Friggin trial lawyers...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=5944

Since 1990, the sums donated to federal political candidates by lawyers—excluding lobbyists—exceed $1 billion, according to CRP. Lawyers as a group have given more to federal candidates than any other industry or profession. Their ability to keep tort reform out of the health-care reform bills is unsurprising: Congressional campaign contributions by lawyers in the last election cycle were about $25 million more than the combined total of political donations from doctors, pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes.
Click to expand...

Interesting....
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=5944



Interesting....
Click to expand...


I'm calling bullshit primarily for two reasons. First, assuming that "lawyers" means "the plaintiffs' bar" is total horseshit. The number of extremely well-paid defense and corporate attorneys dwarfs the number of higly compensated plaintiffs' attorneys and I would suspect that the give a whole lot more that plaintiffs' attorneys.

Second, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate "lobbyists" from "lawyers" based on a contributor's self-reporting. Many lobbyists are lawyers and their contributions are not for purposes of protecting the Plaintiffs' bar but in the iterests of their client.

Third, while I don't disagree that the plaintiffs' bar is powerful and has support among the Democrats, the heathcare reform bill didn't include tort reform explicitly beause there is little evidence that it actually would reduce costs much. A half of one percent isn't much in savings.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm calling bullshit primarily for two reasons. First, assuming that "lawyers" means "the plaintiffs' bar" is total horseshit. The number of extremely well-paid defense and corporate attorneys dwarfs the number of higly compensated plaintiffs' attorneys and I would suspect that the give a whole lot more that plaintiffs' attorneys.

Second, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate "lobbyists" from "lawyers" based on a contributor's self-reporting. Many lobbyists are lawyers and their contributions are not for purposes of protecting the Plaintiffs' bar but in the iterests of their client.

Third, while I don't disagree that the plaintiffs' bar is powerful and has support among the Democrats, the heathcare reform bill didn't include tort reform explicitly beause there is little evidence that it actually would reduce costs much. A half of one percent isn't much in savings.
Click to expand...

true
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm calling bullshit primarily for two reasons. First, assuming that "lawyers" means "the plaintiffs' bar" is total horseshit. The number of extremely well-paid defense and corporate attorneys dwarfs the number of higly compensated plaintiffs' attorneys and I would suspect that the give a whole lot more that plaintiffs' attorneys.

Second, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate "lobbyists" from "lawyers" based on a contributor's self-reporting. Many lobbyists are lawyers and their contributions are not for purposes of protecting the Plaintiffs' bar but in the iterests of their client.

Third, while I don't disagree that the plaintiffs' bar is powerful and has support among the Democrats, the heathcare reform bill didn't include tort reform explicitly beause there is little evidence that it actually would reduce costs much. A half of one percent isn't much in savings.
Click to expand...

A half of one percent? LMAO.... yeah... who created that data? The trial lawyers?

Now tell us... what percent of a hospital bill goes to medical malpractice insurance and defensive medicine?

Also... do point to your study that shows a half of one percent... because my guess is that they include SS as a part of health care costs... like the other somewhat bogus studies I have seen.
 
Superfreak said:
A half of one percent? LMAO.... yeah... who created that data? The trial lawyers?

Now tell us... what percent of a hospital bill goes to medical malpractice insurance and defensive medicine?

Also... do point to your study that shows a half of one percent... because my guess is that they include SS as a part of health care costs... like the other somewhat bogus studies I have seen.
Click to expand...

not very much and in all states where tort reform was implemented, not a single insurance policy decreased, in fact they all increased while claims decreased. if a doctor makes a mistake, are you seriously advocating that no one should be allowed compensation for that?

you need to look at the insurance companies, not tort lawyers. not that i like agreeing with nigel, but he is correct, tort lawyers make up a small percentage of lawyers and medical malpractice lawyers make up an even smaller percentage of those lawyers....that is a fact.
 
Superfreak said:
A half of one percent? LMAO.... yeah... who created that data? The trial lawyers?

Now tell us... what percent of a hospital bill goes to medical malpractice insurance and defensive medicine?

Also... do point to your study that shows a half of one percent... because my guess is that they include SS as a part of health care costs... like the other somewhat bogus studies I have seen.
Click to expand...


Here:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

There is a link to the full report as well.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm calling bullshit primarily for two reasons. First, assuming that "lawyers" means "the plaintiffs' bar" is total horseshit. The number of extremely well-paid defense and corporate attorneys dwarfs the number of higly compensated plaintiffs' attorneys and I would suspect that the give a whole lot more that plaintiffs' attorneys.

Second, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate "lobbyists" from "lawyers" based on a contributor's self-reporting. Many lobbyists are lawyers and their contributions are not for purposes of protecting the Plaintiffs' bar but in the iterests of their client.

Third, while I don't disagree that the plaintiffs' bar is powerful and has support among the Democrats, the heathcare reform bill didn't include tort reform explicitly beause there is little evidence that it actually would reduce costs much. A half of one percent isn't much in savings.
Click to expand...
Nigel PWNS SF!!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nigel PWNS SF!!
Click to expand...

LMAO....

you are simply bitter about being proclaimed a fool in the game.

1) Nigel makes a CLAIM about defense lawyers and corporate lawyers... with nothing to back it up.... so how is that pwning?

2) Nigel doesn't see how it is possible to separate lobbyists who are lawyers from 'lawyers'. Quite frankly... this is just Nigel pwning himself. If someone is a registered lobbyist... then you don't count them... regardless of whether they are a lawyer or not. It is quite simple to exclude them.

3) Do explain how he pwned me here?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO....

you are simply bitter about being proclaimed a fool in the game.

1) Nigel makes a CLAIM about defense lawyers and corporate lawyers... with nothing to back it up.... so how is that pwning?

2) Nigel doesn't see how it is possible to separate lobbyists who are lawyers from 'lawyers'. Quite frankly... this is just Nigel pwning himself. If someone is a registered lobbyist... then you don't count them... regardless of whether they are a lawyer or not. It is quite simple to exclude them.

3) Do explain how he pwned me here?
Click to expand...


1) The author of the piece you link to conflated "lawyers" with "the plaintiffs' bar." I was simply pointing out why the two are not the same thing and that "lawyers" includes lots and lots and lots of well-compensated individuals who are not members of the plaintiffs' bar. The fact that there are lots and lots and lots of well-compensated attorneys who are not members of the Plaintiffs' bar cannot reasonably be disputed.

2) There is nothing to indicate that whomever compiled the information on "lawyer" and "lobbyists" cross-referenced any registered lobbyist database with the contribution database as opposed to simply classifying someone as a "lobbyist" or "lawyer" based on the contributors' self-reporting of their occupation.

3) Obviously, you got uberpwned.
 
OK SF....how many medical malpractice lawyers do you think there are in the US? what percentage of all lawyers do YOU think they make up?
 
Yurt said:
OK SF....how many medical malpractice lawyers do you think there are in the US? what percentage of all lawyers do YOU think they make up?
Click to expand...

so, you are in agreement with the democrats that making a big deal about the impact of medical malpractice on the overall cost of healthcare is a red herring?

got it.

thanks...
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm calling bullshit primarily for two reasons. First, assuming that "lawyers" means "the plaintiffs' bar" is total horseshit. The number of extremely well-paid defense and corporate attorneys dwarfs the number of higly compensated plaintiffs' attorneys and I would suspect that the give a whole lot more that plaintiffs' attorneys.

Second, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate "lobbyists" from "lawyers" based on a contributor's self-reporting. Many lobbyists are lawyers and their contributions are not for purposes of protecting the Plaintiffs' bar but in the iterests of their client.

Third, while I don't disagree that the plaintiffs' bar is powerful and has support among the Democrats, the heathcare reform bill didn't include tort reform explicitly beause there is little evidence that it actually would reduce costs much. A half of one percent isn't much in savings.
Click to expand...

The last point is blatantly false.
"Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and ... insurance premiums went down 30 percent. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40 percent"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...actice-costs-biggest-money-saver-tort-reform/

Ask any doctor out there what cost has gone up for them the most in the last 10 years and medical malpractice insurance is going to be tops.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_average-cost-medical-malpractice-insurance.html
It costs a LOT to defend your practice or even for hospitals to defend themselves against the ease of filing lawsuits that resulted from the last attempt the Democrats did for "reform" with the Patients Rights Act
 
We should all keep in mind that it is not JUST the cost of lawsuits that results in increased cost for insurance, it is also the due diligence needed to AVOID the lawsuits. Like more paperwork for healthcare providers to fill out to avoid lawsuits, more lawyers to be paid to create the paperwork and examine practices, more advertising and political lobbying to counter the trial lawyer influence in DC with them pushing for ever more favorable legislation to help them sue more often and for more.
That last one alone shouldn't be discounted, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is the biggest single group donor that favors the Democrats:
http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce36/ce1196p5.html
And they favor them heavily with 83% of donations going to Dems.

All that before you even get into the COST of actually dealing with the lawsuits when they arise.
 
KingCondanomation said:
The last point is blatantly false.
"Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and ... insurance premiums went down 30 percent. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40 percent"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...actice-costs-biggest-money-saver-tort-reform/
Click to expand...

Learn to read. First, I didn't say that tort reform would not reduce medical malpractice insurance rates. I said it would not reduce healthcare costs that much. My statement is backed up by the most recent analysis from the CBO.

By the way, what has happened to healthcare costs in Texas since tort reform was adopted? Oh, right. Costs have continued to escalate unabated.

Welcome back.
 
Last edited:
KingCondanomation said:
We should all keep in mind that it is not JUST the cost of lawsuits that results in increased cost for insurance, it is also the due diligence needed to AVOID the lawsuits. Like more paperwork for healthcare providers to fill out to avoid lawsuits, more lawyers to be paid to create the paperwork and examine practices, more advertising and political lobbying to counter the trial lawyer influence in DC with them pushing for ever more favorable legislation to help them sue more often and for more.
That last one alone shouldn't be discounted, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is the biggest single group donor that favors the Democrats:
http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce36/ce1196p5.html
And they favor them heavily with 83% of donations going to Dems.

All that before you even get into the COST of actually dealing with the lawsuits when they arise.
Click to expand...


Tell me, why should we listen to somebody that confuses "medical malpractice insurance rates" with "healthcare costs?"
 
Last edited:
1) Very few "trial lawyers" do medical malpractice cases.
2) Its very difficult to do a medical malpractive case.
3) Frivilous cases are very often lost so those lawyers who do them are soon out of business.
4) You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top