There is only one thing to say here

"I've been briefly skimming through this, what does Edwards being a trial lawyer have to do with Mrs. Edwards Cancer and what does that have to do with Jerry Falwell?"

Darla mentioned that Falwells wife must be a pig since she thought Jerry was a pig and that anyone who stayed with Jerry must be a pig.... blah blah blah....

So I mentioned that Edwards was a slimy trial lawyer and that anyone who stayed with him must therefore also be slimy and not worthy of respect or compassion.... blah blah blah....
 
Superfreak said:
"They are true capitalists, yes. They play supply and demand."

Very true.

"Why does it only bother republicans when trial lawyers play the capitalism game so well? "

Probably has something to do with responses like yours. That you think it is necessary to have the trial lawyers and you do not mind that they take advantage of supply and demand.... yet if we were talking about an oil company making 40% profit margins... just how many on the left would have their heads explode trying to spew forth the criminal behavior of the evil evil corps?

"What's the problem with the trial lawyer? He's taking his cut, but he's at least getting a cut for someone else too"

Yes... which is what the corporations tend to do for their shareholders as well.
Click to expand...


Shareholders already have protections. The worker and the consumer do not. The trial lawyer is their protection, especially in the age of deregulation. They make some small attempt to level the playing field.

I'm sorry that disturbs you so much...but I think we need them.
 
Lawyers are important and we need trial lawyers. Many lawyers engage in questionable actions but I don't condemn the profession as a whole.
 
I wouldn't take Darla's musings on this too seriously. I don't think they are meant to convey a point and are instead just a stream of consciousness on the matter. Its not the foundation of some intellectual structured thought.
 
Damocles said:
One person "laughed" because they hated Falwell, another "laughed" because they hated trial lawyers. One person said that those closest to Falwell must all be pigs because they associated with a pig, another said that Edwards wife must be scum because Edwards is scum.

I think the association is pretty clear there, LadyT
Click to expand...

If you have an irrational hatred of John Edwards or a deep-seated jealousy of rich trial lawyers, I guess it's "clear".

I don't think it's obvious to anyone other than SF that Edwards has done more harm than good in his life. But he's entitled to that opinion. It doesn't upset me. Why my opinions of Falwell upset others here to the point they had to start spitting about Edwards, is the interesting question.

And there can be no doubt, protestations aside, that it's upset people.
 
"Health care costs are high for many reasons, the least of which is, malpractice settlements, contrary to right wing myth. But SF, if you'd rather live in a country where you can go to a doctor to have your left testicle removed, and he can accidently remove your right testicle, and then you end up with no testicles, then we can certainly find a country like that for you."

What a load of shit. Malpractice settlements are THE reason malpractice insurance is so high for doctors. That higher malpractice insurance cost gets passed right on to you and I in the form of higher medical costs. When our insurance has to pay those higher medical costs, they in turn raise our individual rates to compensate.... because they are not going to lose money. It is the theory of hit the insurance companies hard bullshit that is driving up the costs. Tell me ONE thing that drives up medical costs more than this cycle.

As for the drug companies... you are insane if you think advertising is the main cost. The R&D for all failed drugs are typically recouped (or at least as much as possible) in the costs of the drugs that do get FDA approval. They also factor in the costs of lawsuits.... like Vioxx for example.
 
"Shareholders already have protections."

Really... just what protections did the Enron stockholders have? They filed a lawsuit and got screwed. As did the bondholders.

"The worker and the consumer do not. The trial lawyer is their protection, especially in the age of deregulation. They make some small attempt to level the playing field.

I'm sorry that disturbs you so much...but I think we need them."

As I already said, I think we need them as well. But that does not justify the lawyers fleecing of the people.... just because they can.... unless of course you are saying it is okay for the corporations to make as much as they can as well. You cannot have it both ways.
 
"I don't think it's obvious to anyone other than SF that Edwards has done more harm than good in his life. But he's entitled to that opinion. It doesn't upset me. Why my opinions of Falwell upset others here to the point they had to start spitting about Edwards, is the interesting question"

IF you still fail to see the comparison, then there is nothing further I can do to help you see it. You are blinded by your hatred of the right... I understand. I personally could care less about Edwards individually. I do have a problem with the trial lawyers as I think they have duped way to many people like you into believing that they are as a whole working to protect the people.
 
Superfreak said:
"Shareholders already have protections."

Really... just what protections did the Enron stockholders have? They filed a lawsuit and got screwed. As did the bondholders.

"The worker and the consumer do not. The trial lawyer is their protection, especially in the age of deregulation. They make some small attempt to level the playing field.

I'm sorry that disturbs you so much...but I think we need them."

As I already said, I think we need them as well. But that does not justify the lawyers fleecing of the people.... just because they can.... unless of course you are saying it is okay for the corporations to make as much as they can as well. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

As I already said, I think we need them as well. But that does not justify the lawyers fleecing of the people.... just because they can.... unless of course you are saying it is okay for the corporations to make as much as they can as well. You cannot have it both ways


I can't speak for all liberals, but I can't recall ever once suggesting that Exxon or General Motors can't make as much profit as they can within the law.

I have said that - given that oil is over 60 dollars a barrel, and Exxon is making record profits - they do not need the special tax breaks that Bush gave them in 2003, and they definetly don't need a plethora of offshore tax havens to avoid american taxes.


Sfreak, honestly you should be glad we have the legal system we do. One thing that is great about america, is that we are the most progressive country on the planet when it comes to protecting individual rights. Even the allegedly "enlightened" western europe doesn't come close to us.

If a Shell Oil refinery in France poisons your child through criminal neglect, or malfesance, you as a french citizen have virutally no recourse for legal redress. You will be told to shut up and deal with it.

This country is pretty much the only one on the planet, that at least makes a nominal attempt to balance the rights of the average citizen, against large, wealthy business and corporate interests.
 
What a load of shit. Malpractice settlements are THE reason malpractice insurance is so high for doctors. That higher malpractice insurance cost gets passed right on to you and I in the form of higher medical costs"

Sorry Sf. No matter how emotional you get over this, and even if you start to cry, it won't change the fact that you've been had.

You're perpetuating a right wing myth.

The CBO, has stated, that malpractice insurance accounts for less than two percent of health care spending.

Sorry. If it makes you feel better, no matter how many times the CBO, or rational people state and restate this fact, there will always be right wingers in hysterics over the myth, unable to accept the facts. So you will have company and some of them, I'm sure, will have crying towels.
 
Superfreak said:
"Shareholders already have protections."

Really... just what protections did the Enron stockholders have? They filed a lawsuit and got screwed. As did the bondholders.

"The worker and the consumer do not. The trial lawyer is their protection, especially in the age of deregulation. They make some small attempt to level the playing field.

I'm sorry that disturbs you so much...but I think we need them."

As I already said, I think we need them as well. But that does not justify the lawyers fleecing of the people.... just because they can.... unless of course you are saying it is okay for the corporations to make as much as they can as well. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Who said corporations can't make as much as they can, as long as they do not kill anybody, or break laws?
We are simply talking about a countervailing force, that's all.
 
That's exaclty right Darla. The most non-partisan, and independent analyses (CBO - I think your right) have concluded that legal malpractice suite are an infintesimally small part of medical expenses, and the rates at which they rise.
 
Darla said:
If you have an irrational hatred of John Edwards or a deep-seated jealousy of rich trial lawyers, I guess it's "clear".

I don't think it's obvious to anyone other than SF that Edwards has done more harm than good in his life. But he's entitled to that opinion. It doesn't upset me. Why my opinions of Falwell upset others here to the point they had to start spitting about Edwards, is the interesting question.

And there can be no doubt, protestations aside, that it's upset people.
Click to expand...
They seem to equate regardless of how I feel about trial lawyers.

As I said, many were saying how uncompassionate all Rs were because of the reaction some few had towards Edwards. In this case it is the opposite as some bathe in the glow of perceived schadenfruede over a "loss" on the other side.

To me it is all academic, I expressed my only opinion earlier. I feel compassion toward his family. I do not assume that every person in his family are even close to the same belief as Falwell. Mostly because I do not have the same belief as mine.

It seems that the same people who express outrage over Phelp's perceived schadenfruede over the deaths of others who are "evil", according to him, are the ones displaying the same emotion towards Falwell.

This emotion is natural among humans, however much I fail to understand it.
 
As for the drug companies... you are insane if you think advertising is the main cost. The R&D for all failed drugs are typically recouped (or at least as much as possible) in the costs of the drugs that do get FDA approval. They also factor in the costs of lawsuits.... like Vioxx for example.

I might be "insane" but that still won't change the fact that pharma outlays for advertising drawf their outlays for R & D, and this does NOT factor in "recouping" their costs. This is just a fact, and one that in many circles, is a well-known one.

I'm sorry that when the kill people, they have to pay for that...but this still hasn't affected their standing as the most profitable industry in the country. So I think they'll be ok even with a few death-benefit pay outs. I mean, you know, more ok than the dead people certainly.
 
Cypress said:
That's exaclty right Darla. The most non-partisan, and independent analyses (CBO - I think your right) have concluded that legal malpractice suite are an infintesimally small part of medical expenses, and the rates at which they rise.
Click to expand...

I know this, but how do you get right wingers so steeped in mythology to understand this?
 
"I can't speak for all liberals, but I can't recall ever once suggesting that Exxon or General Motors can't make as much profit as they can within the law."

I understand you cannot, but how many damn threads just on these two sites were started solely on the Exxon making too much profit? People bitching and moaning about it consistently.

"I have said that - given that oil is over 60 dollars a barrel, and Exxon is making record profits - they do not need the special tax breaks that Bush gave them in 2003, and they definetly don't need a plethora of offshore tax havens to avoid american taxes. "

Absolutely NO argument from me. (just for clarification... many of the tax breaks and subsidies they have gotten have been around much longer than 2003)

"Sfreak, honestly you should be glad we have the legal system we do. One thing that is great about america, is that we are the most progressive country on the planet when it comes to protecting individual rights. Even the allegedly "enlightened" western europe doesn't come close to us. "

I agree with you with regards to the system. My problem comes with the monetary awards. They are outrageous and WAY too many people believe that they are justified.... yet few seem to understand that WE are the ones that are paying for them.

"If a Shell Oil refinery in France poisons your child through criminal neglect, or malfesance, you as a french citizen have virutally no recourse for legal redress. You will be told to shut up and deal with it. "

True. Again, I do not have a problem with the system. It is the insane awards that are given out.

"This country is pretty much the only one on the planet, that at least makes a nominal attempt to balance the rights of the average citizen, against large, wealthy business and corporate interests."

Again, agreed.
 
Darla said:
I know this, but how do you get right wingers so steeped in mythology to understand this?
Click to expand...


I don't know if you read Joe Conason's (I think) book on the right wing media, but this is exactly why they created partisan rightwing think tanks - Cato, Heritage, etc - because, too often, the facts from non-partisan sources (read: CBO, IPCC, National Science Foundation, etc) debunked rightwing talking points.
 
Superfreak said:
"I don't think it's obvious to anyone other than SF that Edwards has done more harm than good in his life. But he's entitled to that opinion. It doesn't upset me. Why my opinions of Falwell upset others here to the point they had to start spitting about Edwards, is the interesting question"

IF you still fail to see the comparison, then there is nothing further I can do to help you see it. You are blinded by your hatred of the right... I understand. I personally could care less about Edwards individually. I do have a problem with the trial lawyers as I think they have duped way to many people like you into believing that they are as a whole working to protect the people.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if their personal motivation is to "protect the people" or to become rich. My guess is, they're not monolithic. Some do it for the first reason, some for the second one. Most, probably do it for both reasons.

What matters is, the affect they end up having on society. My opinion is it is an overall beneficial one.
 
"The CBO, has stated, that malpractice insurance accounts for less than two percent of health care spending."

Tell you what Darla... SHOW me their breakdown of healthcare spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top