A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Liberal Media Elite Dan Rather declares Edwards the debate winner



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 6th 04, 06:10 AM
Lord Valve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Liberal Media Elite Dan Rather declares Edwards the debate winner

http://right-thinking.com/index.php/...comments/7963/

Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Come on San Andreas... America needs you

The Right to Sue

The next time you hear some left-wing asshat whining about how poor
people can't afford health insurance, tell them to thank Ralph Nader.

Democrat John Kerry is getting some advice on his choice for vice
president from an unlikely source: rival Ralph Nader.

In an open letter sent Wednesday, the independent presidential
candidate urged Kerry to choose John Edwards as his running mate,
saying the North Carolina senator and former trial lawyer has been
thoroughly vetted and is committed to protecting the right of
consumers to sue corporations that harm them.

"(Edwards) has already gone through a primary campaign and has his
rhythm and oratory (the two Americas speech) all well-honed," Nader
wrote to Kerry. "After a slow start, Sen. Edwards closed fast and has
won praise from the media."

Edwards, the last Democrat to bow out after Kerry's series of
primary wins, won several large verdicts before he was elected to the
Senate. Nader said Edwards is committed to preserving a civil justice
system that is under attack by "corporate supremacists."

This is one of the main reasons that health care costs are going
through the roof. Doctors need to protect themselves against lawsuits
to they buy malpractice insurance. Bloodsucking trial lawyers like
John Edwards have absolutely no incentive not to sue doctors (or
business or individuals or corporations or anyone else with deep
pockets) so they file suits over every ridiculous claim. This causes
the costs of malpractice insurance to go up, causing doctors to raise
their fees. In addition, to protect themselves against trial lawyers,
doctors order all kinds of unnecessary tests on the miniscule chance
thay they may find something, simply to legally protect themselves
from people like John Edwards. For an example of what I am talking
about, take a look at this.

Klein, the neurosurgeon, said he has a responsibility to his other
patients and to his family to turn away litigious patients, because a
lawsuit is so destructive and distracting for a doctor.

Most doctors he knows feel that way, he said: "Why would you
purposefully treat someone you believe is going to sue you?"

He recalls his first threat, 20 years ago, from the mother of a
girl who had been shot in the head. Klein was in a trauma center,
where he had to try to help the girl. He told the mother the wound was
life-threatening and that doctors would do their best.

"She said, ‘She better be the way she was or you're going to pay,'
" Klein recalls.

The girl died; the mother sued.

Now, when patients or families say things like that, Klein says,
he helps them find another doctor, telling them they appear to have a
"gross misunderstanding of the nature of surgery," because they're not
accepting the fact that there are risks.

Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that
doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they
can stay in business. This is somehow fair? It is if you're as
deluded as Ralph Nader. The costs of doing business are passed on to
consumers. When we sue for huge damages, ultimately the only winners
are the trial lawyers with their 40% contingency. Everyone loses,
especially the poor, who can't afford to pay the price increase.
Posted by Lee on 06/23 at 03:49 PM

Comments

Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
04:41 PM

Lee, this is just wrong on at least two major points, and I don't have
a ton of time to go in-depth on this one, but I'll do my best:

1) Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that
doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they
can stay in business.

Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer makes.
If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare. If
more doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down.

Getting sued is a risk when you are dealing with people's well-being:
how this blowhard can go on about chiding his patients for surgery
having risks while seeking to garner public support to wholly insulate
his own profession from marketplace risks are beyond me.

Who holds doctors accountable if not for trial lawyers? Disciplinary
boards composed of other doctors? Again, that gives them the ability
to be entirely self-regulated and insulated from market risks. No
other profession enjoys that, and doctors shouldn't, either.

2) Bloodsucking trial lawyers like John Edwards have absolutely no
incentive not to sue doctors (or business or individuals or
corporations or anyone else with deep pockets) so they file suits over
every ridiculous claim.

Really? No disincentive to file frivolous claims? See Rule 11, which
sanctions frivolous claims. Further, a judge may order sanctions sua
sponte, which cuts against the trial lawyers, as a fair portion of
judges have worked in large firms and are more sympathetic to big
business and large corporations.

In any event, trial verdicts cannot be increased on appeal, only
reduced, and the jury verdicts in huge cases are frequently reversed,
because the counsel for hospitals/corporations generally have
appellate attorneys as well as trial lawyers (it's difficult to be an
expert at both). There are plenty other procedural aspects which
prevent frivolous suits and outlandish verdicts, but those two will
suffice for now.

3) As far as doctors and corporations go, trial lawyers are necessary
checks against the asymetry of information that is present in any
transaction, but is more pronounced in product liability/med mal cases
because of the serious harm that takes place in such cases. Why
shouldn't corporations and doctors act with reasonable care?
Alternatively, why should *they* be able to decide just what
reasonable care is in their own industry, which is the ultimate result
of tort reform.
Posted by Eric von Michigan on 06/23 at 04:41 PM

How big of a hammer does it take to beat this very logical concept
into the heads of my more liberal friends?
Posted by Matthew Spence on 06/23 at 04:49 PM

Yes, there are bad doctors out there, and the law should protect
patients from them. The problem is, the entire medical professsion is
being punished because of the bad doctors, while the good doctors are
being forced to move or leave their practice altogether. This is why
torte reform is so necessary.
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
04:56 PM

Another point:

"Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that
doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they
can stay in business."

And states with low damages caps will draw incompetent doctors like
flies.
Posted by RepublicanInSF on 06/23 at 05:08 PM

"Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer
makes. If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare.
If more doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down."

Hey Coase—this is driven by supply and demand. Face it, there are
fewer people willing to sacrifice 6-10 years of their lives before
getting any income than the 3 that lawyers have to do to get their
six-figure income.

There are a ton more lawyers, hence more competition, and thus they
can't charge higher fees.

Gotta love the market economy. Lawyers are getting what they deserve
for their laziness compared to doctors.
Posted by Laddy on 06/23 at 05:30 PM

I live in Illinois one of the more populous states. A recent article
in the Decatur Herald pointed out that residents south of Springfield,
the state capital, are having to go to St. Louis for treatment by
neurosurgeons since all had left the area due to malpractice premiums.
If you've ever had a retail business you've probably encountered scum
who threaten to sue you or do sue you for the slightest slight. It's
likely no different in medicine. Some people suck which makes it
harder for people who really are wronged get compensated. The rest of
us pay for the scum with higher premiums.

Coase sounds like he/she could be a malpractice attorney.
Posted by keggin on 06/23 at 05:49 PM

Doctors make a TON

The operative (no pun intended) word here is Doctors. This is wealth
created by doctors practicing medicine, Coase, not lawyers looking for
victims. Property rights and all that, i'm sure you studied it in law
school.

trial lawyers are necessary checks against the asymetry of information

And a certain level of bacteria is necessary in the human digestive
tract to keep things in balance. Too much bacteria and the whole
system shuts down.
Posted by macman(Chris' Conservative Commentary) on 06/23 at 06:06
PM

Go bare? Go bare?! Doctors don't have any choice but buy malpractive
insurance because of the bloodsucking leaches called trail lawyers.
Coase, you have obviously never been sued. Even when you are found to
not be at fault after going through the whole ordeal, you still have
to pay your bloodsucking laywer a ton of money! What a scam!

The only way to make our society less litigious would be to make the
plantiff pay the legal fees of the wrongfully accused defendant. Even
when it's a big corporation like McDonald's (remember the fat kid law
suit). I think this would weed out a lot of the frivolous
suits-for-profit and the one's based strictly on emotion not fact.

Just my 2�
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:08 PM

This is one of the main reasons that health care costs are going
through the roof.

Yeah, it's so high that it amounts to .5% of total health care cost.
Try Again.

Bloodsucking trial lawyers like John Edwards have absolutely no
incentive not to sue doctors

The incentive not to sue is not to waste their time. Eight times as
many patients are injured by medical malpractice as ever file a claim;
16 times as
many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. (same link as
above). As the other guy mentioned above, doctors don't always police
their own. I can't find the link right now, but a low % of doctors
are report to be responible for a majority of malpractice.
Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:08 PM

If you've ever had a retail business you've probably encountered scum
who threaten to sue you or do sue you for the slightest slight. It's
likely no different in medicine.

This is exactly the problem. Coase, you're looking at it from the
wrong angle. You're looking at this problem as if the majority of
cases have merit. They don't.

Oh sure, there are cases in which the doctor legitimately screwed up,
and deserves to have an attorney and jury nail his hide to the wall.
The real problem is the frivolous lawsuits.

Yes, doctors make tons of money. But so do attorneys (at least the
partners do, the grunts don't make close to the amount they're "billed
out" at). It is the slew of smaller, meritless, cases that shreds a
doctors insurance. Insurance is limited. Usually to something like
$1,000,000 per occurrence/$5,000,000 aggregate. That sounds like a
lot, but that amount needs to cover both settlement/verdict amounts as
well as attorney fees and costs. Get several cases piled up and you
can burn through a typical policy in no time. Insurers, seeing they
aren't making as much money off these policies, jack up the premiums
so they can make all these payments and not go bankrupt.
(construction defect litigation is an area that has bankrupted several
insurance companies in California).

A better solution, in my opinion, would be a "loser pays" system. If
a plaintiff brings a lawsuit, and loses, he must pay the defendant's
legal fees. This would discourage frivolous lawsuits. Of course, to
encourage defendants to settle meritorious claims, all caps should be
taken off jury awards.
Posted by Paul on 06/23 at 06:11 PM

Doctors can safely "go bare" in FL and other similar states. Your
primary home is protected from creditors in a chapter 13 or 7
bankruptcy. You can also shuffle assets around with a little work to
keep them safe (doesn't require any illegal offshore crap). Then when
the parasites show up, you just whisper "bankruptcy" and they shuffle
off to find another victim. The WSJ had an article about this a month
or so ago.
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:12 PM

Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer makes.
If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare. If more
doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down. Source?

This really is a supply and demand problem on two fronts:

1) The AMA and universities restrict the number of doctors that are
out there. There are a lot of qualified students that don't get into
medical school due to very low enrollment limits. If these were
increased and more doctors were produced, then the costs of seeing a
doctor would decrease due to increased competition.

2) The product of lawyers—litigation—is not constrained by finite
demand. Rather, lawyers create their own demand by running
commercials telling people that they should be able to get more and
that they're getting screwed by the insurance company, their employer,
ephedra manufacturers, Wal-Mart, Santa Claus, etc. There is little if
any costs to the plaintiffs (the customers of these lawyers) if they
don't win the case as the lawyers claim that if they (the lawyers)
don't win the case then they don't get paid. This just encourages
increased meaningless litigation and discourages people that have
legitimate claims from pursuing them as they will be looked down on as
being money-hungry and as the illegitimate claims have backed up the
legal system.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:13 PM

From St. Ralph himself:

If physicians would total the entire amount of premiums they paid last
year and divide it evenly by all the physicians practicing in the
United States, the average premium is less than $10,000 per doctor per
year. Very manageable.

So why are some doctors paying $50,000 or $100,000 a year to their
malpractice insurers? Because the companies have learned in the past
thirty years to over-classify their risk pools...
Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:14 PM

Really? No disincentive to file frivolous claims? See Rule 11, which
sanctions frivolous claims.

BTW, this only applies to federal lawsuits. Medmal claims brought in
state court aren't affected by this rule, and sanctions for frivolous
cases in state courts aren't exactly easy to get.
Posted by RagePundit on 06/23 at 06:15 PM

I love the fact that Doctors are refraining from treating lawyers. Let
them die…
Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:17 PM

I love the fact that Doctors are refraining from treating lawyers. Let
them die…

Actually, doctors tend to be over conciliatory with lawyer-patients.
Lawyer-patients tend to get very thorough check ups and lots of extra
tests.
Posted by Kevin Travis Ballie on 06/23 at 06:21 PM

This was very insightful… Besides this, I also believe that Edwards
lacks the proper experience to be a Vice- President… I need to see him
with more experience first.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:22 PM

Here's one example for the
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
06:23 PM

Sean:

Yeah, Rule 11 is a federal rule, but there are analogs in every state
I've practiced in. In fact, most states pretty much adopt 99% of the
FRCP completely.
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:31 PM

Does anyone else see the irony in someone misspelling the word
"incompetent"?
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:31 PM

I found a better link.

� Only 5 percent of doctors (1 out of 20) are responsible for
54 percent of malpractice payouts. (National Practitioner Data Bank,
Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept. 30, 2002.)

� Only 5 percent of doctors (1 out of 20) are responsible for
54 percent of malpractice payouts. (National Practitioner Data Bank,
Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept. 30, 2002.)

� Only 17 percent of doctors (1 out of 6) who have made 5 or
more malpractice payouts have been disciplined by their state medical
board. (National Practitioner Data Bank, Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept.
30, 2002.)

Clearly tort reform isn't the best solution…
Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:31 PM

That may be, but it isn't exactly easy to get sanctions for frivolous
lawsuits in a state court. That's been my experience in California
anyway.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:35 PM

Does anyone else see the irony in someone misspelling the word
"incompetent"?

Oh so sorry! Does anyone see the irony in focusing on misspelled
words instead of actually debating?
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
06:39 PM

"This is wealth created by doctors practicing medicine, Coase, not
lawyers looking for victims."

Ah. So any wrongfully gotten wealth should remain in the hands of its
nominal creator.

"Lawyers create their own demand through advertising."

To a degree, perhaps, but they're also providing information to people
who don't know the law. For instance, some people don't pursue
negligence claims because they think they're at fault partially, but
what they think is "fault" might not be legally recognizable. I'd
rather have somewhat artificially stimulated demand for legal services
than people unable to obtain any recourse after being negligently
treated.

"Oh sure, there are cases in which the doctor legitimately screwed up,
and deserves to have an attorney and jury nail his hide to the wall.
The real problem is the frivolous lawsuits."

Agreed. But how can you draw the line, except on a case-by-case
basis? And how can you even begin to evaluate on a case-by-case basis
until litigation commences? Is litigation always frivolous because if
there is only minor injury? If the damages pled for are too high? If
it's the doctor's first mistake? Hey, if you can come up with a better
measure of "frivolous" than the size of the damage award or the fact
that it takes time and money to defend against a suit, I'd love to
hear it. Until then, anecdotal evidence doesn't work. Find a line
that works across the board, for all cases, from the clear gross
negligence case to the barely negligent case.

"Coase sounds like he/she could be a malpractice attorney."

No, I spend my time kicking the **** out of trial lawyers, some of
whom bring very tenuous claims, so I understand your frustration.
However, legal communities are small, and litigation is a matter of
public record, so I disagree that there's no incentive to not litigate
for plaintiff's lawyers. I'm not proud of this, but I've hit trial
lawyers with large, large sanction fees that pretty much made it
impossible for them to practice. Some of them are crooks. However,
too many of my hospital clients try to do the bare minimum, and are
appalled that someone would have the audacity to sue them for not
doing their job right.

In sum, I'm for people doing their ****ing jobs right: lawyers,
doctors, 7-11 clerks, whatever. And when they don't do it well, they
shouldn't be allowed to judge the job they did. That's the basic
problem with letting doctors set the standard for medical care.

Additionally, what about the insurance companies? They're rolling in
it, and they don't produce much that is tangible, either.
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:44 PM

Thededalus: Debating you would be as about as entertaining and
enjoyable as watching two octogenarians screw. I'm not here to
debate. I know that I'm right, you're wrong, and that I won't be able
to change your mind. I'm here to discuss topics with like-minded (and
right-minded) individuals and to mock people like you.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:46 PM

Debating you would be as about as entertaining and enjoyable as
watching two octogenarians screw.

That's okay. I didn't really expect you to make a good argument
anyways.
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:47 PM

Thededalus: It should be "anyway" not "anyways". People will take
you more seriously if you learn to spell and if you use correct
grammar.
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
06:51 PM

And since someone mentioned it, I thought the ephedra ban was a
travesty.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:56 PM

People will take you more seriously if you learn to spell and if you
use correct grammar.

Oh, the pedantic wit!
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 07:00 PM

Additionally, what about the insurance companies? They're rolling in
it, and they don't produce much that is tangible, either.

It depends on what you mean by tangible. In a literal sense, most
service providers don't produce anything tangible. However, people in
general tend to be risk-averse and wanting to insure against losses is
consistent with human nature. However, if the premiums for health
insurance or non-liability auto insurance exceed the level of risk
aversion for an individual, then the individual won't insure. The
problem with medical malpractice insurance is that the consumer never
gets to directly see these costs. These are passed through the
doctor's income, (possibly) through the cost of that doctor to a
hospital or a medical group, through an insurance company, and finally
to you. Doctors will choose to insure because they too are risk
averse and can easily pass these costs on as the consumer doesn't
directly see them. The easiest way to lower health insurance costs
would be to eliminate health insurance. Consumers will demand
accountability if they are paying out of their pockets.
Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 07:03 PM

Thededalus: Only pedantic if you consider third grade grammar
"bookish".
Posted by Zinger on 06/23 at 07:24 PM

Coase,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The "evidence" of the problem of
frivilous lawsuits is largely anecdotal. The truth is that there are
not nearly as many frivilous lawsuits as most people believe, its just
that you hear about each and every one of them. Vastly more common
are meritorious lawsuits. By meritiorious I do not mean that the
plaintiff will always win, I mean a case where it is a close enough
call that a jury (or judge) should decide it after the presentation of
evidence.

I should admit to some bias here. I am an attorney (though not a
trial attorney - tax is my field) and I really dislike doctors. My
dislike of doctors stems from my perception that many of them have
god-complexes (i.e. they think they're god or at least god-like) and I
probably got that perception from (1) being a patient and (2) from
stories my mother would tell me of her work and her interactions with
docotrs (she was an RN).

Personally, although I know many doctors, none of them have been so
affected by this "plague of lawsuits" that they would be considered
poor. All of them own their own (very nice) homes. At worst, some of
them might have to consider settling for a six disc CD changer in
their BMW rather than taking the upgrade to the twelve disc CD
changer.

Also, I don't think that Coase was comparing doctors make to what
lawyers make in an effort to say that they should make the same. I
think that he was making the comparison to demonstrate that, while we
hear so much about these "poor doctors that can't afford to practice"
in certain areas, the fact is that doctors are really making a lot
more than other professionals that have been traditionally percieved
as high income individuals. It also lays bare the lie that "greedy
trial lawyers" are picking on "those poor unfortunate doctors." If a
doctor did nothing wrong, no attorney is going to waste their time
pursuing a loser of a case ... well maybe those sleazy ones on TV, but
that is a very small portion of the attorneys out there, probably
similar to the portion of bad doctors that was listed earlier in this
thread.
Posted by Ian Mac on 06/23 at 08:13 PM

My parents run a sucessful oil and gas business, and they are sued at
least once a year. Do not tell me that frivolous lawsuits are not
that common. That is an utter crock. Many physicians may have
god-complexes, but that is no reason that they should be sued. There
is a vast difference between imcopetence and a mistake, and people
need to stop being so dman ed greddy and let things go!
Posted by Jentle Jiant on 06/23 at 08:20 PM

svandals said:

I'm not here to debate. I know that I'm right, you're wrong, and that
I won't be able to change your mind. I'm here to discuss topics with
like-minded (and right-minded) individuals and to mock people like
you.

Must be a fascinating "discussion". The convinced convincing the
convinced. A perfect match-up between closed minds.

Careful. All that self congratulatory back slapping may cause
bruising.
Posted by winky on 06/23 at 08:22 PM

Three years ago, I was ready to sit down and apply to med school.
After taking the MCATs and working a brutal weekend shift in surgery
for years, I opted out. This has MUCH to do with why I didn't want any
part of the business of practicing medicine. Now I am working on a MS
in Molecular Biology so I can hang behind the scenes and out of a
lawyer's reach. And now, being between jobs, I just got my COBRA
(Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act) papers and they want
$415 a month for extended medical coverage. Yikes!
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
08:24 PM

"My parents run a sucessful oil and gas business, and they are sued at
least once a year. Do not tell me that frivolous lawsuits are not that
common. That is an utter crock. Many physicians may have
god-complexes, but that is no reason that they should be sued. There
is a vast difference between imcopetence and a mistake, and people
need to stop being so dman ed greddy and let things go!"

Ah. So, you say "stop being greedy!" while advocating a position
directly supporting your family's economic interest.

I sincerely hope you don't think it's logical to say
frivolous="whenever it happens to someone/some cause I like."
Posted by winky on 06/23 at 08:25 PM

And who ever said above that docs make more than lawyers made me
laugh. Wrong on the whole about that. I knew a doctor who would tell
people that he had to marry a lawyer so he could support himself. True
that.
Posted by Cracker on 06/23 at 08:33 PM

BULL ****ING ****!Anyone who has read any of my post will know that
iam as far from the libs as can be( except bane who banned me)But i
cannot and will not agree with this.My wife and i were rear ended a
year and a half ago sitting at a dead stop.Saw the bitch (on her cell
phone) coming and not slowing down.My wife suffered a ruptured disk in
the C-4 and C-5 vertabre as well as nerve damage to her elbow from the
impact.My wife is 34. Her left hand is now permantly numb for the rest
of her life.Her neck will never, ever, be the same and she suffers
from PAIN in the way that none of you,hopefully, will ever know.The
first doctor(nuero) after taking $150 every time for ( in which he
directed her to physical therapy 1 hour 3 times a week for 6
months,twice ,never helped for $80 a visit) for no more than 15 min.,
finally said that she was in no pain and that her back pain came from
smoking.This is the same recovering addict that had a "DOCTOR" stick
47 electrified needles into her arm in a nerve conductivity test to
determine nerve damage but never commented on it.In case you don't
know, if a nerve is damaged and pinched for more than 6 months it
DIES. It can never be healed , it dies.So when we go for a second
opinion , we get ordered for more nerve conductivity test and
moreMRI'S they are worse but yet again they never comment on them, and
when our lawyer ask for a definitive report he replies with a 3
sentance statement that he can't tell if the damage is from a car
wreck or age.SHE IS 34.He can't, or won't, remember the MRI's that he
was first brought only comments on what he ordered but won't order any
new ones. .These people don't know ****. But according to most of the
posters here, we should have no right to sue these DOCTORS for
incompatance. Or if we do we are entiled to a set cap?As i have said,
My wife is 34 and she shuffles around like a 70 year old woman.The
damage she recieved from the wreck as well as indifferance from the
DOCTORS has come close to destroying the dream of sailing away.This is
all we have ever planned for, to sail the world, to live in the
ultimate dream of freedom, and now there is a huge chance that will
never happen.But accordining to most of the posters here i should not
be able to sue. And if i do i should accept what ?200,00.00? What is
the price of a persons health for the rest of their life? You know
what , as many people here that bitch about propaganda,i would have
never have thougt that so many would have fallen on the side of the
insurance companies.Insurance companies are the most EVIL sum bitches
on the face of this earth.And come the RIGHT revoulotion, they will be
the first sum' bitches i put up against the god damn wall.
I was going to add more to this post but have deleated it in respect
to Lee. But what would any of you do if a DOCTOR guessed wrong.If the
one you cared for suffered?What is the vaule of the life that is
harmed?
Posted by Sean Galbraith on 06/23 at 08:49 PM

Lee: The who malpractice insurance scam was laid bare in Florida
recently when the representatives of the insurance lobby were forced
to testify before the state senate under oath and admit that they had
basically lied in every one of their claims made in public… basically,
the cost of malpractice insurance (at least in Florida) has nothing to
do with lawsuits and tort reform would do nothing for the premiums. It
is worth reading up on.
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at
08:58 PM

Winky:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says it:

Physicians and Surgeons: The lowest salary is $150K. The highest
averages 300K.

Lawyers: The range is 67K to 143K.

I'm sorry that facts make you laugh.
Posted by Bunkergurl on 06/23 at 10:19 PM

I'm in nursing school and I have to have malpractice insurance. Sure
there are doctors that think they're the ****, but there are more
patients that assume that the doctors/nurses/staff are there to be at
their beck and call, and if something doesn't go the way they assumed
it would (like, say developing lung cancer from puffing 4 packs of
unfiltered Luckys/day for 40 years), it's not their fault, it's the
fault of the doctor/nurse/staff. It goes BOTH WAYS Coarsy. In the
three rotations I've done so far, I've seen my share of both, and in
my opinion, these cases come about because some patient (or their
family) had unrealistic expectations of their treatment. At the 2
hospitals I rotated in, patients have to read and sign and form that
states that they realize that medicine is an inexact science, and
things may go wrong.

Now lawyers, now there's a group that needs to be reined in,
especially trial lawyers like Blow-Dry-Boy.
Posted by Bunkergurl on 06/23 at 10:23 PM

Oh,and Cracker: If you sue and win, say $1 million, what would you say
to that doctor's family about how they won't EAT and won't have a HOME
once you've decimated their savings? Think about THAT. Why not go
after the dummy that rear-ended you anyway? She's at fault, not the
medical profession. I think there's more here to the story than you're
letting on.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 11:01 PM

The easiest way to lower health insurance costs would be to eliminate
health insurance. Consumers will demand accountability if they are
paying out of their pockets.

Good point. If we eliminate health insurance, then health insurance
costs will lower to...zero! Then doctors will charge less and we all
save money! Oh wait, what happens if something really bad (and
expensive) happens? Oh, damn, maybe we should get insurance for that
(just in case)...

Thededalus: Only pedantic if you consider third grade grammar
"bookish".

Another good point. I guess you didn't make it to 4th grade where
they taught us to put the "period" inside the quotation marks. Oops!

Oh, and Cracker: If you sue and win, say $1 million, what would you
say to that doctor's family about how they won't EAT and won't have a
HOME once you've decimated their savings?

Thus, malpractice *insurance.*
Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/24 at
05:19 AM

I'm in nursing school and I have to have malpractice insurance. Sure
there are doctors that think they're the ****, but there are more
patients that assume that the doctors/nurses/staff are there to be at
their beck and call, and if something doesn't go the way they assumed
it would (like, say developing lung cancer from puffing 4 packs of
unfiltered Luckys/day for 40 years), it's not their fault, it's the
fault of the doctor/nurse/staff. It goes BOTH WAYS Coarsy.

Who said it didn't? Effective tort reform has to fit both of those
ways, and that's why damage caps don't fit. You can't just scream
"frivolous lawsuit" every time you feel that someone should have been
more responsible for themselves. A definition of "frivolous" like
that is subjective and malleable, and therefore no definition at all.

Now lawyers, now there's a group that needs to be reined in,
especially trial lawyers like Blow-Dry-Boy.

Logical argument. Could we argue from something *other* than feelings
and ad hominem, please?
Posted by svandals on 06/24 at 07:31 AM

Another good point. I guess you didn't make it to 4th grade where
they taught us to put the "period" inside the quotation marks. Oops!

Actually Thededalus you are incorrect. If I were quoting a sentence
the period would be inside the quotation marks, but since I was just
emphasizing a word, the period is outside of the quotation marks.

As for my other quote, you are correct. What I meant to say is that
the way to lower medical costs is to eliminate health insurance.
Posted by Thededalus on 06/24 at 01:59 PM

What I meant to say is that the way to lower medical costs is to
eliminate health insurance.

Fair enough, but what do you propose as an alternative? Are you
proposing that we eliminate health insurance entirely? I agree there
are weaknesses and excesses to our current system. We probably insure
too much (office visits, prescription cold medicine, etc.), but what
about catastrophic injuries? Nobody but the most wealthily can pay
for this.
Posted by Sirveri on 06/24 at 06:21 PM

Well duh, the poor don't deserve health care. **** those free loading
assholes.
Posted by Will on 06/24 at 06:30 PM

It is much worse than you have said. I happen to know (and know of)
several doctors who have left their practices because of the cost of
liability insurance. They feel they are really shorting their
families to work such long hours and bring home so little for it when
they can make more and work a lot less at something else. These are
mainly surgeons and obstetricians. Those I know are outstanding
practitioners and human beings.
Posted by Cracker on 06/24 at 09:04 PM

Bunkergirl,
There is not much more to the story.We are suing the bitch who hit
us.They have the minumum coverage which is 25k.We have already spent
close to 30k in medical bills.Not a damn thing the doctors have
ordered has helped my wife.As to your million dollar comment.Which
family should be the one to eat, the one who was hurt or the one who
did the hurting? Besides there is nothing in the law that says(in
arkansas ) that they can't turn around and file bankruptcy to cover
their ass so they get to keep the house and cars while the people who
are hurting just get screwed.
You must be registered and logged in to post comments. Login here or
Register here.

Next entry: Remembering the Gipper

Previous entry: Seven Minutes
  #2  
Old October 6th 04, 06:22 AM
Lord Valve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not my post. Check headers.

Lord Valve
The Genuine Article

Some asshole using my screen name slobbered:

(snip)

  #3  
Old October 6th 04, 07:31 AM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So...the lies started before he even started the post? Well...they lied to
get where they are and leopards don't change their spots.

"Lord Valve" wrote in message
...
Not my post. Check headers.

Lord Valve
The Genuine Article

Some asshole using my screen name slobbered:

(snip)



  #4  
Old October 6th 04, 08:20 AM
ZenIsWhen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lord Valve" wrote in message
om...
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/...comments/7963/


Lord Valve?
You mean like that flapper I have in my toilet?



Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Come on San Andreas... America needs you

The Right to Sue

The next time you hear some left-wing asshat whining about how poor
people can't afford health insurance, tell them to thank Ralph Nader.


Yo!
Dip****!
The SMALLEST reason for people being unable to afford health insurance is
the lawsuits filed.
The LARGEST reason is nothing more than corporate greed.

* Flush Lord Flapper


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.