Third Party Politics

[sleeve]

Fuck Edwards. He was a fucking trial lawyer.

He's smarter than you.

His ideas about tort reform were a horrible joke for the little guy. He wanted to make a committee of lawyers for people to go up against before they could sew people.

I don't understand. Does this mean you're opposed to "tort reform" (an extremely broad and imprecise term in itself)?

From your mangled summation it's tough to tell, but I'm guessing you're referring to one of Edwards's medical malpractice reform proposals. He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court. A mild proposal to be sure, one many times milder than his opponents' proposals -- which, I assure you, would be much harder on "the little guy."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040126.html

People would have to start suing for more to pay their lawyers for that extra work.

This statement doesn't make any sense, so I'll just interject this thought: how could Edwards's proposal make the present personal injury/malpractice climate any worse? Attorneys turn down clients all the time because their claims aren't worth enough money to justify any expenditure of time and work.

Suing people is much more expensive than you think.

[Fe 26]

He's smarter than you.

Lets not beat around the bush Sleeve. Why don't you go ahead and call me a fucktard so I can report you.

I don't understand. Does this mean you're opposed to "tort reform" (an extremely broad and imprecise term in itself)?

From your mangled summation it's tough to tell, but I'm guessing you're referring to one of Edwards's medical malpractice reform proposals. He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court. A mild proposal to be sure, one many times milder than his opponents' proposals -- which, I assure you, would be much harder on "the little guy."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040126.html

Don't be a gozen and assume that because I'm not for A, I must be for B.

I don't know if you are getting "He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court." from the internet or your own memory but I distinctly remember him saying that at least in part said group would have trial lawyers on it. This was when he was asked point blank about it on tv.

how could Edwards's proposal make the present personal injury/malpractice climate any worse?

that is a retarded reason to do anything that has to do with human life. People need to put this shit into practice because they believe in it, not because "eh, what could it hurt?"

Suing people is much more expensive

thank you captain fucking obvious.

[sleeve]

Don't be a gozen and assume that because I'm not for A, I must be for B.

I'm not in the habit of assuming anything.

From your posts, it is unclear what you are "for", hence my question. Given your distaste for Edwards's malpractice reform proposal (which, incidentally, was based on a complete misunderstanding of that proposal) and your own response, you appear to favor a policy that would protect the interests of "the little guy." And yet you show at least an inkling of support for damage caps, which have nothing but bad repercussions for personal injury/malpractice plaintiffs.

This leads me to believe that you, in fact, do not know what you are talking about.

I don't know if you are getting "He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court." from the internet or your own memory but I distinctly remember him saying that at least in part said group would have trial lawyers on it.

Did I ever say that such a panel would not have trial lawyers on it? They are experts, after all.

that is a retarded reason to do anything that has to do with human life. People need to put this shit into practice because they believe in it, not because "eh, what could it hurt?"

Let me put it another way. The legal system is extremely expensive, and heavily weighted towards defendants (in civil cases). As such, it is extremely difficult for individual plaintiffs to prevail in malpractice and negligence lawsuits, for myriad reasons. You haven't provided any persuasive reasons why Edwards's extremely mild proposal would have caused the problems you fear. In fact, the competing proposals of Republicans would ironically cause the problems you seem to be concerned about.

(Let me just disclaim that I am no way in favor of this proposal. I think it's unnecessary, redundant, and probably too expensive. But keep in mind that Edwards's idea is really just a cog in a vastly complicated Democratic counterproposal for tort reform that will never see the light of day, and it should be viewed within that context.)

[Fe 26]

I'm not in the habit of assuming anything.

From your posts, it is unclear what you are "for", hence my question. Given your distaste for Edwards's malpractice reform proposal (which, incidentally, was based on a complete misunderstanding of that proposal) and your own response, you appear to favor a policy that would protect the interests of "the little guy." And yet you show at least an inkling of support for damage caps, which have nothing but bad repercussions for personal injury/malpractice plaintiffs.

I did not say that I was in favor of caps. I just said that some money was better than no money. Which is a realistic possibility where your lawsuit can be flat out denied existence.

I don't see how I misunderstood anything. You admit that the approval group will have trial lawyers on it, and you admit that a person has to have the approval of this group to proceed with their lawsuit. Neither of those facts discredits my assertion that this would add time and money to an already long and expensive process. It also does nothing to discredit my assertion that this would put more power in the hands of the rich because they can afford better lawyers to argue their POV to said group. It will essentially add another litigation layer that the rich will have an upper hand against.

Let me put it another way. The legal system is extremely expensive, and heavily weighted towards defendants (in civil cases). As such, it is extremely difficult for individual plaintiffs to prevail in malpractice and negligence lawsuits, for myriad reasons. You haven't provided any persuasive reasons why Edwards's extremely mild proposal would have caused the problems you fear. In fact, the competing proposals of Republicans would ironically cause the problems you seem to be concerned about.

(Let me just disclaim that I am no way in favor of this proposal. I think it's unnecessary, redundant, and probably too expensive.)

Yes, the law system is bad for individual plaintiffs. Everyone knows this. But the current way of getting around this is shitty. Typically what lawyers do is try to get as many people in on a lawsuit as possible. They then sue everyone involved. In the case of medical stuff, they will sue the clinic, doctor, pharmacist, drug company and/or hospital. In doing so, they manage to keep the case in lower courts (because the doctor and pharmacist are individuals) and are statistically more capable of winning the case. It can be argued that this is a dirty practice because often times not all of the people getting sued played any part in hurting anyone. Normally it is only one or two people at fault, or a pharmaceutical company is entirely at fault. BUT the good thing about doing it this way is that the cost of litigation is spread out between all the people who sue as a group.

I don't see how the "cap" idea (the only republican reform policy brought up so far) would necessarily cause all the problems I said Edwards idea had. Caps would not increase litigation time nor would they flat out deny people the right to sue. The only problem that it would share with what I accused Edwards’ idea of is that it would limit how much money they were awarded, which could be a very bad thing, depending on how big the cap is.

As for what I'm for, I am for a compromise. When people get hurt they need help, however the current situation of lawsuits is hurting everyone. Everyone factors this cost into their end cost, driving up prices for everyone. It also hurts some areas’ access to qualified medical care. Some states our having trouble keeping professionals like baby doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. In places like the south, there are literally a few counties where the average source of income is from people winning lawsuits over diet pills. One of the reasons Republicans are so for cap TORT reform, is because it is their retarded redneck relatives that are filing so many of the bullshit claims.

So I'm not really for either plan. I read about a really good idea two years ago and posted the link here. I'll have to dig for it.

(But keep in mind that Edwards's idea is really just a cog in a vastly complicated Democratic counterproposal for tort reform that will never see the light of day, and it should be viewed within that context.)

I think we all know this. It was just another "gay marriage" issue, used to get people emotional before voting day.

In the end nothing will be fixed, people wont get money to fix their broken legs, but old women will get two mill for eating hot french fries, and the rest of us will have to pay larger cost to make up for these huge settlements.

[sleeve]

I did not say that I was in favor of caps. I just said that some money was better than no money. Which is a realistic possibility where your lawsuit can be flat out denied existence.

Most lawsuits are in fact "flat out denied existence" under our present legal system. Only a small minority survive summary judgment, let alone prevail at trial.

I don't see how I misunderstood anything. You admit that the approval group will have trial lawyers on it, and you admit that a person has to have the approval of this group to proceed with their lawsuit.

I'm not "admitting" anything, I just summarized my understanding of Edwards's proposal.

Neither of those facts discredits my assertion that this would add time and money to an already long and expensive process.

Neither you nor I know the full details of this proposal, but speaking from personal knowledge and experience, it doesn't sound like it would make the process more expensive than it already is. In other words, I doubt that this idea would bring the entire malpractice/negligence industry to a screeching halt. Might put more money in the pockets of a few experts, but that's about it.

It also does nothing to discredit my assertion that this would put more power in the hands of the rich because they can afford better lawyers to argue their POV to said group. It will essentially add another litigation layer that the rich will have an upper hand against.

If I understand the Edwards proposal correctly, it's a simple certification panel, not an adversarial hearing. In other words, the defendant-to-be would not have the opportunity to preemptively argue against the complaint before it is even filed. The panel would simply review the claim on the merits.

It can be argued that this is a dirty practice because often times not all of the people getting sued played any part in hurting anyone. Normally it is only one or two people at fault, or a pharmaceutical company is entirely at fault. BUT the good thing about doing it this way is that the cost of litigation is spread out between all the people who sue as a group.

You're conflating a lot of legal scenarios here into one unwieldy straw-man, but I'll ignore it and say yes, class action lawsuits are one way to reduce costs among multiple plaintiffs (if that was what you were trying to say).

I don't see how the "cap" idea (the only republican reform policy brought up so far) would necessarily cause all the problems I said Edwards idea had.

To pick a few examples, damage award caps and limits on class action filings means that fewer plaintiff's attorneys will be able to shoulder the expense of filing and prosecuting lawsuits. Don't forget that the vast majority of malpractice/negligence cases are handled on a contingency basis. Republican proposals, on the whole, generally make it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover any money at all.

Caps would not increase litigation time nor would they flat out deny people the right to sue.

Nor would the Edwards plan (at least, no more than the current system).

The only problem that it would share with what I accused Edwards’ idea of is that it would limit how much money they were awarded, which could be a very bad thing, depending on how big the cap is.

The problems with tort reform go much deeper than that, as I suggested above.

As for what I'm for, I am for a compromise. When people get hurt they need help, however the current situation of lawsuits is hurting everyone. Everyone factors this cost into their end cost, driving up prices for everyone. It also hurts some areas’ access to qualified medical care. Some states our having trouble keeping professionals like baby doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. In places like the south, there are literally a few counties where the average source of income is from people winning lawsuits over diet pills. That is one of the reasons Republicans are so for caps, is because their redneck relatives are the very ones shitty enough to sue over stupid shit.

Malpractice insurance is a complicated problem, one that implicates both the legal system and the medical profession itself. Tort reform without meaningful reform of state medical licensure boards only punishes the victims of legitimate malpractice.

[Fe 26]

Neither you nor I know the full details of this proposal, but speaking from personal knowledge and experience, it doesn't sound like it would make the process more expensive than it already is. In other words, I doubt that this idea would bring the entire malpractice/negligence industry to a screeching halt. Might put more money in the pockets of a few experts, but that's about it.

From the link you gave, "He suggests that a lawyer who brings three frivolous lawsuits should be forbidden from bringing another one for ten years" sounds like very serious business. I have a hard time believing something with that kind of authority, wouldn't add cost.

If I understand the Edwards proposal correctly, it's a simple certification panel, not an adversarial hearing. In other words, the defendant-to-be would not have the opportunity to preemptively argue against the complaint before it is even filed. The panel would simply review the claim on the merits.

I've yet to read or hear anything about how he plans for this to work. I don't believe he has discussed how the three parties will interact.

You're conflating a lot of legal scenarios here into one unwieldy straw-man,

No, I am not. I have personally seen that scenario play out two or three times.

The problems with tort reform go much deeper than that, as I suggested above.

I don't believe I ever said otherwise. There is a difference between talking about the differences between two policies and talking about the entire beast that is tort reform.

EDIT: I don't really wish to discuss this further. Unless you plan on providing insights that only a person like you would have, I think continuing will be pointless. You obviously feel you have a very informed and superior opinion about this and I'm not really equipped with the vocabulary to argue with you about it. I'm interested in knowing more, but not in having my points pushed aside because I’m not an authority.

[Diff-chan]

This thread reminds me of StriderKyo's post about buttcheeks. You know, the one about not wanting to argue with the retarded kid.

[g0zen]

I didn't vote. I believe the choice of no action is still a choice. I voted by not voting.

I don't buy this excuse. You're not proving anything to politicans by not voting except that you don't care about democracy.

That is only one option and perhaps not the best one.

You have a better one?

When that is the only option you give the people you put more power in the hands of the insane.

Wrong, just because wackos have been the only ones to effectively organize in politics over the last twenty or so years doesn't mean they're the only ones capable of doing it.

Everyone else, that is sane, is busy trying to get through their day.

If they cared enough about seeing a change they'd make the time. Though, you haphazardly bring up a good point; national election days should be official holidays and / or workers should not be able to be penalized for showing up late or leaving early in order to vote.

[Yoshi]

I have a new strategy for political threads. If buttplant chimes in even remotely close to my side, I'm leaving the thread. He's like a homicide bomber that accidentially detonates in a mosque.

[Prince Planet]

Most lawsuits are in fact "flat out denied existence" under our present legal system. Only a small minority survive summary judgment, let alone prevail at trial.

Hmmmm.