Candidate Edwards: Version 2.008

The John Edwards who today announces his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination is a very different contender from the fresh-faced young senator who in 2004 bid for the party nod--and eventually secured a place on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee.

By any measure, he has a lot more to offer progressives than he did in 2004. That potential to appeal to the party's left flank is essential for Edwards, who will need an ideological base as he struggles for attention in a race where New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama have been sucking most of the air out of the contest.

Edwards struggled to craft a message in 2004. After stumbling frequently and, many assumed, fatally in 2003, he finally developed the "two Americas" stump speech that identified him as a candidate who was serious about broadening the national debate to include a serious discussion of the dangerous gap between rich and poor in America.

Even as he improved as a speaker and debater, however, Edwards remained a vague and frequently ill-defined candidate. He condemned President Bush's management of the war in Iraq, and was particularly critical of the war profiteering that had been allowed--if not encouraged--by the White House. But Edwards took no clear stand on the war.

Edwards talked tough about the need to protect American farmers. But he developed a "farm plan" that seemed more sympathetic to agribusiness than to working farmers.

Edwards tried to portray himself as a champion of labor. But he never really developed a coherent, let alone effective, message on the central issue for unions and their members: trade policies that favor multinational corporations and Wall Street over working Americans and Main Street.

Despite his flaws, Edwards did well enough in 2004 to merit another look in 2008. And he has given progressives reason to be impressed. Many migrated to the Edwards camp late in the 2004 race in hopes of blocking the candidacy of an even more flawed contender, John Kerry.

For one thing, instead of announcing on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, Edwards is heading to New Orleans, where his "two Americas" theme is illustrated by the stark reality of the federal government's ongoing neglect of Hurricane Katrina victims. And he has answered his critics' old "Where's the beef?" question with comprehensive plans for guaranteed universal health care and providing equal access to education.

Edwards is also more focused and more right about the Iraq war. He has acknowledged that he was wrong to vote in 2002 to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. He wants to begin bringing the troops home quickly and he is steadfastly opposed to the construction of permanent bases.

On trade and agriculture issues, he has shown perhaps the greatest evidence of growth. In addition to taking tough stances against individual flawed trade pacts, he has hired as his campaign manager former Congressman David Bonior, D-Michigan, who for years was the leading House foe of the corporation-friendly trade policies favored by the last two administrations.

Most indications suggest that Edwards gets it. That does not mean he is the perfect contender, nor that he is the perfect progressive. But he has grown a great deal over the past several years, and that growth has been in a serious, smart and savvy direction that progressives would be wise to note at this relatively early stage in the 2008 contest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (161)

1. "Most indications suggest that Edwards gets it."

   He can't win his own state..he gets nothing....in the country he main gets yawns...another ambulance chaser makes multi millions suing business(heath care provders) out of business...victims get pennys and "fast Eddie" get millions...yeah, we need him in charge....

   Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 02:36am

2. Could it be possible that some of the "ambulance chasing" actually was motivated by Edward's desire to help people?

   Further, you might want to read a bit more about personal injury law and the purpose behind the contingency fee. It's inherently democratic as it allows plaintiffs with no money, but a good case their day in court. PI lawyers get a big payday when they win because it's assumed that they'll loose many cases (and get paid nothing). Apparently, Edwards is very, very talented. Most PI lawyers aren't so if you look at average salaries in comparison.

   As far as the injured getting pennies, while the PI attorneys getting millions, give me a break. Is there no judicial oversight in your world?

   Perhaps before you jump in with the right wing hyperbole, you learn a bit about reality.

   Posted by lbrean at 12/28/2006 @ 03:36am

3. THEY HAD TO KILL HIM.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR200612 2601033.html

   A soldier resisting return to Iraq – depressed and despondent?

   KILL HIM!

   The message has now been sent from the McCain/Lieberman Warmongers For Israel Tribe - "Kill or be killed!" His only other alternative was to be sent to one of the new CONCENTRATION CAMPS for those who resist the EMPIRE:

   US CONCENTRATION CAMPS - IN WYOMING!

   FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE MEXICANS, BUT I WAS NOT MEXICAN, SO I DID NOT SPEAK OUT.

   NEXT THEY CAME FOR THE DRAFT DODGERS, BUT I WAS TOO OLD TO BE DRAFTED, SO I DID NOT SPEAK OUT.

   THEN THEY CAME FOR ME.

   If the linked photos and maps are accurate, odds are these dude ranch owners are within 20 miles of it...and they'll know the deal if so.

   Silke Simon Bucking S Ranch Hanna, WY 82327

   google it.

   The location shown below (north facility) resides in a north/south running stretch of river valley with irrigated hay pastures on either side.

   View the area adjacent to the Pathfinder Reservior and the Seminoe Reservoir IN CENTRAL WYOMING SOUTH OF CASPER on Google Earth / Google Maps relative to the larger Wyoming map found here:

   http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/1607403/posts http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297 http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/12/illegal-us-government-war-crim es.html

   NOTE:

   In one photo – the facility listed is called "Swift Luck Greens EAST"

   It contains a coal trolley repair facility and access to a rail line – indicating mining will be conducted. The following chart lists the Hanna Coal Basin "RAG Shoshone 1" facility as having stopped production of 1 million-plus tons of coal per year as of 2001:

   http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:gNcoT3lrnlsJ:www.wma-minelife.com/co al/coalfrm/coaldat.htm+coal+shoshone+1&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

   Did the government close the mine in order to convert it to a working prison camp?

   http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/commission/west199934202042004.html

   Thursday, December 21, 2006 Illegal US Government War Crimes Against US Civilians

   There will be a time when you may wish to revisit this.

   Direct Link to this content:

   http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo Swift Luck Greens

   Photos: Download, save, and forward the info to everyone.

   Posted by plunger at 12/28/2006 @ 05:21am

4. Edwards polling well in Iowa. The new idea is that Hillary has become a "2008 vers. of Kerry"....strong two years out, fading a year out, but capable of winning the nom in the long term. Guess that would make Obama "Dean", maybe Edwards "Gephardt".

   MAASCH does have a point though. North Carolina wasn't even CLOSE in 2004. Now Gore lost Tennessee, but he practically hadn't been in his "home-state" in years, Edwards' ONLY election victory was in NC. If people are looking for a 1-term Senator as President, why not won that can CARRY a state, his own, automatically...like Obama?

   BTW, PLUNGER...get upto speed. RESE spend a whole day yesterday "informing" us of the great Gerald Ford Conspiracy (oh, and the "Auschwitz in Wyoming"). Where are YOUR website Cut&Pastes on how "Ford was given the Presidency as a pay-off for covering up for the Cabal during his time on the Warren Commission"?!?!?!?

   hehe

   Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 07:59am

5. Edwards just on CSPAN...standing in some neighborhood in New Orleans. Took a few pics shoveling debris, then spent 30 minutes on a softball press conference...trying to look like a cross between Bobby Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

   He's not bad, smooth but not smarmy. I just think the "taint" of being on a team that lost to a "AWOL fascist cowboy" has GOT to resonate with the primary voters a bit.

   After all, if he and Kerry couldn't beat BUSH...how can he alone take on McCain?

   Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 09:47am

6. Wake me in a year and then I'll give a crap about the '08 election. However, I do love candidates who do so much planning for a simple announcement of an intention to do something. And certainly traveling to New Orleans is not a craven thing to do, but a chance to bring a little more attention and money to that area and to see a little pootie tang in the Vieux Carre. Try downing a couple of drinkable hurricanes, Mr. Edwards, while you're using the people of New Orleans. At least it might loosen up the hairdo.

   Does Edwards have a job?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 09:47am

7. Posted by LBREAN 12/28/2006 @ 03:36am

   My cousin is a litigator...enough said.

   Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 09:49am

8. On the subject of Edwards...nothing but same old shit dressed up as new..he is a big government advocate...life is bad, food lines, poverty, death in the streets..we all need him to fix...this guy shouldn't waste 1 more cent on runninbg for office..he should retire and enjoy life..I, as a hard working man with a family, can't afford him and do not find him credible..and apparently neither does his home state...but it is another face in order to make Hillary look like she is having a battle....when it is a lock.

   Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 09:57am

9. "Could it be possible that some of the "ambulance chasing" actually was motivated by Edward's desire to help people?"

   You do not know the legal profession....the question is...would he have taken the case with no money except expenses if "helping people" were the only motivation....I am not criticizing him for making millions...I celebrate this fact..rather it is I am for the little guy horse shit many here seem to eat up, all the while slamming the millionare who is helping the "other guy", the ones no one here wants or cares about....

   Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:01am

10. Bruce,

    You are indeed correct...I talked to Edwards in O'Hare airport last year ...prancing around his gate with a cell phone in his ear trying to get noticed...If I heard it once , I heard it 10 times from the passers by...nice guy..couldn't vote for him....I am 6'2' and 250...Edwards looked like a little boy from whom I could steal his lunch money...my point....Americans also seem to want their President to look "Presidential"...he doesn't, even if he stands on a ladder....he does look like a Breck Boy...I know it is shallow and ridiculous, but those people who came up with the reference do have a point..unforunately for Fast Eddie...

    Anyhone think he will be asked about the premises of his winning law suits being proven incorrect or it the same old liberal excuse..."we meant well, so..."

    Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:09am

11. AND BRUCE,

    "But that's OK. He made his millions and now he's running for president. Now if he could only lower those malpractice insurance rates and re-open those doctor's practices."

    No can do....no money in it..unless he just wanted to "help people"?....naw...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:13am

12. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/28/2006 @ 10:01am

    God, so much horseshit in the morning. I'm neither one way nor the other on Edwards (though he is the prettiest thing this side of the Mississippi), but you cannot lawd a man for making tons of cash and then slam him for speaking of compassion. This is no different than slamming W for living as a booze-filled loser and then deciding to clean up his act. Okay, a little different, I suppose: rather than destroy himself, he has succeeded in destroying thousands of lives.

    The point is, people are supposed to grow during their lives, even those who by most measures achieve great success at relatively young ages.

    As for the legal profession, guess what, John? Most of us know lawyers--the good, the bad, and the moneygrubbing. If you want to generalize the entire world through the lens of cashflow, be my guest. But you're missing the best of what exists.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 10:15am

13. I suggest that before anyone gets taken in by John Edward's income gap baloney they read Thomas Sowell's three part article,"A dagerous obsession".

    Posted by fwilliam at 12/28/2006 @ 10:19am

14. TJ,

    I am not that cynical on life..just politicians and Edwards is an easy read....I mean that New Orleans has to be the cheapest ploly yet...my god, and the author here celebrates him and his "growth'?...thats the rub and the joke...

    I have always hated lawyers...right up until the day I need a good one.....

    Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:21am

15. And John?

    I think McCain is something like 5'7". Even I could grab his lunch money with the threat of a smackdown. So if you need to be physically challenged by your president, I assume you're sitting '08 out?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 10:27am

16. If you tried to take McCains lunch money, I think he would rip your ass off....after the Hanoi Hilton? He has credibility, which goes back to my original post..

    yeah, you try for ol' McCains lunch money....

    Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:35am

17. "So if you need to be physically challenged by your president, I assume you're sitting '08 out?"

    re read my post and I think you will get my point...

    Try for Hillary's lunch money and she will also rip your ass off..

    see my point ?...at all?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:36am

18. Point was understood. And yes, McCain, in spite of his stature, would scare the crap out of me in a cage match. Hillary? Geez, my mother could scarf her down for breakfast--she's no threat to my ass.

    Thing is, I assume you voted for W at least once, a man who has done nothing in his life to make me think he isn't giving his lunch money to me when I flash my first menacing look. An Ivy League cheerleader? Why not just vote for Charles Nelson Reilly?

    So you've sucked up your manhood at least once to vote for a puffta. What's to say you won't do it again?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 10:53am

19. "John Boy" Edwards is obviously following the Jimmy Carter playbook while running for President, since he can credibly claim to be a washington outsider...He's been traveling around the country, being seen, doing favors, pressing the flesh...

    just a couple days ago, he was seen in Uganda, hugging and mugging for the cameras with the victims of genocide, refugees from Darfur, I guess....It was so contrived, I almost puked....But, this guy has good handlers, and he can afford the best.....His two americas stump speech will resonate much better if we have a recession in 2008, as he is no doubt counting on.....Notice that Nichols loves his comprehensive health care plan...Guess after all the doctors are driven out of private practice by trial lawyers like John Boy, they'll have to get government jobs, yeah, that makes sense......

    God help us if John Edwards gets elected President, I'd support Hillary before him (Choking, gagging, cross eyed, grabbing throat) There, I said it......I've always said that a Hillary presidency would be bad, but that the republic would survive.. I'm not sure about a John Boy presidency.........

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/28/2006 @ 10:59am

20. But, Hey, on a lighter note, lets have round 2 of the John Edwards nickname contest....

    #1 "John Boy" Edwards, first round finalist.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/28/2006 @ 11:01am

21. But that's OK. He made his millions and now he's running for president. Now if he could only lower those malpractice insurance rates and re-open those doctor's practices.

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 08:52am | ignore this person

    open the practices of malpracticing doctors? is that what you are advocating, Mr Faux physician?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:17am

22. You do not know the legal profession....the question is...would he have taken the case with no money except expenses if "helping people" were the only motivation....I am not criticizing him for making millions...I celebrate this fact..rather it is I am for the little guy horse shit many here seem to eat up, all the while slamming the millionare who is helping the "other guy", the ones no one here wants or cares about....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/28/2006 @ 10:01am | ignore this person

    there is no profession where helping the poor for no money except expenses is the standard.

    why do you try to hold Edwards up to a standard you would certainly not adhere to yourself, and not demand of anyone else.

    the absurdity of you, of all people, criticizing anyone else for making a buck.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:23am

23. FWILLIAM and PLAIN BRUCE,

    Read Sowell and got what I expected: a "tut tut" "there there" about worrying our pretty little heads about what them rich folks do, couched in a little tweak of "the media" and "academia" for ratcheting up the fear of us common folk. Just trust this system, he says, even if it makes no sense to us, even if it produces, nay thrives on, astonishing poverty to expand the bloated accounts at the top. Living in what should be a representative democracy, but what is much more clearly a group handpicked by those with the dough, we are told by Sowell that the laws produced by these handmaidens to the wealthy are unfair to the wealthy.

    Sure, I believe him. Even if he is member of academia who writes in the media (self-hatred is such an ugly thing to witness), I'll trust his word beyond others like him who make remarkably different observations and use things like numbers when investigating what they observe.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 11:25am

24. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/28/2006 @ 11:01am

    YESSSSSS....I'm still holding #1.

    Will try to find a good one for his running mate...hmmm? "Breck & Barak"? "Lone Ranger & Tonto"? (Edwards' first names are "John Reid", the secret identity of the LR...little trivia) "Obie & Anthony"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 11:28am

25. there is no profession where helping the poor for no money except expenses is the standard.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 11:23am

    Uh....priest?....nun?

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 11:30am

26. And I'm all for lowering the rates of malpractice insurance. I do know good doctors who decided that the financial cost of the insurance combined with the cost in time for completing inordinate amounts of paperwork were not worth the benefits of running a practice. But PLAIN BRUCE is destroying the limits of logic by claiming that making bad doctors pay for their incompetence is what is driving up rates rather than either the doctors' incompetence or the insurance industry's opportunism.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 11:30am

27. how can he alone take on McCain?

    No sweat. He'll handle McCain just fine. Just before his announcement, he was already beating McCain in 2008 polls re: hypothetical election match-ups.

    Posted by Iddybud at 12/28/2006 @ 11:48am

28. Uh....priest?....nun?

    Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

    those are not professions, they are a calling, and they only serve to prove my point. Tories complaining about someone else making a killing? that has got to be the funniest thing on the planet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:52am

29. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2006 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

    it is important to remember that most malpractice is never litigated, and goes unreported.

    my mother was killed by a malpractising doctor, as she did not want to be involved in a litigation that doctor was free to destroy other patients' of his lives.

    one might also mention that the lawyers defending the accused doctors also get huge fees, win or lose. unlike the attorneys for the victims who get nothing, not even expenses should they lose. that is a big risk to take for the lawyers. who among you would be willing to work on spec like that? you Maasch? notachance.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:56am

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/28/2006 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

    too soon.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:58am

31. One needn't win one's own state. There. It is written. Democrats should be excited about the confluence of two factors. Number One: There are many great and good candidates. Number Two: People are sick of Republican Rule and incompetence in general.

    The World has great problems to solve without caking on yet others, as George W. Bush has done. Among the main problems are poverty, hunger, ignorance, illness, environmental paralysis...

    Who are the experts in these matters? Why that would be John Edwards and Al Gore.

    What would the Earth do?

    Posted by anonyMoses at 12/28/2006 @ 12:02pm

32. Luckily for Edwards, too few Americans understand economics. Including Edwards.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 12:01am | ignore this person

    if only they all could be more like you.

    the world however is still waiting for you to articulate your prescription for the poverty which is all too real for many americans.

    don't keep us waiting any longer, I beseech you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 12:08pm

33. but is pragmatic enough for solutions,

    don't be coy, summarize old Sowell for those of us who are busy reading other stuff.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 12:30pm

34. Frei, your credibility suffers when you run away from an argument, which you have done numerous times. Sarcasm is no stranger to you either.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 12:45pm

35. Readers of Sowell will understand Edwards for what he really is.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 12:43am

    Ahhhh...the malleability of economic theory. Human irrationality dried up into prune-sized nuggets that serve as formulae for anything from international banking to the size of fines for speeding. Economists can attempt to do one of two things, neither one of which is terribly reliable: they can look at the history of resource use to predict the most efficient future use of such resources--an attempt to be somewhat scientific even if it ain't even close to science; or they can look at the current situation, determine if its components are good or bad, and then justify or decry each part--a recognition that economics is neither science nor a useful thing in and of itself. Sowell, like virtually all "economists," believes he is able to discern hard truths in things that any psychotherapist would laugh at. He is well-spoken and a decent writer, but he, like his brethren, might as well be referred to as "behavioral or cultural theorists" since there is no pure economic system outside of human infallibilities.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 12:57pm

36. A chicken in every pot? No! A PS3 from Walmart in every household!!! Send your staff to Walmart but get a PS3 for EVERYONE this time, not for your kids like you ordered your staff to do a few weeks ago after a blistering anti-Walmart speach. Go, Johnny, Go! Johnny - Be Good!!!

    Posted by woodyee at 12/28/2006 @ 1:24pm

37. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 1:15pm

    Happy New Year to you, too!

    Well, anyone running for Prez is going to think he/she's got all the know-how to run the show, so we're going to have to vote for someone. I dare say we won't have anyone who intends to acrue many votes tell us that unfairness is the nature of whatever system we install. But what worries more than Edwards' little vision of a sunny tomorrow are those who fail to address the more remarkable aspects of unfairness in the system: those who see do their damnedest to make certain that the little clique of Bigs get tons and tons while doing what they can to prevent union activity and the continuation of the most basic of compensations for the "workers". It still amazes me that people get more worked up over Mark Foley then Halliburton, but this has been the great observation of conservatives for the last couple of decades--distract with Entertainment Tonight and close the deals on Wall Street Week (Rukeyser RIP).

    Maybe this means that everyone is pretty well satisfied with the stuff in their lives and all they need is a little moral indignation to make them feel like they are "about something". But I tend to believe that there a great number of people whose lives will never be presented on the news who will, in spite of their best attempts, never be able to improve their lot in life. I tend to believe this is un-American as American has been understood for more than my lifetime. The first step is recognizing this as unfair. At least Edwards is willing to take that step.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 1:30pm

38. At least Edwards is willing to take that step.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2006 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person

    welcome back, TJ.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 1:33pm

39. Frei, I read Dangerous obsession and I am not impressed. he erected a strawman and then demolished it. I saw no economic theory of any kind and certainly no prescription for poverty. terrible example, but now at least I know where you get that crap from.

    as far as directing me to some book or another. to understand what I mean you simply must read Finnegan's Wake, otherwise you just cannot understand me. see?

    when I recommend a book I provide quotations, a summation of the ideas etc. try it sometime

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 1:40pm

40. Hi JR,

    Taking advantage of low responsibilities at work this time of year and (at the moment) my wife vacating her laptop. Hope to scrape up the funds to replace my old computer next month.

    It's interesting taking a month or more off from both the internet and local/cable news. It appears it is still actually possible to be happy without full awareness of the ickiness beyond my immediate sphere of experience. Fascinating. Came back to that intense discussion a few days ago about, essentially, the nature of all things and it was good. Then Gerald Ford dies and Cute as a Bug Edwards takes up a little airtime and we're back to the playpen. Not that I'm not exceedingly childish, but it does make that part of the world beyond the internet seem to pulsate with possibilities for mindopening experiences.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 1:41pm

41. TJ, the unexamined life is not worth living. the state of ignorant bliss you are describing is a state most people inhabit. I do not begrudge it them. it is quite clear that it will not do for one such as you, reasoning and thoughtful as you have shown yourself to be.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 1:48pm

42. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person

    take all the time you need.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 1:50pm

43. you are castigating him for not being clairvoyant?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 2:00pm

44. the avenues of our justice system is and was available to the doctors of which you speak.Plain

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 2:00pm

45. Plain Bruce,

    Don't know nothing 'bout Edwards' million dollar case. Care to share?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 2:16pm

46. Bruce, you were not there in the court room. fancy lawyer's tricks are not the sole province of plaintiff's counsel. you are regurgitating something you read somewhere.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 2:24pm

47. hey freiheit, please do keep us posted on how that finnegan's wake thing goes, ok? i, for one, am interested in hearing your thoughts.

    Posted by loveloki at 12/28/2006 @ 2:29pm

48. Frei, just a few more minutes reading that guy reveals him to be a charlatan in the manner of Rush Limbaugh and others. you have my sympathy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 2:30pm

49. that it's the "rich" healthy doctor's fault,

    doctors in this country are compensated far in excess of doctors in other countries. and they do not pay the jury awards, their insurance companies do. Bruce you are peddling nothing but propaganda.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 2:36pm

50. The jury's decisions were not based on facts and clinical trials, but on sympathies.

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person

    and I thought you said it was Edwards' fault. those damned juries.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

51. Bruce, back from work so soon? nice work, if you can get it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 3:01pm

52. I'm just gratified you are now safe from transfats, Johannesrolf, thanks to the benevolence of politicians who are invested in the fact you are unable to operate in your own self interests....

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person

    that stuff has been banned because it is poisonous. the individual is still free to use as much or as little as he so chooses.

    you are really funny, the things you think of, hilarious. next issue for you, how dare they take the mercury out of the air and water. and what's this crap about no asbestos.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:02pm

53. It takes precious little time or thought to educate you.

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person

    you have not been able to do it, with your unsupported assertions and your banal propaganda.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:03pm

54. Frei, "We can choose to ignore our "fools" like Krugman, or Sowell, but an Edwards-like fool in power could not be ignored."

    Edwards served in the US senate. what fault have you found with his service for his country?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:05pm

55. Frei, we also prohibit smoking in public places like bars. the bar owners screamed bloody murder, moaning about lost business. turns out there was no loss of business. I remember what it was like to fly to europe in a plane full of smokers, I remember doctors smoking, sometimes while they examined patients. times do change, and we must change with them.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:10pm

56. Or do you actually believe that insurance companies, not the insured, pay for insurance settlements?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person

    I am well aware how insurance works. Bruce made it sound like the doctors pay the malpractice awards they are guilty of. the malpracticing doctors pay the same amounts as everyone else who did not malpractice. at least at the start.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:13pm

57. Frei, how many senators voted against giving Bush war powers? how many have repudiated that vote? but yes, you are right, I would definitely hold that against him in an election, that is why governors have an advantage over senators, the bar is set far lower. case in Point, Romney, who told the voters in Mass. a pack of lies and spent half the year away from the job he was being paid for.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:19pm

58. see Frei, you CAN express YOUR opinion. these are far more valid objections than your previous expressions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:21pm

59. What is the difference between the babies Edwards the Lawyer defended and the babies Edwards the Politician would not defend when he voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal?

    Just this: Edwards' interest.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:28pm

    How about what is the consistency between the two: the mothers' interest.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 4:32pm

60. And I'd feel no need to point out the actions of Romney to me as a justification of Edwards' failings.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person

    I did not do so. that was an example of the advantage governors have over senators, their votes are not thrown in their faces later.

    TJ nailed your other question.

    one more point, this may or may not apply to Edwards. very often lawyers will argue cases they themselves are not in agreement with, it is after all a job. I find the mindless lawyer bashing absurd, and judge bashing is most times worse. they are people, human beings will all the failings of their constituents. our legal system is the envy of the world, as imperfect as it sometimes is.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 4:40pm

61. Your bias is blatant...Johannesrolf.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person

    I contend John Edwards wasn't focused on the mother's interests when he cashed his extortion checks.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    Lawyers like Edwards are undermining the belief that our legal system...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

    Your bias is blatant...

    Your bias is blatant...

    Your bias is blatant...

    Your bias is blatant...

    Your bias is blatant...

    Posted by Lillian at 12/28/2006 @ 4:52pm

62. Actually, the argument against Edwards might be "He did little in the Senate".

    the counter-argument might be "No, no...he co-sponsered LOTS of thing and voted for important legislation".

    the counter-counter would be "Yep, like the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act!"

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 5:00pm

63. Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person

    this is a fine discussion to have. during the democratic debates for instance. I welcome Edwards tossing his hat into the ring, along with Kucinic and... who knows. this is our system.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:05pm

64. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 11:52am

    JOHANN, if you're defining a "profession" as a career that makes money...then OBVIOUSLY "there is no profession where helping the poor for no money except expenses is the standard."===Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 11:23am

    Since you've defined "profession" as a money-making job.

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 5:05pm

65. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:43pm

    I know what you're saying, and we certainly need to pay attention to both present words and past deeds. But both are so unreliable, I don't see that Edwards is any worse than the others in the pathetic pool of potential presidents. Could W have lied more about his foreign policy goals? Could Clinton have been less liberal than he seemed? Could we not read Bush I's lips? Could we trust Reagan to run through Congress when funding wars all over the place?...

    So, I understand not getting all giddy over our handsome candidate, but I think you're overreacting to his need for attention. He's just a politician. That's all.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:06pm

66. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 5:05pm

    Kucinich will be the "Hard Left" foil for all the others to play against. "Now, I have a plan for Iraq that isn't as RADICAL as my good friend Dennis'...." will be the refrain, and make the most liberal candidate seem "moderate" in comparison.

    Dennis serving the same ends he did in 2004....he just doesn't know it...or maybe he does!

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 5:07pm

67. Since you've defined "profession" as a money-making job.

    Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

    how would YOU define it? and why are you busting my chops over this?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:10pm

68. Dennis serving the same ends he did in 2004....he just doesn't know it...or maybe he does!

    Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person

    I found all the dem candidates interesting and informative last time around. it's called democracy. I did not and do not question their motives hidden or otherwise. they ALL contributed to the debate. I thought Sharpton was by far the best, witty and intelligent. you may now descend upon me.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:13pm

69. Since you've defined "profession" as a money-making job.

    Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

    I am not alone in this. my limited dictionary defines profession as : a paid occupation

    now come on mask, let's see that verbal tap dancing you are so fond of, c'mon dazzle us with footwork.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:17pm

70. Frei, incidentally, Edwards was not voted out of the senate, he chose not to run, a big difference.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:20pm

71. (Wow, I thought Herr Freedom knew everything.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:22pm

72. Thomas Sowell is one of the finest economists in our nation.

    says you. I think he stinks. wanna make something of it?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:27pm

73. Economics is as subjective as the other social sciences. It's not physics or chemistry.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:29pm

74. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/28/2006 @ 5:25pm

    And Al Gore and John Kerry was more qualified to be president than W. Resumes are fine, but Sowell's ideas range from simpleminded to hairbrained.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:31pm

75. Sowell's ideas range from simpleminded to hairbrained.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2006 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person

    it's an honest mistake, given that we have been discussing Edwards, but it's HAREbrained, not HAIRbrained

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 5:38pm

76. Bush has uttered much more inane things, LL.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:51pm

77. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 5:38pm

    Could we coin a new word to mean "one whose hair grows the wrong direction, thus causing mass confusion within the gray matter"?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:56pm

78. Goodness. The website assumed from my writing the word "blushing" within brackets that I wanted to bold my post. I did not.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2006 @ 5:57pm

79. As for the idea that malpractice suits are driving insurance rates up, it seems that isn't true:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main61010 2.shtml

    But Joan Claybrook, of the Public Citizen Consumer Group, says that's not the case. Claybrook insists the rate hikes aren't about lawsuits but about the insurance industry making up for investment losses. Investments are their main source of income. In fact, from 2001 to 2002 when many OB-GYNs saw their rates double, malpractice payouts to victims were actually on the decline. But insurance companies were losing big on their investments.

    And:

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:jMZqxr7P10kJ:www.consumerwatchdog.or g/malpractice/rp/5714.pdf+%22Insurance%22+%22companies%22+%22malpractice %22+%22investments%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

    And:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008311.php

    If Edwards is willing to try anything that is different than the current "corporations can do as they damn well please" brand of capitalism, then I say, more power to him. I don't care how many "brilliant" economists endorse the current economic system. It simply is not working, except for the very rich.

    Posted by Old Dem at 12/28/2006 @ 6:00pm

80. Posted by OLD DEM 12/28/2006 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person

    very fine. I suspected as much.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 6:57pm

81. Sowell's prose promotes pointedly prejudiced political correctness at the expense of practical and psychologically sound solutions, IMHO.

    And Frei, having just finished reading Jack Lewis' "A Grief Observed," I know you'll get more from anything of his than from Sowell's self-serving pious pap.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/28/2006 @ 7:08pm

82. Sowell's prose promotes pointedly prejudiced political correctness at the expense of practical and psychologically sound solutions, IMHO.

    And Frei, having just finished reading Jack Lewis' "A Grief Observed," I know you'll get more from anything of his than from Sowell's self-serving pious pap.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/28/2006 @ 7:09pm

83. And no, I'm not a "ditto head!"

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/28/2006 @ 7:10pm

84. Or do you actually believe that insurance companies, not the insured, pay for insurance settlements?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:09pm

    Do you actually believe that insurance premiums fly straight through to losses without the insurance companies first extracting luxuriously juicy profits? There's a reason why the insurance industry is able to lavishly fund it's lobbyists and perennially be one of the largest campaign contributors. You don't find that outrageous for some unstated reason.

    In any case, if the insurance industry is charging what you consider exorbitant premiums for malpractice insurance it is nothing more than an indication that there's a malpractice problem among physicians. Your immediate kneejerk reaction is to blame it on the victims. Have you already trotted out the fraudulent claims anecdotes to focus on the exceptions to the case?

    What you portray is a faultless and always professional physician corps victimized by an endless supply of frauds and cheaters. That's typically ludicrous Republican demagoguery. The primary aim is never to solve problems but to seize power through division and then milk the body politic for personal self-gain. I think America is seeing more and more clearly who the real frauds are and their name starts with the letter R.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 8:05pm

85. "But Joan Claybrook, of the Public Citizen Consumer Group, says that's not the case. Claybrook insists the rate hikes aren't about lawsuits but about the insurance industry making up for investment losses. Investments are their main source of income. In fact, from 2001 to 2002 when many OB-GYNs saw their rates double, malpractice payouts to victims were actually on the decline. But insurance companies were losing big on their investments."

    Joan Claybrook, there's a name to trust (not). Just another Nadarite.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/28/2006 @ 6:50pm

    Since-I-am-not-able-to-refute-the-simple-facts-stated-I'll-contribute-an other-famously-dimwitted-comment department.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 8:15pm

86. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 5:17pm

    JOHANN, you were going after FREI for "poking" at Edwards for the money he made off his litigations with your "there is no profession where helping the poor for no money except expenses is the standard." I was merely pointing out that by ANY definition of "profession", OF COURSE you make SOME money.

    BUT, there ARE professions where helping the poor for LESS money than Mr Edwards was making ...social workers, Salvation Army, medics/doctors working in free clinics in the inner city.

    Edwards' legal career wasn't just about "expenses"...he became a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE from it, taking the standard, but LARGE portion of settlement money.

    And if he had been a Republican....The Left (including "The Nation") would be pointing it out and asking "Why did he deserve such a large percentage of the money of people who were suffering?"

    Since he's a Dem.....hey, no problem!

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 8:35pm

87. Posted by OLD DEM 12/28/2006 @ 6:00pm

    Good links on malpractice insurance costs which I have simplified access to below:

    Link [tinyurl.com]

    Link [consumerwatchdog.org]

    Link [tinyurl.com]

    Link [insurance-reform.org.]

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 8:55pm

88. So lawyers give about 3 times what Insurance gives to campaigns, except in 2004 when lawyers gave nearly 6 times what Insurance companies gave.

    Do you use similar resources to Rese?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/28/2006 @ 8:33pm

    That is 100% irrelevant to this numbskull:

    "But Joan Claybrook, of the Public Citizen Consumer Group, says that's not the case. Claybrook insists the rate hikes aren't about lawsuits but about the insurance industry making up for investment losses. Investments are their main source of income. In fact, from 2001 to 2002 when many OB-GYNs saw their rates double, malpractice payouts to victims were actually on the decline. But insurance companies were losing big on their investments."

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 8:58pm

89. Apparently, for LVLIBERTY1, Congress deciding for a jury how much it can award in a malpractice settlement regardless of the facts of the case is the purest form of liberty but a public interest group making the public aware that higher malpractice rates are a result of insurance company investment losses rather than malpractice claims is the purest form of dictatorship. These Republicans are so full of s*** it's pathetic.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 9:04pm

90. Mask, I'm sorry but I just don't see the world in strict and exclusive partisan terms. for repubs to scream that someone made a lot of money, honestly by the way, is one of the funniest things in the whole world.

    BUT, there ARE professions where helping the poor for LESS money than Mr Edwards was making ...social workers, Salvation Army, medics/doctors working in free clinics in the inner city.

    these folks would no doubt be happy to make big bucks, like Edwards did. they choose to work in their chosen profession because of other rewards offered and because not all work is deservedly compensated, to say the least.

    I really don't see your point except some weird game of gotcha, which I detest. I keep trying to include you in my circle of discussion and I keep despairing and send you to ignore. this case is no diferent.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 9:07pm

91. Basically the arguments against Edwards the lawyer boil down to a hatred of the American system of justice. Arguing against the jury system, the right to choose an atorney. The right to bring your case to court, guaranteed under our loving constitution. Juries and judges hand out money awards, not attorneys. Are there charlatans ? Oh yes!. But the insurance companies, doctors and everyone else get lawyers. And to have the free marketeers degrading a rich man is indeed laughable.

    that does not speak to his fitness as POTUS. An empty suit was good in 1984. A glad-handing rich-boy has worked twice recently and in the 60's. i've seen worse (see luvvies brotherly critique of Rev sharpton).

    Right now it is a slim field, but I already tire of the horserace type coverage. But the neos sure don't seem to like any of the self made men in the field.

    (BTW- McCain can't brush his own hair, due to torture suffered while he was being held as a terrorist, I doubt he is too hard to take down. Funny criteria for president, physical stature. But then Tough Guys don't like silly little thinkers.)

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2006 @ 9:12pm

92. OldDem/FromRed:

    These should help poke a hole in your theory.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04128t.pdf

    The links point out the multiple factors involved in determining malpractice rates (1st link) and the effect of malpractice awards on rates (2nd).

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 9:00pm

    That's a funny reference you're using to disprove my "theory". You might want to, first of all, explain why a simple comparison of lower malpractice awards with astronomically higher premium rates qualifies as a theory in your mind.

    From your own reference:

    Tort reforms, particularly those that limit noneconomic damages, have frequently been proposed as a means of controlling increases in medical malpractice insurance premium rates. While the limited available data indicate that premium rates have grown more slowly in states with tort reform laws that include certain caps on noneconomic damages, a lack of comprehensive data prevented us from determining the exact effects of these laws on premium rates.

    And:

    Figure 1 helps illustrate the relationship between incurred and paid losses and between short-term and long-term determinants of changes in premium rates. The figure shows paid and incurred losses for the national medical malpractice market from 1975 to 2001, adjusted for inflation. After adjusting for inflation, we found that the average annual increase in paid losses from 1988 to 1997 was approximately 3.0 percent but that this rate rose to 8.2 percent from 1998 through 2001. Inflation-adjusted incurred losses decreased by an average annual rate of 3.7 percent from 1988 to 1997 but increased by 18.7 percent from 1998 to 2001.

    Would you like to explain why that produces 300% increases in malpractice premium rates? This is from your own reference. Try reading it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 9:24pm

93. Do you think insurance companies shouldn't make profits? Wait, no, you're not against a profit are you? You just feel that you could judge what profit is "fair" or "acceptable" or "obscene" right? FREI

    sorry you checked out. By your own statements here I think you have decided what profits attorneys should make. I have read nothing here about the lack of policing within the medical profession. Insurance, in simplistic terms, is gambling. There is always a risk an insurance company will go broke from claims. Should the rest of us protect them from their own industry? As pointed out above, what we have is a "blame the victim" stratgery.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/28/2006 @ 9:24pm

94. good points Crab. sometimes the same lawyers will represent opposing sides of the argument. no not at the same time. sometimes they are like hired gunslingers. Mask's arguments are more than absurd. no one works just for expenses, unless it's someone like Bloomberg who takes one dollar for being mayor of New York. I would bet however that he does not pay the expenses of the mayoralty out of his own pocket.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 9:25pm

95. these folks would no doubt be happy to make big bucks, like Edwards did. they choose to work in their chosen profession because of other rewards offered and because not all work is deservedly compensated, to say the least.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/28/2006 @ 9:07pm

    Right....so IF Counselor Edwards was so concerned about the poor and the injured, and NOT making a lot of money, but the "other rewards"....why didn't he?

    See, one or the other stories must fall apart. Either Edwards was "concerned about the poor and that's why he became a litigator"...but then he wouldn't have gotten RICH off of it...

    or Edwards CARED about making lots and lots of cash, and his concern for his clients was ....well.....not "primary", maybe not even "tertiary".

    One makes him stupid (for somehow not "realizing" that he was going to get a large chunk of change from cash settlements and tort), but nice.....the other not as nice as his boosters claim, but human.

    Posted by Mask at 12/28/2006 @ 9:26pm

96. OLD DEM, Without victims (poverty) where would progressives get their base? Using that logic, I understand where you're coming from.

    I wish you knew where you were coming from.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person

    this is a gross and cynical statement. the poor deserve more than to be your rhetorical punchline.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 9:30pm

97. Basically the arguments against Edwards the lawyer boil down to a hatred of the American system of justice. Arguing against the jury system, the right to choose an atorney. The right to bring your case to court, guaranteed under our loving constitution. Juries and judges hand out money awards, not attorneys. Are there charlatans ? Oh yes!. But the insurance companies, doctors and everyone else get lawyers.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/28/2006 @ 9:12pm

    Yeah, but the hog-slop-profit insurance companies and the shouldn't-be-allowed-to-treat-a-horse incompetent physicians have good lawyers. The 60-hour-a-week dishwashers, baggagehandlers, janitors, and everybody else in America who isn't a Republican have evil lawyers.

    It'll be a beautiful day when these hypocrites are flushed down the toilet and the stink stops.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 9:32pm

98. Don't fool yourselves, JE is just another product of the gilted system of politics we aspire to in this weak-kneed country. When will someone that will be listened to ask him about his relationships to the CFR and the Bilderbergers?

    Posted by c52 at 12/28/2006 @ 9:33pm

99. I have read nothing here about the lack of policing within the medical profession.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/28/2006 @ 9:24pm

    Gadzooks, is that ever a subject that deserves it's own thread. From the artificial restriction of doctors entering the profession to murderers running loose on the public for decades and no one outside the profession being the wiser.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 9:36pm

100. Freiheit und Johannes,

     Read this, from Britian...it is an interesting read from one who has worked in the worlds most poor and desolate spots..

     "LIFE AT THE BOTTOM" BY THEODORE DALRYMPLE

     The worldview that makes the underclass..

     Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:25pm

101. "that stuff has been banned because it is poisonous. the individual is still free to use as much or as little as he so chooses. "

     Trans fat is bad and was banned as a political moral statement only..if they had balls they would ban tobacco, not from Bars,et al, but from the earth..the trouble is too much money in tax coffers from its....

     as a libertarian, I say if you want to smoke and die...fine , but as a behavior choosen , you will pay HEAVY insurance premeiums and will NOT be eligble for government heath care or heart trans plants...you go to the bottom of the list.

     Posted by john maasch at 12/28/2006 @ 10:28pm

102. Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 10:03pm

     "losses on medical malpractice claims--which make up the largest part of insurers' costs--appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run" does not equal "18.7% increase in losses causes 300%+ increases in rates."

     There's a fundamental arithmetical disconnect between malpractice payments, whether you want to look at incurred or paid, and malpractice premium rates, no "cherrypicking" required. It looks to me like you cherrypicked this entire analysis given it's number of vague and even self-contradictory statements. Maybe the GAO is as cold-sweat scared of the White House as the Armed Forces command structure? It's called Republican Rule.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 10:35pm

103. You could say that every so often a "perfect storm" of factors arises which causes jumps in malpractice rates, but to blame the increases on only one is disingenuous.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 10:12pm

     Maybe you should direct your comments toward one of the Republicans on the scene since they keep repeating like a broken record that the non-upper-middle-class-or-higher parents whose daughter was permanently crippled by some incompetent a-hole couldn't possibly deserve more than $250,000 compensation.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 10:42pm

104. . . . and that they are the sole cause of high medical malpractice insurance premiums.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/28/2006 @ 10:47pm

105. I think we've filleted Edwards enough and exposed him for the fraud/hypocrite he is.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 11:15pm | ignore this person

     I have seen nothing here that would cause me to support this claim. Bush makes Edwards seem like Solon in comparison.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2006 @ 11:32pm

106. All in all, it is more comprehensive and compelling than some lone voice crying out in the blogosphere "18.7% does not equal 300%."

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 10:59pm

     Why so, other than your mistaken belief that it gives you the opinion you were looking for in advance?

     It says, again, "we found that losses on medical malpractice claims--which make up the largest part of insurers' costs--appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run." It doesn't say that recent astronomical increases in medical malpractice premiums are a result of medical malpractice claims.

     In my opinion the report is very professionally designed to give someone like you a deceptive shred to build a misleading argument around. The GAO has apparently been as thoroughly corrupted as every other branch and root of American government under the rabid, class warfare rule of the Republicans.

     A simple logical evaluation starkly disproves what you're trying to imply that it says. If "inflation-adjusted incurred losses . . . increased by 18.7 percent from 1998 to 2001."- giving you the most favorable interpretation since it's the highest increase quoted in your own reference, then what is the crying need of the gigantic political effort against trial lawyers? Even if 100% of those incurred losses were directly passed through to premium increases that is only 6.23% a year. This is the massive crisis that's destroying the medical profession and it's insurers? We can see how laughable that is, can't we now? Premium rates have been increasing much more dramatically than that and in fact, in recent years, malpractice claims have declined while premiums continued to climb. PLAIN BRUCE, that dog plain don't hunt.

     The ginned up premium rates are one part of a class war crusade against trial lawyers and their middle to lower class clients. It's a perfect storm, alright, made up mostly of three factors. Republican doctors who glory in a lack of professional discipline and don't like the discipline that a free and fair court system provides; Republicans, in general, who are not adversely affected by the class structure of healthcare in America because they can afford the best quality healthcare and don't give a damn about Americans who can't; and insurance companies who prefer to offer a lower priced, higher profit product to doctors by screwing the lower and middle class patients that they mangle.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 01:59am

107. We also need to clarify that tort reform caps only non-economic damages (i.e. the nebulous "pain and suffering")

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 11:02pm

     For some reason I had already assumed that the pain and suffering of anyone other than well paid, incompetent physicians and King Kong insurance companies would be nebulous to you.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 02:04am

108. And I almost forgot to mention the ever-ready liberal fall-back position: when faced with facts that defeat your argument, blame it on coercion and corruption.

     Maybe the GAO is as cold-sweat scared of the White House as the Armed Forces command structure? It's called Republican Rule.

     Gimmeabreak.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 11:06pm | ignore this person

     Well, Sandman's calling.

     I think we've filleted Edwards enough and exposed him for the fraud/hypocrite he is.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 11:15pm

     Don't look now but the facts you presented defeated your own argument and you're about as close to filleting Edwards as dunghead is to victory in Iraq.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 02:08am

109. You're right Frei, but I've read enough of Sowell's editorials to stick by my earlier statement. (And I know it's easy to be a critic and I was/am harshly condemning, but, like Johann, I find his social sanctimony superficial and saccharin)

     Posted by lewwelge at 12/29/2006 @ 06:59am

110. Thankfully the first President to be elected by the people since Al Gore in 2000 has announced his candidacy. Anyone who disses Edwards saying he didn't win his own state in 2004 needs to preface that with the knowledge that he didn't win because of the loser we selected as the Dems candidate. Edwards has so much going for him as a progressive it cant be recounted here. One of his many positives is that he's from the south and we can't win the Presidency without taking the south. Something that reverse carpetbagger Hillary needs to remember before she hoses our chances in 2008.

     Posted by Ben Dover at 12/29/2006 @ 07:18am

111. Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/29/2006 @ 02:01am | ignore this person

     allow me to summarize: repub money, big money=good. dem money, too fucking big=very bad.

     Edwards made the big money, what an outrage, he should have worked for expenses if he wanted to help poor people. check the CEO salaries of the major charities. any of them work pro bono? the fact is, those people would have had no redress in court without profit seeking lawyers.that the lawyers FOR the insurance companies etc make equally large fees and live in very large expensive houses goes unmentioned.

     what I see is some pretty poor people, no millionaire is posting here, springing knee jerk like to the defense of those who own just about everything, and who try their best to take the rest.

     I have never been one to espouse the "eat the rich" point of view. what I do insist on is that since they are the biggest beneficiaries of gov't and our system of laws, they should foot the bill commensurably. there is also the concept of "noblesse oblige" which obliges the well off to make an extra effort to lighten the load of the most unfortunate among us.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 10:06am

112. See, one or the other stories must fall apart.

     Posted by MASK 12/28/2006 @ 9:26pm

     -------------------------------------------------------------

     You have a penchant for false dichotomies that verges on the obsessive. It seems to me the more likely, and more human, thing is to want to make money AND do some good. The proportion may vary according to the amount of money that is desired but certainly many lawyers who make a rather princely sum also do pro bono work rather willingly and I have heard some express that it is what they enjoy the most. They "finance" their pro bono work by taking on more lucrative cases. It is rarely an "either-or" situation.

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------

     General observation:

     As one who has attempted to teach premeds for decades, I can attest these people are rarely the strongest intellects in the class. A very few are quite good, true, but most are average good. In the almost distant past, pre-meds were required to take some of the most horrendously difficult courses that we could offer, but that is not so now. Further, I remind that every class has a bottom half of performers and that most medical schools graduate most of their students. The structure of medical education is not one that reliably washes out the poorest it has. To not have a system that is an effective corrective for malpractice is absurd.

     A brilliant PhD graduate of mine died due to clear and obvious malpractice. Even the Chief of Neurology at the University Medical School where the ex-student was treated was so incensed that he was willing to testify. Alas, the very traditional and superstitious parents would not authorize the autopsy without which no such case can proceed. The parents thought "he had been through enough" and would not subject the cadaver to more "pain" - no argument could change their mind. I know the son would have demanded his own autopsy but....

     When I think of what this incredible person could have contributed, when I think of the bitter loss it was to his family (and to me), and when I recall the obsequious doctor who caviled to the parents and whose incompetence and negligence caused an unneeded death, it makes me almost physically ill. Incompetent doctors cause untold cost to society and individuals, truly huge costs, and there must be a system that fixes innocence or guilt and, if the latter, they should be made to pay the price - and it is always a dear one.

     A remedy of the insurance companies is to vet the competence of those they insure more carefully. In many cases, it probably would not take much observation and investigation to decide a certain practitioner is a quack and should not be insured. At least this would be a little improvement on the present sytem where doctors vet their own kind.

     Posted by Tiresias at 12/29/2006 @ 10:39am

113. Posted by TIRESIAS 12/29/2006 @ 10:39am

     That's great, TIRES, using the lucrative cases to finance the pro bono cases....now

     .....IS that what Edwards did??!?!?!

     Posted by Mask at 12/29/2006 @ 10:49am

114. Mask, do you know whether or not Edwards took on pro bono cases? most lawfirms do. in that sense they all use the big bucks cases to finance pro bono work.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 10:51am

115. July 27, 2004

     Pro bono: being fair to Edwards

     A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript). But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

     No doubt we'll be hearing more about the nature and scope of Edwards' pro bono efforts as the campaign proceeds. In the mean time, those of us who are skeptical of his candidacy should be careful not to let our criticisms run ahead of the available evidence.

     Posted by Walter Olson at July 27, 2004 12:51 AM

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 11:10am

116. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/29/2006 @ 11:10am

     JOHANN, seems the Edwards Boosters out there would ALREADY have that list of all John-Boy's pro bonos...ready to go.

     I mean, the guy's been a candidate for OVER two years now (dating to Spring 2004). Yet whenever discussion of Edwards' LUCRATIVE case load and lack of pro bonos come up....no evidence refuting it.

     And I'm admitting it MAY exist....I've just not seen it...which seems ....odd?!?!!?

     Posted by Mask at 12/29/2006 @ 11:17am

117. Mask, you are obliged to summon your own facts when you assert or deny something. I have taken the trouble to an at least rudimentary search. but then wise guy sniping is soo much easier isn't it?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 11:24am

118. Also left out of this discussion is the other arm of the insurance industry, the one we mere plebes deal with, health insurance. {EVERY} DR or PA that I know has a staff of folk that spend all day dealing with ins companies. I have a dr on my vball team, they have a suite of admn assistants that cost his office 100's of thousands of dollars a year. They have to argue about how much the "practice" will get for each procedure. This is done for every single ins company they may have to deal with. Then they have to resubmit over 1/2 the claims back to each company and make calls to justify their treatment of patients. Then the Dr has to take time away from patients to deal with claims that get rejected again. He says this takes about 30% of his time. My doctor stopped taking BC/BS becuase it just is not worth it to him anymore, too much wasted time.

     Plus, in my state, ins companies pay a lower tax rate than companies that make things. Cry me a river for the poor ins companies.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 11:51am

119. Dear friggin' Lord, this is getting dumber and dumber. Please, someone, find a truly goodie two-shoes who has run for president in the last, I don't know, ever, much less been elected. Edwards was successful. Terribly, undeniably successful. A helluva lot more than Bush II, more than Clinton who has done virtually nothing outside of politics.

     Should he have done pro bono work? Absolutely and he should be rightly challenged on that just as W was rightly challenged as Vietnam Era pussy trying to be commander in chief. He won't get my vote regardless of his opponents. But the over-the-top harping on this little item of hypocrisy is kind of pathetic considering the vast array of refuse that have captured and will seek the office Edwards is pursuing.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2006 @ 11:52am

120. considering the vast array of refuse that have captured and will seek the office Edwards is pursuing.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/29/2006 @ 11:52am | ignore this person

     gosh I love that kind of talk. vast array of refuse, that's very good, no it's Safireian.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 11:58am

121. There may indeed be things about Edwards that make him an unfit candidate, but for the righties here to attack a guy that came from humble roots and then made good is hypocrisy of the finest order.

     He was raised by a father that worked at a textile mill, a mill that has been closed and the work shipped to a foreign land, because those darn workers wanted a living wage. He was the first from his family to attend college, the thing ALL righties say we need to do to succeed in the FLat world. The Edwards raised a fine family, like the righties want. He started out like any lawyer,as an associate, then through smarts and hard work made it big, the AMerican Dream. He used a form of corp to hide from taxes and liability put into place by right wing corporate flunkies in congress.

     In other words, he does what you all claim we should do, but he is a hypocrite for being a dem. Just like most politicians. Just like Bill Frist.

     You neos' are a laugh a minute.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 12:00pm

122. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/29/2006 @ 11:53am

     Good Golly, heavens to betsy, FREI, a poltico offering few details! Gasp, never heard of that. Why the Chimpster is chock full of specifics when it comes to all sorts of stuff, like how to win in Iraq.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 12:04pm

123. Happy Holidays everyone - just peeking my head in here.

     No surprises. The usuaul lawyer haters emerge.

     Amazing. Bill Frist can be a successful physician by overcharging patients and insurance companies, Dick Cheney can be the former director of Halliburton, basically any succesful Republican businessperson is praised yet Edwards is vilified because he made money as a plaintiffs lawyer. You guys are so funny.

     Guys like Maasch and Freiheit have it in for lawyers, but it is so clear that the only thing they knows about them (or more specifically Edwards) is what they gets spoonfed by the defense lobby. And they eat it up.

     Of course there are rotten, greedy lawyers. Just like any other profession. Now, we'll hear, "I am not saying they are ALL bad!" Just Edwards I guess - but absent any basis, of course.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2006 @ 12:07pm

124. Spot on HMAN. what matters is HOW one makes it rich, If one does not do it the right way, then it does not count.

     Having written that, Edwards should pay every dime in tax that he owes, and refuse the tax cuts Chimp passed to not pay for his war.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 12:12pm

125. FREI, you defend Chimp, just because you don't equate the 2 here does not matter. I believe you voted for the Chimpster, yes? He had zero qualifications. At least Edwards has been successful in business, a criteria that seems to hold weight with neo-cons.

     I am just highly amused by the hatred of our justice system, just like the hatred of the Geneva Conventions, FISA , the 1st, 4th and other amendments, congressional oversight and the 72% of circuit judges appointed by republicans.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 12:30pm

126. And by pointing out a few of Edwards' inconsistancies (suing medical insurance companies, and then on the stump complaining about high costs of medical care, etc) you choose to attack the messengers instead.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/29/2006 @ 12:21am | ignore this person

     it is not the lawyer who sues, it is the plaintiff.

     are you suggesting that plaintiffs sueing doctors and their insurance companies is the sole or predominant reason for the high cost of health care?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 12:36pm

127. WIKI:

     The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a Cary, North Carolina girl, Valerie Lakey, who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the municipality had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."[5] The jury awarded the Lakeys $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating punitive damages, rather than risk appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.[3]

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/29/2006 @ 12:52pm

128. From:

     It is now exceedingly clear that you have not read the report. There are multiple factors involved. Malpractice claims are the primary long-term causes of rates increases. As the report discusses in detail, there are other factors that contribute to short-term rate hikes. Essentially, as has also been pointed out, the insurance game is cyclical and that at times leads to large increases. Again, the answers you seek are all right there in the report. All you have to do is read it. I know it's an inconvenience to have to admit that you're wrong, but it's better than resorting to "The GAO is under the thumb of the presidency! That HAS to be the explanation!"

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/29/2006 @ 09:00am

     "A simple logical evaluation starkly disproves what you're trying to imply that it says. If "inflation-adjusted incurred losses . . . increased by 18.7 percent from 1998 to 2001."- giving you the most favorable interpretation since it's the highest increase quoted in your own reference, then what is the crying need of the gigantic political effort against trial lawyers? Even if 100% of those incurred losses were directly passed through to premium increases that is only 6.23% a year. This is the massive crisis that's destroying the medical profession and it's insurers? We can see how laughable that is, can't we now? Premium rates have been increasing much more dramatically than that and in fact, in recent years, malpractice claims have declined while premiums continued to climb. PLAIN BRUCE, that dog plain don't hunt."

     From: Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/29/2006 @ 01:59am

     Seems like you're evading the basic math quiz, doesn't it, and the complete failure of your favorite report of all to explain the massive discrepancy?

     But don't let that restrain you from declaring victory over the "nebulous" lower classes in America and their irritating struggle for justice against doctors that mangle their children.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 12:56pm

129. A few points, FREI:

     What specifics should Edwards be tossing out now? While we want specifics in another 18 months, with his party just resuming control of Congress, why should he toss out ideas that are potentially at odds with what might transpire in '07? It's not exciting or energizing to have someone toss out bland and obvious ideas, but it is at least pragmatic at this very early date.

     It is entirely hypocritical of him to be talking up voluntarism when it appears he missed the boat. And I cringe when anyone promotes "faith-based" anything as first in line to address charity needs. These organizations largely do good work--the best use of the Christian spirit are in these organizations--but egad I don't want to see what should rightly be civic projects put into the hands of religion. Anyone who has seen New Orleans in the last year can testify that it will be a problem for many years to come at the current pace of demolition, clean-up and rebuilding. To depend on volunteers when absolutely sick sums of cash are being blown to bits in Iraq should drive the outrage of anyone purportedly viewing suffering Americans through the eyes of a liberal. In this, there is no defense for Edwards who missed a glorious opportunity to jump start his campaign with a bang.

     As for the qualifications to be President, I'd like to see your list. At one time, it seemed all anyone needed was to be a lawyer and to have a working knowledge of the government. My guess is that neither these minute standards nor your undoubtedly more demanding ones come close to determining which fool Americans will select to rule their country. I heard a somewhat serious reported on CNN declare that Giuliani was not going to win because he was too ugly. I was stunned initially by this comment since it would never have occurred to me. After a little more thought, though, I decided that she might not be wrong [We've had our share of the uglies, but in the highspeed, image-based world in which we currently live, ugly is now a serious drawback.]

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2006 @ 12:57pm

130. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/29/2006 @ 11:58am

     You talk good, too, JOHANNESROLF.

     But Safire? That needlenosed grump. Aside from his desire to be the 20th Century's Noah Webster and his stint as a remarkably untalented political analyst, he wouldn't merit a response if he decided to offer his views as an anonymous poster here.

     Bill? If you're secretly trolling through this site--no offense. You're just a boring writer.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2006 @ 1:02pm

131. [We've had our share of the uglies, but in the highspeed, image-based world in which we currently live, ugly is now a serious drawback.]

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/29/2006 @ 12:57am | ignore this person

     my hunch i that it was always so, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder. when women first got the vote, they helped elect Harrison, a non entity, think Bush without the disastrous war.

     but you are correct TV has exaggerated the issue, starting with JFK. the famous story about the Kennedy-Nixon debates. those who heard them on the radio thought Nixon had won the debate. those who watched them on TV, thought otherwise. Edwards' boyish good looks have also been a liability of sorts, as they provided a handle to attack him.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 1:06pm

132. So lawyers give about 3 times what Insurance gives to campaigns, except in 2004 when lawyers gave nearly 6 times what Insurance companies gave.

     Do you use similar resources to Rese?

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/28/2006 @ 8:33pm

     That is 100% irrelevant to this numbskull:

     "But Joan Claybrook, of the Public Citizen Consumer Group, says that's not the case. Claybrook insists the rate hikes aren't about lawsuits but about the insurance industry making up for investment losses. Investments are their main source of income. In fact, from 2001 to 2002 when many OB-GYNs saw their rates double, malpractice payouts to victims were actually on the decline. But insurance companies were losing big on their investments."

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/28/2006 @ 8:58pm

     Well Fromhamas,

     If you actually read what you post, you would perhaps, perhaps responded differently. But since you seem to lack the mental acuity to focus on what you have charged, it is not surprising.

     I even gave you the links to check the facts so you could backtrack on your statements. But no, you like your jihadist friends do not want to be confused with facts and reason. You just operate out of hate.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/29/2006 @ 02:38am

     If you are ever capable of explaining what trial lawyer campaign contributions have to do with recent massive increases in malpractice insurance rates don't hesitate to enlighten PLAIN BRUCE. He's swinging around a vague, sloppily contrived GAO report to "prove" that those recent massive increases are a result of claims by quoting over and over again a sentence that refers to something completely different. Maybe you could provide some evidence that malpractice insurance companies check trial lawyer campaign contributions before they set their rates. That should quite conclusively repudiate PLAIN BRUCE. I'm not expecting anything intelligent, though, from some armageddonist, religious nut who thinks the Old Testament was written by Jesus Christ. I don't expect much from either one of you, actually.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 1:12pm

133. A remedy of the insurance companies is to vet the competence of those they insure more carefully. In many cases, it probably would not take much observation and investigation to decide a certain practitioner is a quack and should not be insured. At least this would be a little improvement on the present sytem where doctors vet their own kind.

     Posted by TIRESIAS 12/29/2006 @ 10:39am

     The exact purpose of capping malpractice awards is to eliminate the need of physicians to hold all their members to a higher standard. As it is they turn a blind eye to gross incompetence.

     I know of a case right now where a physician told an acquaintance that her current physician has performed two unnecessary surgeries without performing the obvious one necessary to remedy the problem.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 1:20pm

134. But Safire? That needlenosed grump. Aside from his desire to be the 20th Century's Noah Webster and his stint as a remarkably untalented political analyst, he wouldn't merit a response if he decided to offer his views as an anonymous poster here.

     Bill? If you're secretly trolling through this site--no offense. You're just a boring writer.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/29/2006 @ 1:02pm

     Not to mention that he's about the closest thing to a nazi that there is in the American news media.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 1:28pm

135. Posted by CRABWALK 12/29/2006 @ 12:52am

     That's shameful, isn't it- winning a $25 million award for the parents of a child who was disembowelled because this pool drain cover manufacturer refused to sell a minimally safe product? Even after they had already been sued 12 times. Apparently the pool drain cover manufacturer found the prior lawsuits not so expensive that it was necessary to stop killing children. What's next? Caps on the quality of legal representation?

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 1:36pm

136. First, some general observations...

     In the history of the United States, some 2/3 of ALL who have served in the Senate, and some 1/2 of ALL who have served in the House, were lawyers.

     In the legal profession, there are many, many different types of lawyers. Three types of particular consideration are 1)corporate lawyers who make a LOT of money either suing other corporations to raid their profits or defend lawsuits against the profits of their corporate clients, 2)criminal lawyers who make a LOT of money defending their clients, whether they 'did it' or not, against the criminal justice system, and 3)personal injury lawyers who can potentially make a lot of money, but only if they win, representing victims who have suffered some kind of 'personal injury'.

     Now, of all the lawyers who have served as politicians in the US, the usual 'haters of all things Democrat' here have ignored ALL of those thousands of other lawyers who have run and or served, have ignored all of those other lawyers in congress (even who happened to be lawyers of purely greed-motivated corporate type) and instead have chosen to heap venomous criticism on just ONE lawyer in government, John Edwards. And most of the criticism (with a couple of 'empty suit', 'pandering politican' exceptions that literally apply to EVERY politician who has EVER served) is based simply on the fact that he's a lawyer, even though he practices the type of law that is focused on defending the interests of the victims of personal injury.

     Wow, that seems like some kind of new record in the 'hypocrisy' department to me.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 1:52pm

137. 2)criminal lawyers who make a LOT of money defending their clients, whether they 'did it' or not, against the criminal justice system,

     Lillian, I disagree.

     many criminal lawyers are public defenders who defend poor clients for very poor money.

     the criminal lawyers are not allowed to decide into their professional life the guilt or innocence of their clients. they must act as if they are innocent. you as a defendant would accept nothing less.

     they do not defend the accused against the criminal justice system, they are a part of that system.

     I agree with the rest, and applaud you for stating it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 2:03pm

138. "In the history of the United States, some 2/3 of ALL who have served in the Senate, and some 1/2 of ALL who have served in the House, were lawyers.'

     and this doesn't count state or local governments...

     ...explains why most of us can't read our auto insurance policy and know if we are covered or not........

     ..explains why the Constitution was 3-4 pages for 200 years and now it looks like an encyclopedia....and we have more laws than we can enforce...

     or this..

     I have a lawyer suing another person with his lawyer, in front of a judge (who was/is a lawyer) deciding, in many cases 2 opposite points of a law as to its real meaning, written by lawyers.....and you wonder why most say nobody wins in many cases but the lawyers?

     Posted by john maasch at 12/29/2006 @ 2:10pm

139. And some specifics...

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/28/2006 @ 08:52am | ignore this person

     Don't forget about his effect on malpractice rates, not to mention the doctors he put out of business, no longer available to help others NC.

     This appears to be some kind of claim that John Edwards is personally responsible for (1) a rise in malpractice rates, and (2) putting out of business multiple doctors in North Carolina. Yet, absolutely NO evience of any kind has been presented to substantiate this. Seems to me that Bruce needs to supply some facts or admit this charge is baseless.

     Then factor in that he made those millions based on a premise that was PROVEN incorrect with later research.

     Again, no facts, just charges. Bruce, exactly which millions did John Edwards make "based on a premise that was PROVEN incorrect with later research". Which millions, what premise, and cite the research. Please supply clear examples like Crab did (which provided pretty clear evidence about Edwards' success in obtaining a large settlement for the parents of a victim of personal injury in a product liability (not malpractice) lawsuit. )

     But that's OK. He made his millions and now he's running for president. Now if he could only lower those malpractice insurance rates and re-open those doctor's practices.

     Well again Bruce, how did John Edwards drive up malpractice insurance rates and which doctors did John Edwards drive out of business?

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 2:13pm

140. Maasch, I'll repeat: lawyers don't sue, their clients do.

     ."and you wonder why most say nobody wins in many cases but the lawyers?"

     most? nah.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 2:14pm

141. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/29/2006 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person

     Yes Johannes, I agree. However, I was trying to focus on lawyers who 'make a lot of money' which seems to be the big criticism of John Edwards. As you clearly noted, there are indeed many criminal lawyers like public defenders (and prosecuters) who rarely do.

     And, while I suppose that sharks like Johnnie Cochran are technically 'part' of the criminal justice system, it certainly seems that they are, more often than not, 'against' it.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 2:20pm

142. You talk good, too, JOHANNESROLF.

     But Safire? That needlenosed grump. Aside from his desire to be the 20th Century's Noah Webster and his stint as a remarkably untalented political analyst, he wouldn't merit a response if he decided to offer his views as an anonymous poster here.

     damn, I can't find my answer to this anywhere. I'll try again. the Safireian description was complimentary, though I join you in detesting that individual. it was tongue in cheek, and referred to the Safire of "nattering nabobs of negativity" a rhetorical peak not yet conquered.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 2:25pm

143. Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

     if you were in the dock, wouldn't you like a shark to represent you, and get you off, instead of the guy who falls asleep during trial, or the drunk who misses filing deadlines. I cannot agree here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 2:28pm

144. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/29/2006 @ 2:25pm

     He is great with individual words or even phrases. Just horrible when trying to use them to express an idea.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2006 @ 2:39pm

145. if you were in the dock, wouldn't you like a shark to represent you, and get you off, instead of the guy who falls asleep during trial, or the drunk who misses filing deadlines.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/29/2006 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person

     I understand your point about competent representation. However, you might be asking your question to the wrong person. If I was innocent of the crime, then yes, I'd want the best there is to help me prove that. But, if I was guilty of a crime, I wouldn't hire a shark just so he could get me off.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 2:40pm

146. Yet, absolutely NO evidence of any kind has been presented to substantiate this. Seems to me that Bruce needs to supply some facts or admit this charge is baseless.

     Again, no facts, just charges.

     Well again Bruce, how did John Edwards drive up malpractice insurance rates and which doctors did John Edwards drive out of business?

     Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 2:13pm

     Too late! PLAIN BRUCE already declared victory. Let's see- who does that remind me of? Neither one of them are very handy with arithmetic. Their forte is misquotes, twisted analogies, and plain old lies.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/29/2006 @ 2:48pm

147. But, if I was guilty of a crime, I wouldn't hire a shark just so he could get me off.

     Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

     say whaaat? especially when you're guilty would you want that shark, nobody, absolutely nobody wants to lose a criminal trial.

     the defendant always has the option of a plea bargain, which is indeed how most criminal trials are decided, and without which our system would cease to function due to being overloaded.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/29/2006 @ 2:50pm

148. But, if I was guilty of a crime, I wouldn't hire a shark just so he could get me off.

     Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

     ROFLMAO....LIL as disengenuous about her future criminal defense as she is on "quoting" people!

     Posted by Mask at 12/29/2006 @ 3:28pm

149. But, if I was guilty of a crime, I wouldn't hire a shark just so he could get me off.

     Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

     ROFLMAO....LIL as disengenuous about her future criminal defense as she is on "quoting" people!

     Posted by MASK 12/29/2006 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person

     Mask, you poor pathetic thing.

     Clearly the concept of personal integrity, like the use or quotes, is far, far too complex for the feable capabilities of your tiny intellect to grasp. Hence, when someone like me says they would NOT try to hire a shark to get me off of a crime for which I was guilty, the concept is so foreign to you that you can ONLY perceive it as "disengenuous".

     So sad for you!

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 4:00pm

150. Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 4:00pm

     No LIL, but the concept of self-aggrandizing bullshit like yours is.

     Posted by Mask at 12/29/2006 @ 5:40pm

151. Mask...personal integrity...the concept is so foreign to you that you can ONLY perceive it as "disengenuous".

     Posted by LILLIAN 12/29/2006 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

     No LIL, but the concept of self-aggrandizing bullshit like yours is.

     Posted by MASK 12/29/2006 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person

     Mask, as everyone here already knows, you have proven yourself to be the KING of self-aggrandising bullshit. And now, faced with something so obviously NOT, that's clearly ALL you can perceive.

     Thanks so much for proving my point so convincingly!

     Posted by Lillian at 12/29/2006 @ 6:18pm

152. Lillian - very nice post earlier.

     Maasch - lawyers don't sue, their clients do.

     Freiheit - I think I got the impression from here -

     contend John Edwards wasn't focused on the mother's interests when he cashed his extortion checks.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:43pm

     Lawyers like Edwards are undermining the belief that our legal system...

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/28/2006 @ 4:46pm

     I should apologize though, b/c your comments are not as bad as others. I should have directed it to Plain Bruce who clearly has an ax to grind . . .

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2006 @ 6:20pm

153. John Edwards should be taken seriously by progressives. He has demonstrated a clear understanding of the tragedy of the growing class disparity in the USA, and the concomitant damage it brings. Bushites correctly feared that had Edwards been at the top of the Dem ticket in 2004 he'd have swept the field. He faced Vice Presidency Cheney in the debates and not only held his own, but some observers believed argued the thuggish Veep down. Don't be so quick to dismiss this man who looks more and more like the real "Mensch."

     Posted by chetking at 12/29/2006 @ 6:20pm

154. Thank you John Nichols. We progressives need to be smart and strategic, and need to influence the dialogue as you have done. We need to look at what kind of people are electable; if we had, we never would have "chosen" Kerry. John Edwards IS America-- and we can never be accused of elitism again.

     Posted by laur at 12/29/2006 @ 7:13pm

155. Edwards has a chance to win back the "Dunkin' Donuts" Democrats--those who work there and those who think the coffee is just fine, thanks, in contrast to Starbucks'. He most definitely "gets it" and connect to an audience.

     Posted by MJFiorello at 12/30/2006 @ 2:16pm

156. I predict that John Edwards will be our next president, and I will be dancing in the street on election day 2008. Elaine (a blue dot in a red state) from South Carolina

     Posted by etaylor at 01/01/2007 @ 10:27am

157. Edwards made the case that the mothers should have gone to c-sxn instead of continuing with labor.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/01/2007 @ 8:38pm | ignore this person

     Bruce, with comments like this one "I have since learned that experts have been saying that it is very rarely due to "doctor's error since before Edwards ever won his first case in this area" you are trying hard to make it sound like Edwards just 'made stuff up' in order to win big awards for his clients. And that's simply NOT true.

     You do understand that the depravation of oxygen to the brain DOES cause brain damage, right? And that nearly ALL hospitals strap fetal heart rate monitors on delivering mothers to monitor for fetal distress during child birth (as was the case with my own 2 children). Hospitals do this with the specific intent that, should the heart monitor show signs that the baby is in distress, the delivering mother is given the option to have a c-section delivery. This is based on the assumption (still in effect in nearly every hospital in this country) that delivering the baby in this manner, under signs of fetal distress, is safer for the baby specifically because it lessens the risk of...you guessed it...brain damage due to oxygen deprevation. (And BTW, in at least SOME of the awards that John Edwards won in these cases, the juries were undeniably influenced by the fact that babies were delivered under these circumstances WITHOUT the mother being given the c-section option at all!)

     So, if John Edwards won many cases in this area, it WASN'T based on some 'junk science' (as your GOP websites are telling you) but on the prevailing medical opinion of the day. While it's true that this opinion is changing (as they ALWAYS DO over time, as new studies confirm or disprove prevailing medical opinions), it is simply false to paint as you do this picture of Edwards denying reliable science or prevailing medical opinion in order to fill his own pockets.

     Posted by Lillian at 01/02/2007 @ 4:49pm

158. And by the way Bruce, I notice that you've based your entire 'premise' on one 'hit piece' "Edwards' malpractice suits leave bitter taste" By Charles Hurt, published in the Washinton Times right after Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. Funny that, with so many doctors being put out of practice by John Edwards, you could only find one, a 'Dr. Sschmitt' (no first name, no hospital of residence, no other identifying info at all) who was cited in this one editorial in the Times as claiming to have quite practicing because his malpractice insurance went up. That's interesting.

     Posted by Lillian at 01/02/2007 @ 4:56pm

159. Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/02/2007 @ 6:01pm | ignore this person

     Bruce, first, you keep pointing to these 'clinical trials' that prove that the vast majority of CP is NOT caused by factors associated with the vaginal child birth process. Yet, you somehow fail to note that these trials are NEW. The most definative was done in 2003! Prior to that, the commonly held mediacl view was that there WAS a correlation. And, despite your assertion that "medical experts have been saying [so] since the early 1980s", any objective, common sense examination of the issue would confirm that this was the commonly held view among medical experts...so much so that nearly every hospital in the country STILL employs the use of fetal heart monitors under the premise that fetal distress during vaginal delivery will precipitate the decision to deliver via c-section. Hello??? Are you so blinded by partisan angst that you refuse to notice that or consider the obvious reason for it?

     As to the oratorical skills of Edwards during litigation, your attempt to claim this amounted to his 'making stuff up' because he was acting "as a medium to talk to the jury" is just laughable! So he was a good lawyer. How do you transform that into a reason to demonize him?

     As to your mis-characterising the GAO report as claiming "that medical malpractice cases are the primary cause of increasing liability rates" is entirely dishonest, as several others on this thread have already pointed out to you. The report lists several causes of medical malpractice rate increases, including poor investments and rate hikes far in excess of the sum of all malpractice awards, which BTW, on the whole, have remained steady in sum, year after year. In fact, while the number of malpractice lawsuits has gone down, and the average award size has increased, the total dollars awarded in medical malpractice suits has remained steady or DECLINED...and yet rates have tripled. Why? Do you even WANT to know?

     And, you want to quote the AMA in North Carolina, but not the insurance industry, which has indicated that the best ways to get rates down are 1) for the AMA to police and punish their own bad doctors and 2) to reform the industry so that insurance companies can pass the high rates on to the bad doctors instead of spreading them to all doctors. Why did you leave those parts out? Is it becuase, as common sense dictates, the fault lies not with lawyers like Edwards but with bad doctors who DO make mistakes and cause great harm and an insurance industry that passes the buck for their mistakes on to good doctors?

     No, instead, what you provided was one doctor's opinion, in one editorial, which came out right after Kerry declared Edwards as his running mate...a doctor who quoted some anecdotal evidence in the guise of some "Dr. Schmitt" who is never even vetted so he can be never tracked and talked to.

     I guess it's just easier to swallow the BS of the haters-of-all-things-Democratic, hook, line, and sinker. I'm sure it's easier for you to believe that John Edwards, all by himself, put all of the ob/gyns out of business in North Carolina, than it is to actually look into the subject and apply some critical thought.

     Wow indeed!

     Posted by Lillian at 01/03/2007 @ 03:07am

160. Edwards lost me last Sunday when he announced that if he was faced with the choice of balancing the budget or providing national healthcare, the budget would just have to wait. Welcome to the world of white trash economics: get the SUV now--worry about paying off the $70,000.00 in high-interest credit card debt later. So long, John. I hardly knew ye.

     Posted by Bob Dobolina at 01/03/2007 @ 2:09pm

161. Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/03/2007 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

     First, I have pointed out repeatedly that the studies were recent--which has been my point all along. The juries' decisions were not based on SCIENCE because the science wasn't available at the time.

     Bruce, seriously, you claim to have "astute reasoning abilities" and yet make these 2 contradictory statements? The prevailing medical opinion of the time WAS that fetal distress during vaginal delivery cuased CP. The study that disproved that prevailing medical opinion hadn't been done yet. You admit that knowbody knew that because, as you stated, "it was IMPOSSIBLE to know". So OBVIOUSLY, the decisions of the juries in these cases WERE based on the prevailing medical opinion of the time...however right or wrong that prevailing medical opinion was at the time!

     You've somehow neglected to grasp that the defendants in every one of these law suits had legal council of their own. If THEIR legal councils didn't get that the prevailing medical opinion of the time was wrong, and present convincing evidence that it was worng, why isn't it THEIR fault also? Oh no, somehow you've reached the conclusion that this was John Edwards' fault, based the ridiculous notion that John Edwards, if he was "honest" should have chucked the prevailing medical opinion of the day and somehow known something that, by your own admission was "IMPOSSIBLE to know."

     Now, speaking of "laughable", let's examine your claim that the rise in malpractice rates has resulted in a "health crisis" in several states. According the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice insurance accounts for no more than 2% of medical costs. Even if we could chop these rates in half, the most we as patients could save is 1%. So how does it make sense to you to blame malpractice rates for any "health crisis"? (Hint - even a limited use of "astute reasoning abilities" would lead one to understand that it DOESN'T make sense!) For actual information regarding what is causing the "health crisis" in the United States, you might try looking here...

     http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

     or here...

     http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n25/HealthCosts.html

     What you'll find is a laundry list of the thinbgs that ACTUALLY are responsible for the "health crisis". The things that are driving the crisis in health care include the cost of perscriptions drugs, the high cost of new technologies, the aging population, and increased demand. And, as the NCHC notes "Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud."

     Finally, let's look at this...

     You seem to think that this just became a problem, but the current rates are based on the results of the past and what the insurance companies expect to have to pay IN THE FUTURE.

     Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 01/03/2007 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

     Just for the record Bruce, that's not quite true. You compleetely left off the part about the insurance companies setting rates based on the performance of their past and current investments. Use that "astute reasoning ability" on this question...why have rates gone up, even though the sum total of all dollars awarded in malpractice suits has been going DOWN? Gee, could it be (as has been noted by several experts as well as your own GAO report) because their investments have been performing quite poorly?

     Posted by Lillian at 01/04/2007 @ 12:19am