Yet another reason to despise the ambulance chaser

[Bill Glasheen]

First it was trial attorneys making a fortune off of women with silicone implants who happened to get connective tissue diseases. Then the science caught up with the litigation, and found there was no link. Does anyone care that these unjust lawsuits almost destroyed Dow Chemical? Did the lawyers give all their ill-gotten gains back? Was Dow able to take these dirtbags to court?

Did bears stop schitting in the woods?

Then the trial attorneys feasted on obstetricians who happened to deliver cerebral palsy babies. The likes of John "I am not the father" Edwards sold their pretty boy looks in front of juries, and convinced them that THIS EVIL DOCTOR caused this poor mom to deliver this horribly deformed child. Science again caught up, and - you got it - no connection between anything the OBs did and whether or not the mom would have an unfortunate birth.

Meanwhile... malpractice insurance premiums for OBs skyrocket. Can't make the couple hundred thousand dollars per year to cover just that insurance? Then you can forget about being an OB. Rural areas suffer, as doctors there can't make ends meet. Moms have to travel long distances to the city just to get an OB visit.

And now it's those damned corporations making those evil vaccines with thimerisol, causing kids to be born with autism. The feeding frenzy commences yet again. Vaccine makers are besieged with lawsuits. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS AUTISTIC KID'S THERAPY??? And how is the poor lawyer going to buy that boat?

ONE paper supported their cause. One. Just one.

And now...

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism

Oops!!!

And folks wonder why Obamacare was a Democrat-only cause. Who is in bed with this political constituency anyhow?

No tort reform? And you call that "health-care reform?" Forgetaboutit.

Scott Brown's election for Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy's vacant seat was no random event. Pendulums fortunately swing in both directions.

- Bill

[IJ]

You'll never find me siding with the ambulance chasers or the vaccine haters. However, it looks like the biggest problem with this study is that the authors did work outside of the supervision of an institutional review board (or UK equivalent), which doesn't really change the result. It's like evidence you can't submit to court because you failed to read the Miranda warning. They also say the kids weren't representative because they were cherry picked, but hello, this is a 12 kid paper. That kind of brief case series is ALWAYS hypothesis generating and not conclusive.

"No tort reform? And you call that "health-care reform?" Forgetaboutit."

Ok, I like tort reform. But this is not, at all, a criticism of the legislation that was crafted. Something doesn't have to cover everything to be worthwhile. Political compromises are made. It may speak to the lobbyists associated with the authors, but it doesn't make the legislation bad. Given our history over decades, piecemeal improvement may be the only solution to the healthcare debacle.

It's like saying we can't employ the strategy to regain control of a plummeting aircraft proposed by the copilot because it doesn't specifically cover oxygen masks for the passengers. Plummet away, America! I'll just work till I'm 80 to cover my share of your unfunded wars, over generous entitlements, and inefficient low quality low standard healthcare.

[Gene DeMambro]

Uh Bill, John Edwards hasn't held public office for several years, Ted Kennedy's dead and Chappaquiddick happened over 40 years ago. You, seriously man, need to find more current enemies.

Nothing new here, Bill. Just more irrational rantings from a sore loser on lawsuits.

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

Given our history over decades, piecemeal improvement may be the only solution to the healthcare debacle.

I couldn't agree more. This is the way to go because:

• Health-care is a moving target anyhow. Doing too much all at once isn't really being responsive to an industry and a fully public concern that won't be tomorrow what it is today.
• It's more likely to be transparent. Two thousand page bills are filled with pork and earmarks.
• It's more likely to contain needed compromise.

Why Obama and his merry majority chose to go for the Hail Mary at the beginning of their game is beyond me. Had they sent things through piecemeal, two things likely would have happened. First, Obama would have something to show for what he did by now. And second, Scott Brown might not be the candidate who took Teddy Kennedy's seat. But I'm not a socialist, I've never respected the eloquent leader without substance, and I have more confidence that the free market will begin to deal with the most pressing issues. (A good example is Minute Clinics in CVS stores.) Furthermore, I believe the majority's hubris suffered the karma that it deserved.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

Unless you live here, you have no idea why Scott Brown is Ted Kennedy's successor. All the political pundits nationally got it wrong. Health care reform is ony one issue and certainly not a pressing issue like 2 wars, a still moribound economy and unemployment that isn't getting much better. It could also be that while Kennedy routinely won the state with 60 to 70 percent of the vote, Brown won with 52 %. The same voters who voted overwhelmingly for Ted also then turned around and voted for Scott. Could be also it's not the party that makes the candidate, but the person. And Massachusetts is not as blue as anyone thinks, with all the Republican governers we've had since 1990, as well as Andy Card, who was George W. Bush's Chief of Staff.

Health care reform was a one party event because Republicans didn't want to be involved.

[Valkenar]

Health care reform was a one party event because Republicans didn't want to be involved.

Many republicans are desperate to see Obama fail or be publicly shamed so they can win seats. I wouldn't count on seeing a lot of progress in the next three years, since there's only so much Obama can do to convince people to cooperate when they specifically want to avoid doing anything that might make him seem successful as a president.

[Bill Glasheen]

Health care reform was a one party event because Republicans didn't want to be involved.

Nice party line, Gene, but... WRONG!!!!!!

Republicans offered the following:

• First and foremost, TORT REFORM.
• Give the income tax deduction to individuals (such as your truly who went from being an employee of a Massachusetts company to a contractor of said company so they could get around the Massachusetts health-care "reform.")
• Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
• My favorite - If the government wants to do something good, then foster the formation of purchasing cooperatives. This was proposed by Enthoven decades ago. This brings back the concept of pooled risk, and puts consumers on a level playing field with the insurers. It actually is better for both parties as you can make a more precise calculation of future risk with a pool of people than you can with an individual. Thus the insurer can quote a policy with a tighter margin, and the insured gets a lower (pooled) price.
• Create more standards for electronic information exchange. Then let the free market go about the business of improving process all on their own.

These are just a few.

Tort reform will never happen when you have Democrats conducting deal-making behind closed doors. Remember Obama promising eight (8) times that said sessions would happen on C-Span? Didn't happen. Furthermore, the Democrats are in the pockets of the trial attorneys. No way they'll kill the goose that laid their golden eggs.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Many republicans are desperate to see Obama fail or be publicly shamed so they can win seats.

Democrats will be Democrats and Republicans will be Republicans. Obama and Reagan won because they appealed to the roughly one-third of voters (including yours truly) who don't identify with either major party and are (perhaps incorrectly) called "independents."

Obama and the Democrats are starting to lose elections they should have won (Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts) because they lost the "independent" vote. And they have only themselves to blame.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

You mean "Tort Reform" as "Business Friendly Reform"? Sorry, Bill. There is a reason why that's a non-starter in Congress. Just as many lawyers that are Republican as Democrats.

Nice try, Bill.

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

You mean "Tort Reform" as "Business Friendly Reform"?

I mean Tort Reform.

And I won't stop trying. Unlike the ambulance chaser, I actually produce something for a living. Our economy needs more people who make things and fewer people who leach off the honest labor of others.

Show me an industry which will allow victims of abusive litigation (per examples above) to recover their lost assets, and I'll start listening. Otherwise it appears that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

When you behave badly, expect to be the target of others' wrath.



Why an ambulance chaser can't figure that out is beyond me. Unless... Unless it isn't about principled practice of the law.



- Bill

[Glenn]

Obama and the Democrats are starting to lose elections they should have won (Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts) because they lost the "independent" vote. And they have only themselves to blame.

Apparently a major reason they lost is because the youth vote (18-29...dang, I haven't been in that cohort for a long time now) that won Obama the presidency stayed home for these subsequent elections. Only 15% of youth voters turned out in Massachusetts for example, compared to over 50% in November 2008. Explanations for this have included:
- youth voters generally do not bother with off-year and special elections
- the Dems doing a poor job getting the message out for the youth to vote this time, with the ball dropped onsome key opportunities for this
- an assumption by youth voters that the Dem candidate would win
- an added factor of dissatisfaction by the youth over the Dems failure to pass the health care reform that would help them the most (that cohort contains the most without insurance due to them dropping off of parents insurance while few first/part-time jobs offer those benefits, particularly lately), leading to discouragement and apathy about these elections.

Surveys conducted after the election showed that youth voters in Mass. would have voted for the Dem candidate if they had voted, indicating that Brown was not the favorite candidate among potential voters, only among those who bothered to vote.

Strategy wise, these elections showed the Dems that they cannot simply assume that they can count on the youth vote without continuing to work at motivating them to actually show up at the ballot boxes. Whether that changes the Dem strategy remains to be seen. It also showed the Repubs that in some states at least victory lies in keeping the youth voters home.

[Valkenar]

Our economy needs more people who make things and fewer people who leach off the honest labor of others.

Damn right, let's get rid of health insurance companies.

All (semi) kidding aside, I think I think lawyers are damn useful and productive. Sure, some of them are lowlifes who personally go around digging up and creating nonsense cases to make a buck. But the vast majority are honest people whose efforts make it possible for a complex society to have a (somewhat) fair system of justice.

There are a lot more parasitic industries than law.

[Bill Glasheen]

Apparently a major reason they lost is because the youth vote ... stayed home for these subsequent elections.

As was quoted after George W Bush's second victory, "The youth vote will leave you standing at the altar every time." This is nothing new.

Fair weather voter

Meanwhile...

Independent Voters Abandon Democrats

Scott Brown’s Massachusetts win fueled by independent voters

The Race is on to win over Independent Voters

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

There are a lot more parasitic industries than law.

Re-read what you just wrote. It's quite revealing.

Ironies aside... All I have to do is open today's paper to come up with a dramatic anecdote that challenges your hypothesis.

Trial Lawyers Contribute, Shareholder Suits Follow

"Plaintiffs' lawyers donate because they think it buys them access to people who make decisions over how pension funds select counsel," says Fred Isquith, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a plaintiffs' firm in New York. Such giving "creates an appearance of complete impropriety," he says, and "should be outlawed."

The American Bar Association takes a similar position. The ABA, in giving guidance on ethics, says lawyers shouldn't accept a "government assignment" if they made a political contribution "for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for" such a job.

And yet it happens. Go figure.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

When you behave badly, expect to be the target of others' wrath

Which is why we have an impartial court system to those behaving badly - illicit actions by corporations, medical malpractice and rogue police and prosecutors to name a few - can be the target of of severe financial penalties for their wrongdoing.