Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Yeah, that's right. I remember all the post election recounts that went VP Gore's way. Oh yeah, there weren't any. 70134[/snapback] As you do sometimes, you are missing the point. When Bush NEEDED lawyers, you did not hear him or any other Republican complaining about them. This is true with most people who bash lawyers. Once they need one, they view lawyers in a completely different light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 He won because of a team of lawyers who represented him in the recount fight as well as the five lawyers that voted for him on the Supremes. Bush should love lawyers given that he would not be President without their help. 70129[/snapback] Yeah. Or maybe if crooked local election officials in Democratic counties weren't trying to steal the election by running to local courts to allow bogus and illegal 'recounts', there wouldn't have been a need for lawyers and USSC justices to be involved. Nice attempt at revisionist history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Yeah. Or maybe if crooked local election officials in Democratic counties weren't trying to steal the election by running to local courts to allow bogus and illegal 'recounts', there wouldn't have been a need for lawyers and USSC justices to be involved. Nice attempt at revisionist history. 70151[/snapback] You are missing my point. My post has less to do with the merits of that case than the fact that Bush, like everyone else, has a different view of lawyers depending on whether he needed them. Blaming lawyers for everything is BS. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg of your kid or gives him the wrong prescription etc., your view of lawyers will change too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Try blowing another note on that horn sometimes. 70000[/snapback] Try looking into why public health in general is so !@#$ed up in this country before you criticize. The simple fact is: liability concerns drove vaccine makers out of business and out of the market. It started with the Swine Flu campaign in 1976. Period. End of story. If you want to increase domestic manufacture of vaccines, you have to address the issue of manufacturer liability!!! No one's going to manufacture and sell vaccines in the US when liability risk increases the cost by a factor of ten. For example: the cost of flu vaccination for the entire population in 1976 was budgeted at $131 million...ultimately, $3.2 BILLION dollars in claims were brought against the government (which had indemnified the drug industry against liability in that single case). In other words, liability claims increased the cost of the vaccination (which was a very save vaccine, by the way...serious side effects occurred at a rate of only 2 per hundred thousand) by a factor of 24!!!! So tell me again it's because of politics, or manufacturing difficulties, or some grand Bush conspiracy theory. And don't forget to file that lawsuit when your son develops autism six weeks after getting his MMR vaccination...even though it's been proven there's no connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Try looking into why public health in general is so !@#$ed up in this country before you criticize. The simple fact is: liability concerns drove vaccine makers out of business and out of the market. It started with the Swine Flu campaign in 1976. Toot toot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Begining of the end... The New Mantra: The Federal Government is my DADDY. Stareted with Carter and became an art form with Clinton. 70024[/snapback] What is Bush then? A Grand Master? He hasn't seen a spending bill he couldn't pass fast enough. Why doesn't Bush debate the 1.6 million job loss figures that Kerry keeps spouting, when the actual job loss is somewhere around 800,000? Because under Bush, the federal daddyment created 800,000 new government jobs. Eight hundred freaking thousand new government jobs in four years. FDR would be jealous. Where's the TVA? And how about all the nanny-fication Bills Bush supports. He wants to be in consenting adult marriage ceremonies. He sicks his hound Ashcroft on our civil liberties. These socialists-in-conservative-clothes are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 As you do sometimes, you are missing the point. When Bush NEEDED lawyers, you did not hear him or any other Republican complaining about them. This is true with most people who bash lawyers. Once they need one, they view lawyers in a completely different light. 70146[/snapback] THAT was the point? Nice "lahjik" Pete. The legal community in this country is evil. Nice people practicing in it or requiring the services of same aren't going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 What is Bush then? A Grand Master? He hasn't seen a spending bill he couldn't pass fast enough. Why doesn't Bush debate the 1.6 million job loss figures that Kerry keeps spouting, when the actual job loss is somewhere around 800,000? Because under Bush, the federal daddyment created 800,000 new government jobs. Eight hundred freaking thousand new government jobs in four years. FDR would be jealous. Where's the TVA? Another reason I wish the words conservative and liberal would just go away. They do not represent either political group anymore. There was a time when the republican party was for less federal govt - hasn't been the case in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 What is Bush then? A Grand Master? He hasn't seen a spending bill he couldn't pass fast enough. Why doesn't Bush debate the 1.6 million job loss figures that Kerry keeps spouting, when the actual job loss is somewhere around 800,000? Because under Bush, the federal daddyment created 800,000 new government jobs. Eight hundred freaking thousand new government jobs in four years. FDR would be jealous. Where's the TVA? And how about all the nanny-fication Bills Bush supports. He wants to be in consenting adult marriage ceremonies. He sicks his hound Ashcroft on our civil liberties. These socialists-in-conservative-clothes are pathetic. 70314[/snapback] What can Bush/Kerry do? I'm all for reduction in government employment, but as the populace demands more and more of government (not that a whole lot of them pay for it), it will increase. Jobs? OK, eliminate computers for a start. Turn bank account reconcillation back to humans and close all banks at 2 PM. Eliminate computer-generated ads and hire graphic artists. Get rid of bar codes and automatic inventory replenishment and go back to manual inventory. Get rid of drive-thru restuarants. Eliminate packaging and hire people to put individual products into bins. Inact large tarriffs. Put a surcharge on foreign cars and electronics. It goes on and on. Everybody wants cheap prices for goods and services, often realized by reductions in work force, but in the next moment descry the lack of employment. We are hypocritical to the max... Write Kerry and tell him to tell his wife to raise the Heinz corp's overseas wages to 6 bucks and hour, and to raise their domestic wages to 15 bucks an hour, but don't complain if your bottle of catsup costs 4 bucks...you wouldn't do that, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Toot toot. 70294[/snapback] You wouldn't happen to have an intelligent response, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 THAT was the point? Nice "lahjik" Pete. The legal community in this country is evil. Nice people practicing in it or requiring the services of same aren't going to change that. 70333[/snapback] "The legal community in this country is evil." Talk about a broad brush. That sounds like one of those "exaggerations" that Bush was talking about last night. Let's put this in a light that you will understand. The NRA relies on lawyers to ensure the Second Amendment rights that you hold so dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 "The legal community in this country is evil." Talk about a broad brush. That sounds like one of those "exaggerations" that Bush was talking about last night. Let's put this in a light that you will understand. The NRA relies on lawyers to ensure the Second Amendment rights that you hold so dear. 70364[/snapback] It's a broad brush that for the most part is true. There are alot of people getting rich off the legal system. A vast majority of them had to pass the bar exam. They aren't doing it for the common good or any honorable reason. There are a litany of examples reported on a weekly basis and I'm sure they only scratch the surface of the issue. I wouldn't know what the President said last night. I didn't watch the debate. I watched the Yankees beat the Red Sox. You know, something where the outcome actually matters. Gee, thanks for clarifying further. I was so confused by your earlier soundbyte generalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Blaming lawyers for everything is BS. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg of your kid or gives him the wrong prescription etc., your view of lawyers will change too. 70158[/snapback] Ambulance chasing scum bags (lawyers) are the single largest cause of the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance, period. Amublance chasing scum bags are the reason you can't find an OB-GYN in John Edwards' home state, or a neurosurgeon in the state of RI, or get obstetric care in Nevada. Those states that have caps on non-economic damages have lower premiums overall and lower rates of rise in premiums. Period. End of discussion. Lawyers want you to believe its the evil insurance companies. They are full of ****. Insurance companies do not want to write malpractice policies because of the increased number of frivolous lawsuits. Fewer companies = higher premiums = fewer doctors. If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, that case never makes it to trial because it is settled almost immediately and correctly so and the physician disciplined by the state board of medicine. Cases of gross negligence are settled because they are so obvious that they don't need a jury to determine negligence. Lawyers don't care if there is actually negligence in a case. There is a huuuuuge grey area in medicine. We know so little compared to what we don't know. Lawyers exploit this grey area for THEIR benefit and in the process wantanly destroy the lives and careers of physicians for a buck. I was taught from DAY ONE in medical school how to practice defensive medicine to protect myself from scum balls. If people don't think this contributes heavily to the increased costs of medicine they are simply ignoring the obvious. So many tests, so many unnecessary procedures, so many decisions influenced by "covering our asses" instead of only what's best for the patient. Think about that when you pull the lever for a couple of scum balls. RunTheBall Never been sued but fully expect someone at some time to try and make a buck off me. I'll be ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Want to know why we get our vaccine from Britain? 1) Very low profit margin, if any 2) US companies will be sued by lawyers faster than you can say "jackpot" No profit + frivolous lawsuit = No vaccines made in US. Enjoy the flu season. RunTheBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 It's a broad brush that for the most part is true. There are alot of people getting rich off the legal system. A vast majority of them had to pass the bar exam. They aren't doing it for the common good or any honorable reason. There are a litany of examples reported on a weekly basis and I'm sure they only scratch the surface of the issue. I wouldn't know what the President said last night. I didn't watch the debate. I watched the Yankees beat the Red Sox. You know, something where the outcome actually matters. Gee, thanks for clarifying further. I was so confused by your earlier soundbyte generalities. 70425[/snapback] There goes the pot again calling the kettle black. The legal profession is no different than any other. There are bad lawyers, just as there are bad doctors, bad HMOs, bad presidents, bad gun owners etc. Based on your post, it looks like you are drinking too much of that kool aid that insurers and this administration are passing around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Want to know why we get our vaccine from Britain? 1) Very low profit margin, if any 2) US companies will be sued by lawyers faster than you can say "jackpot" No profit + frivolous lawsuit = No vaccines made in US. Enjoy the flu season. RunTheBall 70510[/snapback] Nice try. How is the kool aid that you have been drinking? Lawyers have nothing to do with the fact that there is a flu shot shortage. The British government closed the company down because there was contamination. If the British had not taken this step and you and/or your kids were given a contaminated vaccine, do you think that the manufacturer should be held responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Ambulance chasing scum bags (lawyers) are the single largest cause of the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance, period. Amublance chasing scum bags are the reason you can't find an OB-GYN in John Edwards' home state, or a neurosurgeon in the state of RI, or get obstetric care in Nevada. Those states that have caps on non-economic damages have lower premiums overall and lower rates of rise in premiums. Period. End of discussion. Lawyers want you to believe its the evil insurance companies. They are full of ****. Insurance companies do not want to write malpractice policies because of the increased number of frivolous lawsuits. Fewer companies = higher premiums = fewer doctors. If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, that case never makes it to trial because it is settled almost immediately and correctly so and the physician disciplined by the state board of medicine. Cases of gross negligence are settled because they are so obvious that they don't need a jury to determine negligence. Lawyers don't care if there is actually negligence in a case. There is a huuuuuge grey area in medicine. We know so little compared to what we don't know. Lawyers exploit this grey area for THEIR benefit and in the process wantanly destroy the lives and careers of physicians for a buck. I was taught from DAY ONE in medical school how to practice defensive medicine to protect myself from scum balls. If people don't think this contributes heavily to the increased costs of medicine they are simply ignoring the obvious. So many tests, so many unnecessary procedures, so many decisions influenced by "covering our asses" instead of only what's best for the patient. Think about that when you pull the lever for a couple of scum balls. RunTheBall Never been sued but fully expect someone at some time to try and make a buck off me. I'll be ready. 70506[/snapback] Simply stated, should doctors who screw up be responsible for their actions? What do you think about the case of the young girl at Duke Medical School who received an organ transplant, the organ was from a person with a different blood type? Should the people in that case be responsible? What damages should her estate receive? (You will recall that she died). What about doctors who have a history of malpractice? Should they lose their license? If so, after how many instances of malpractice should they lose their license? Listen, there are bad lawyers - just as there are bad doctors. In our society, one should be responsible for one's actions. That includes doctors, lawyers, and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts