difference to Edwards $6.7MM, if he uses the standard agreement 33% to Attorney with no trial, 50% with trial, 60% if appealed.
- Trooper - 07-19-2004 11:51 AM
BearcatCarl Wrote:Frivolous enough for you, Trooper? Consider the challenge met.Was the lawsuit in itself frivilous or are you saying the way he presented the lawsuit (with his "channeling" technique) was frivilous?
I say the lawsuit was legitimate, the technique he used to tug on the heartstrings of the jury may have been over the top to some........ but he and his client are not in court to lose..
That's the kind of attorney I would want presenting my case.
- Trooper - 07-19-2004 12:05 PM
The present adminstration wants to deregulate emissions from coal burning power plants, discharges into our water sources that pollute. They want to take away powers from OSHA and do away with industrial ergonomics laws. But on the other hand they don't want the average Joe to be able to sue an industry or a doctor when the individual is poisoned from sloppy handling of hazardous wastes or a doctor who uses forceps to pull the head off an infant being born because he's too lazy to do it the right way.
It looks like they don't want to protect us, but they don't want us to have the means to protect ourselves either.
Can't have it both ways........
- DrTorch - 07-19-2004 12:11 PM
Trooper Wrote:But on the other hand they don't want the average Joe to be able to sue a doctor when a doctor who uses forceps to pull the head off an infant being born because he's too lazy to do it the right way.Yes, the tragedy of such incidences are all too obvious in your post. :rolleyes:
- Trooper - 07-19-2004 12:16 PM
DrTorch Wrote:If the incidences are not all that common.........then we don't really have a problem with trial lawyers do we?Trooper Wrote:But on the other hand they don't want the average Joe to be able to sue a doctor when a doctor who uses forceps to pull the head off an infant being born because he's too lazy to do it the right way.Yes, the tragedy of such incidences are all too obvious in your post. :rolleyes:
- TJRocket - 07-19-2004 12:22 PM
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10179536^13762,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...6^13762,00.html</a>
If this happened to any of you guys, would you object to John Edwards representing you in court? Would you feel the need to sue? As the wife claims she is going to do.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-19-2004 12:37 PM
Trooper Wrote:Was the lawsuit in itself frivilous or are you saying the way he presented the lawsuit (with his "channeling" technique) was frivilous?The argument is Edwards used heart strings rather than science to win the suit. Medical science, more and more, are finding it's very unusual for cerebal palsy to be caused at birth. Tthe growing body of scientific studies showing that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases has done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million dollar court settlements. Those settlements are reached even though a lot of the plaintiff's expert science is unsupported, essentially junk science.
If you look at the amount of money Edwards made on such suits it seems unlikely that EVERY ONE of them were due to doctor negligence, especially given how rare such negligence can be linked to palsy.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but Edwards is no saint, and it's fullish to think he's above seeking $$$ first, not justice. And if the family gets some $$$ for their suffering, despite it coming from somewhere that wasn't at fault, all the better.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-19-2004 12:39 PM
Trooper Wrote:If the incidences are not all that common.........then we don't really have a problem with trial lawyers do we?Don't know that I've heard too many stories about doctors pulling kids heads off. However I do know that C-sections are now far more common, largely because of the risks of lawsuits like the one's Edwards got rich off of.
- THE NC Herd Fan - 07-19-2004 12:39 PM
Trooper Wrote:The product liability lawsuit was proper, just that the trial cost the company millions to defend, and the big gainer from the trial was Edwards, thus my point passing on the out of court settlement gained the plaintiff $900K, Edwards $6.7MM and cost the company, who by offering the out of court settlement admitted liability millions.BearcatCarl Wrote:Frivolous enough for you, Trooper? Consider the challenge met.Was the lawsuit in itself frivilous or are you saying the way he presented the lawsuit (with his "channeling" technique) was frivilous?
I say the lawsuit was legitimate, the technique he used to tug on the heartstrings of the jury may have been over the top to some........ but he and his client are not in court to lose..
That's the kind of attorney I would want presenting my case.
- Trooper - 07-20-2004 01:10 PM
Edwards doesn't win his cases just because he shows up in a courtroom.
He has to convince a jury that his case is worth the settlement his client is asking for.
On the other hand the corporations that are being sued have the right to have anyone they want to defend them against the lawsuit.
Looks like the corporate defense attorneys need to catch up.
The juries are the ones awarding these settlements. The judges also have the right to over rule the verdicts.
Edwards is a good lawyer.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-20-2004 01:33 PM
Quote:He has to convince a jury that his case is worth the settlement his client is asking for.
No matter what it takes to do that? I think there is a certain ethic that should be taken when making these arguments. Not using junk science and claiming you're channeling a kid's words isn't in line with it.
Quote:On the other hand the corporations that are being sued have the right to have anyone they want to defend them against the lawsuit.
Looks like the corporate defense attorneys need to catch up.
These weren't corporations, these were doctors. There's a vast difference. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these doctors he sued couldn't continue to practice because their malpractice insurance was so high.
The problem is people make decisions on emotion, not reason many times. And in cases like these the thought that the family deserves something given their suffering trumps the reasoning of is the person on trial responsible for that suffering.
I have no problem with people being awarded injury settlements if they've been wronged or injured due to negligence. But I'm not for manipulating emotions and using junk science to assign responsibility to someone who is innocent.
- Skipuno - 07-20-2004 06:02 PM
People need to be able to sue a doctor whos been neglegent. However, law suits are way out of control and something has to be done about it. Its your supposition Trooper that corperations are greedy, but are you saying there are no greedy lawyers? So when someones loved one dies because theres no more doctors to treat them, who can they sue, the trial lawyers. I bet your one of those silly people who want the goverment to take over health care. Good luck trying to sue one of them for anything. :D
- Rebel - 07-20-2004 07:45 PM
Skipuno Wrote:People need to be able to sue a doctor whos been neglegent. However, law suits are way out of control and something has to be done about it. Its your supposition Trooper that corperations are greedy, but are you saying there are no greedy lawyers? So when someones loved one dies because theres no more doctors to treat them, who can they sue, the trial lawyers. I bet your one of those silly people who want the goverment to take over health care. Good luck trying to sue one of them for anything. :DNo, you don't get it, lawyers and corporations like Global Crossings are not greedy and are perfectly fine so long as they lean to the left. It's those evil Republican ones that are greedy.