When I get home, I'll find the video clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
EDIT: I cant watch this right now, but I think this might be it.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...k+cheney+lying
Printable View
When I get home, I'll find the video clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
EDIT: I cant watch this right now, but I think this might be it.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...k+cheney+lying
To your last comment, Edwards was actually very careful in choosing his cases to avoid the whole "ambulance chaser" image. That said, looking at his record as a lawyer, you could say he only went after high profile cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
I recently heard a lawyer talking about the high price of law these days. For a decent chunk (if not majority) of malpractice cases, they don't get paid unless they win. So all the research they do into prior cases, into company records, etc. come out of their pocket with no guarantee of winning in court and getting paid. That's part of the reason for the big awards.
Take that, and then the fact that the insurance companies have some of the best and most highly paid lawyers in the industry and the deck is automatically stacked against the people who actually deserve compensation from doctors and hopsital systems that have caused them or their loved ones injury.
Bad shit still happens in hospitals. A employee of the company I work for contracted a bad flu 2 years ago. He went into Emory University Hospital, one of the best in the Southeast. He had fluid in one of his lungs. They tried to drain the wrong lung, and collapsed it. They fixed the lung, drained the proper one, then puntured it. Next, they didn't properly maintain his bandages and he got a staph infection. The guy still has to drag an oxygen tank around with him everywhere he goes to this day. He consulted with several lawyers and found that he'd be waiting at least 3~4 years for a lawsuit to conclude. He had neither the time nor energy to pursue that.
My point with that little story is shit still happens. Insurance companies would love nothing more than for it to become more difficult to sue them. I guarantee that even if the Repulican based tort reform bills passed (limiting awards to $250,000) that malpractice insurance rates would not decrease that much.
Are there too many malpratice suits and inflated awards out there? Yes. Putting a blanket limit on all potential victims isn't necessarily the answer though. Plus, limiting the payout to lawyers @ 5% of the award to encourage the lawyers who are out to help others (and not themselves) won't work; That'd leave 9 lawyers in the US to take care of all these lawsuits. :)
As to the debate, Cheney did a hell of a lot better than I expected. To the point that I'd say he may have won. Edwards was not on his game last night, IMO. Both men cited plenty of twisted facts (wouldn't be a debate without that), and both got some barbs into the other. It was nice to see Cheney respond with a simple "thank you, Sen. Edwards for your kind comments on my family." That was amazingly humanizing for Darth Cheney. I love Edwards, but last night, I was not very impressed.
Probably my favorite part of the night was when Cheney invoked a website I suggest everyone frequent, www.factcheck.org. (Although he called it factcheck.com). The best part was he said articles on the site show what Edwards was saying about Haliburton were false, when in actuality, they back Edwards up. :) Kerry/Edwards need to let go of the $200 billion figure though. It's funny math they can't defend. Not the best debate in the world, but it could have been worse, I suppose.
Speaking of Cheney mentioning Factcheck.com (instead of factcheck.org), looks like someone decided to capitalize on the mistake:
Quote:
Financier George Soros already has billions in the bank, but the move he just pulled today is priceless! You may remember our favorite moment in last night's debate -- when Cheney asserted he didn't have time to bore listeners with a defense of his actions as CEO of the corrupt Halliburton Corp., but that viewers could get all the info by clicking on a Web site: "Factcheck.com."
The episode was the ultimate metaphor for Cheney's twisted relationship with the truth. The Web site he was apparently trying to tout -- you never know with these guys -- is actually factcheck.org, a non-partisan political information site run right here in Philly, by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications. The Cheney misinfo led thousands of viewers to a site that didn't really exist.
Of course, the name -- like most viable domain names -- had been earlier snapped up by the Domain Name Sales Corp. located in the Caribbean. (Which is probably where Cheney should stash some of the millions he made at the oil-services giant).
Enter George Soros: the Hungarian-born hedge-fund genius who made billions on the American stock market, and has spent millions of that fortune on trying to get George W. Bush -- whose Iraq invasion Soros considers an outrage -- out of the White House. In recent weeks, Soros has kicked it up a notch with an anti-Bush book, a speaking tour (which stops in Philly today!), and now a highly charged, highly promoted Web site, georgesoros.com.
Well, Soros or his "people" must have been watching last night, because within minutes of Cheney's gaffe, the billionaire went out and rented the address from the good folks down in the islands. And so now, anyone who watched the debate and wants to learn more about Cheney and Halliburton, instead gets this headline:
"President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values."
Funnier yet is that factcheck.com brings you to the phialntropist George Soros website and has a big headline when you enter saying "WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
EDIT: Damn.
http://www.georgesoros.com/images/so...ader_on_01.jpg
Thank you Dick.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As soon as Yoshi mentioned MSNBC, I knew that some braindead liberal was going to bring up Fox News, even though nobody mentioned it in this thread, and nobody used a Fox News article as a source to prove a point.
Good job g0zen.
Damn. What Soros did with FactCheck.com is hilarious. Gotta be careful with how you cite your sources.
Nonetheless, I think it was ill-advised of Cheney to direct users to FactCheck.org, because it list articles that state contradicitions and mistruths of the Bush campaign (as well as those of Kerry's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Medical related lawsuits in regards to tort reform are a bit more diverse than you are giving them credit for. I think we can all agree that someone should pay to help a person when and if something horrible happens to them. But the reality is that a lot of lawsuits filed are not like those.
In this day and age people sue in groups, and get in these groups regardless if they have any damages. If a pill is taken off the market and one person sues it is very common for virtually everyone to sue, even if they have had no side effects. Even worse yet, lawyers will go as far to sue people not at fault for the damages of the medication. In this types of cases it is normal to sue the pharmacist and the doctor, when all blame is obviously that of the drug maker.
Yes, I agree with you that if a doctor knowingly prescribes something they know will hurt someone they should get sued. But these doctors and pharmacist are getting sued just because they had something to do with someone else taking it.
I for one do not think that doctors and pharmacist should be punished for taking a drug manufacture at their word and thinking that something is ok. But this problem continues because lawyers know that by suing the pharmacist and the doctor they increase their chances of keeping the lawsuit in a lower court and by doing that they increase their chances of a large settlement.
I don’t really care what anyone else thinks, but it is wrong to hurt two people for doing their job. Especially when there job is to help people. What kind of message does that send?
This isn't in rare cases either. It is a normal practice. So much so that there is a county in Mississippi that the majority of it's income comes from lawsuits. There is a backlash from this that is hurting my state. This sort of stuff effects all business, and it is now hard to get any new factories to come to MS. There have been many that flat out said that the reason they are not coming was because of how badly the state needed Tor reform. These sorts of lawsuits were the deciding factor in them coming and providing new jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
I don't really have a lot of pitty for them on that issue. Doctors have been receiving lower wages or no wages at all for medicare and medicaid patents for forever now. They put up with it for the good of the people they are helping.
Maybe Lawyers would be a little bit more eager to get this problem solved if they got payed through this manner.
As it is now many lawyers get more than 50% of the money won in a lawsuit. They can take up to 1/3 of the winnings, and THEN make the person pay fees on their services.
Tort reform is a serious problem. It isn't just a bunch of silly rich doctors crying about not being able to buy a hummer this year. It effects all business and in doing so effects everyone. It is one of the big factors in driving up the prices on the goods and services we buy every day. It is also one of the big reasons health care cost so much in the U.S.
In my own opinion Democrats would get more support from Republicans for a national healthcare system IF we got Tort reform. Many republicans do not believe in Social security and a National Health Care system because of under the current system of doing things, it could very well bankrupt the nation. The lower that SS and NHC can be made to cost, the more suport that it will get from nondemocratic parties.
The flaws with Edwards idea of Tort Reform is for one, making lawyers go through a comity to get approval only creates more red tape for those who need it. How many years could getting approval add to a court case?
Secondly, that sort of thing is open to abuse. Who decides who is on the comity? What sort of guide lines are we going to set for this?
Thirdly, this is going to be lawyers giving the reach around for other lawyers. It isn't going to be people outside the system with some form of comme sense on this comity. It will be other lawyers. People watch out for their own, and there will be slack given to those who don't deserve it.