When/If John Edwards is our candidage for president:

[flamin lib]

You’re going to hear a lot about trial lawyers from the Republicans. They have done one hell of a job of demonizing the only thing that stands between working people and big corporations with huge staffs of lawyers.

Elizabeth Edwards was on Hard Ball and Mattews had the balls to look her in the eye and attacks trial lawyers (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EelHzZhIKco Exchange begins at 5:30).

When they start to bash Edwards, as they surely will, answer them like this:

First, all lawyers who go to court are trial lawyers, plaintiff and defense. One represents everyday people and one represents big business with entire staffs of lawyers and huge amounts of money.

Which is worse, a plaintiff’s lawyer who represents someone like you when they’re hurt by negligence or a defense lawyer that works for a Corporation with a staff of lawyers and money to hire more top gun defense lawyers to prove it’s your fault their defective product hurt or killed someone?

Plaintiff’s lawyers don’t get paid unless they win a case. They can’t afford to take “frivolous cases” that are without merit. They make no money up front, in fact they have to spend money and time to decide if a case has merit and is winnable.

If they win, plaintiff’s lawyers don’t make the awards. They only tell a jury what the actual damages are. A jury of your peers, people just like you and me, make settlement decisions. Do you have a problem with jury of people just like you deciding? Would you rather have it decided by “activist judges”?

Big corporations don’t lose many cases. If they lose it’s because they did something wrong and a jury of ordinary people like you decided that.

Do you think the jury system works when it puts people in jail and sentences them to death? Okay, why would you trust people to take someone’s life but not take money from big business?

Republicans will say that lawyers are putting doctors out of business. Tell them it isn’t plaintiff’s lawyers, it’s insurance companies with herds of lawyers to help deny coverage and justify raising rates even though they aren’t paying more in lawsuits.

I’m sure they’ll bring up the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit. Educate yourself about the true facts of that case and be prepared to present those facts quickly and simply. Think sound bite!

McDonald case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald\'s_Res...

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

You might want to think about the other possible primary winners. What will the RNC attack machine grind out against them? What's the MIME? How will you answer it?

Get ready, mean and nasty isn’t here yet, but it’s comin’.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I don't think you really have to worry about that.

[flamin lib]

2. If it isn't Edwards, the same thing applies. Start thinking now about

the attacks and get you're soundbite replys ready.

Obama and drugs?

Clinton and whatever?

Mean and nasty ain't here yet, but it's comin'. Be ready.

[SaveElmer]

3. Fortunately for America...Edwards isn't going to be the nominee...nt

[kanrok]

4. Actually, more fortunately

Neither will Hillary.

[flamin lib]

5. Okay, so start a thread about your candidate and how you're

going to answer the viral emails and RNC attacks that you know are coming.

You know it's coming.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. That interview with Matthews was astonishing.

Trial lawyers put doctors out of business -- doctors are the "good guys"? Good grief. He's basically saying that doctors get a pass if they amputate the wrong leg, leave a sponge in your body or any other number of mistakes that they make. Besides which, I'm sure that Edwards represented plaintiffs in more than just medical malpractice suits.

Excellent post, by the way, whether or not Edwards is the nominee. There's some real misunderstanding out there about the role of "trial lawyers" in our American system of justice.

[Nederland]

8. Matthews was right

The system is broken. Yes, doctors make mistakes. However, the way things work right now if a doctor makes a mistake, the patient sues and gets a bunch of money that get's paid by the malpractice insurance company--that solves nothing. The real solution is to yank the license of bad doctors, not sue them for a bunch of money. Trail lawyers are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[flamin lib]

10. Bought into the right wing talking points have you?

My wife has been in the legal profession for 30 plus years, always on the defense side. In those 35 years the only time they lost a lawsuit was when there was malfeasance on the part of their client and the client refused to take council's advice and settle.

When a plaintiff hires an attorney they aren't always honest about the facts of the case and without spending $ thousands on discovery that dishonesty can't be found. If a cursory review of the available records and documents looks like a case has merit they take the chance. If they lose it costs them $ tens of thousands.

But aside from that, suppose your toddler had her intestines sucked out by a defective drain cover in a wading pool. Have you any idea how much money it takes to care for and rehabilitate that child? Where's it going to come from? The good graces of some insurance company?

And who's going to "yank their license" if a plaintiff's attorney doesn't prove their negligence?

Think, don't regurgitate talking points.

[Nederland]

28. Question

Just so I'm clear, are you actually arguing that trial lawyers have served to improve health care in this country over the past 30 years?

[tinrobot]

46. They keep the system honest.

Believe it or not, there actually are doctors who perform malpractice.

When that happens, some action needs to be taken to punish the doctor and keep the system honest. Usually that involves a court of law... and yes, a lawyer.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Whatever

What part of "jury of your peers" don't you understand.

[Nederland]

31. Yeah

And we all know juries are objective and infallible.

[Wednesdays]

32. And your alternative to juries is...?

[Nederland]

38. See #37 (nt)

[Blue_In_AK]

34. Of course, juries make mistakes

but the point is that it's the lawyer's job to advocate for his client to the best of his ability, whichever side he's on. Then it's up to the jury to decide who presented the most convincing evidence and made the best argument. It's not the lawyer's fault if he does a particularly good job and the jury sees it his way. I'll agree that juries are notoriously flaky, but if either party is nervous about it, they should settle before trial in a reasonable way and not take their chances.

This is, of course, civil cases I'm talking about. In a criminal case, the defendant doesn't have to present any evidence at all, and the jury is not to draw any inference from that. It's the state's burden to prove guilt, something which is often forgotten.

[Nederland]

39. Yes that is how it works

The question is, do you really think that is the best way of doing things? Don't you think a European or Canadian style healthcare system that has far, far less legal cases would be better?

[Blue_In_AK]

41. I thought we were talking about lawyers

not health care systems. I don't think anybody likes our health care system, and that would probably include most lawyers. The plaintiff lawyers that I've worked for over the years, and I would assume most others, really don't take pleasure in suing doctors, no matter what you may think.

[Nederland]

42. You cannot separate the two...

The question is, do you think trial lawyers are making our health care system better or worse? It's a simple question really. If you think, like I do, that trial lawyers make the system worse, I'd think twice about Edwards.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. I suppose I'm not really unbiased on this

since I've worked for lawyers on all sides, civil and criminal, for the past 32 years, and I have quite a bit of respect for the work they do. I've seen cases where doctors have made hideous mistakes and yet their insurers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending them rather than settling up for a reasonable amount early on in the case. I reiterate that I think the insurance companies are the villains here and not the lawyers. Lawyers do their clients' bidding. Insurance defense lawyers (in my experience again, and I'm sure there are exceptions) don't keep cases going unless they're instructed to by their clients -- WHO ARE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, not the doctors themselves.

But I am 100 percent in agreement with you that our health system needs fixing.

What's your feeling on lawyers with regard to product liability cases?

[cascadiance]

45. This is silly... Trial lawyers are a necessary element to protect our rights today...

with the system we have. They might not be perfect, but they ARE the people that you go to when your rights have been abused. Would we better off heading off the sorts of problems that get litigated in lawsuits by fixing other systems such as our health care systems? NO DOUBT we would be. But to blame lawyers for that is silly. Now, if a group of lawyers lobbied AGAINST changes in the system that might prevent this sort of litigation to satisfy their own selfish self interests rather than society's as a whole, that would be different and then the lawyers advocating that would be someone I'd wish to criticize. However, I don't see that happening.

It would be like saying we should not trust ANYONE in political office because they all have to collect contributions to run rather than have something like public campaign financing to keep that from happening.

Or that none of us should have cars NOW because it contributes to global warming. Yes, we want to fix the system that forces us to drive gas guzzling cars at the rate we are now, but that's a systemic problem that you need to fix at a high level, not attacking drivers for driving cars, when they may need to do so for their livlihood.

Whether or not we fix health care so that there's little or no need for lawsuits doesn't take away the need for lawyers to help us sue when our rights are violated in other contexts. Someone like John Edwards is always needed in society to work to keep our rights available to us.

[laureloak]

26. Insurance companies are the problem. Very little of the

premium actually gets paid out towards malpractice. It's just an excuse to fleece the Drs/patients and blame it on the lawyers.

[Nederland]

29. Agreed

The system has numerous problems. My only point here was to argue that trial lawyers have not improved the situation one bit.

[Wednesdays]

33. So, get rid of all the trial lawyers, and what happens?

[Nederland]

37. Reform the system first...

...then the trial lawyers become unnecessary. The bottom line is that trying a case before a group of medically ignorant jurists is a lousy way of determining whether or not a doctor has really done something wrong. We'd be far better off doing things the way the Canadians and the Europeans do.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Lawyers on both sides are very skilled

in presenting medical evidence in a way that makes sense to a jury, and juries are selected with great care. Our justice system isn't perfect, but it usually works. I think your ire should be directed towards the insurance companies who refuse to pay out claims rather than the lawyers who try to make sure that they do the right thing.

[Nederland]

43. Skilled and highly paid

Again, trial by jury is a lousy way of determing whether or not a doctor has done something wrong. For one, it is an extremely inefficient way of going about it. Much better to rely on a panel of experts that don't need to on the job training for each and every case. I can't believe you honestly think the current system is the best we can do.

[waiting for hope]

47. Tell that to the Lakey family:

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

May 22, 1997 - Girl adapts to life since drain accident, verdict

...Four months after a Wake County jury gave the Raleigh family the record $25 million judgment, life has achieved a certain normalcy. "We've become more relaxed, now that we don't have the specter of the trial," Sandy Lakey said Wednesday. "It was a big part of our lives for a long time. We're glad it's over."

As Valerie tells the nosy, the money goes toward her care. After months of hospitalizations, operations and specialists, she is hooked up for 12 to 14 hours every night to an intravenous feeding system. She faces the possibility of an organ transplant. During the trial, Valerie suffered abdominal pain that stumped her doctors. After the trial, the Lakeys took Valerie to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where doctors said her gallbladder had to come out. The surgery was performed in March, and her mother says Valerie looks and feels better. "Even her teacher comments on it," Sandy Lakey said.

The jury verdict, Lakey said, has allowed her to hire private nurses...In the first weeks after the verdict, Sandy Lakey said, strangers called their home or stopped the family in grocery stores to offer encouragement. "Life's pretty much resumed a normal pace," she said. "We're plugging along, and Valerie's feeling better."

http://www.allbusiness.com/arts-entertainment-recreation/267861-1.html

Probably no other product in the history of the industry has caused as much controversy as the safety vacuum release system. At the same time, it is likely that no other product has had as much impact on the way pools are built today.

The SVRS, as most in the industry know by now, is a device designed to prevent suction entrapment incidents. Today, even those who question the device's value admit that the public debate which has been raised by SVRS manufacturers has forced the industry to re-examine the way it constructs pools.
"In spite of the filet that initial attempts to break into the market were misguided, it served a valid function by awakening a sleeping giant about suction entrapment," says Dan Johnson, president of Swim in Inc., a pool-building firm in Sarasota, Fla. "If we, as an industry, had been ahead of the curve, we would have been addressing well before they did."

~Snip~

A tragic legacy
Between 1985 and 2002, there were 147 suction entrapment incidents, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Not all were fatal, yet their impact will be felt by the pool and spa industry for years to come.
Here is a look at some of the most high-profile entrapment tragedies that have taken place over the past decade, and their effects on the industry:

Valerie Lakey
In 1993, 5-year-old Valerie Lakey was eviscerated by a suction outlet at a community wading pool in Medfield, N.C. Remarkably, she survived the incident and has become one of the nation's best-known entrapment victims, Her parents successfully lobbied the North Carolina legislature to require dual main drains on all public pools. In the subsequent lawsuit, the manufacturer of the drain cover was found liable for $25 million, Other defendants settled out of court for a collective total of $5.9 million. Today, 16-year-old Lakey attends high school, but needs to be fed through a special intravenous system.

Tanya Nickens
When Tanya Nickens, a 16-year-old high school junior from Wall Township, N.J., drowned after becoming entrapped on the drain of a health club spa on May 25, 1996, the issue gained national notoriety. The tragedy prompted stories in major daily newspapers around the country, as well as segments on "Oprah," "20/20" and "The Today Show." In its wake, the New Jersey Department of Health and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued public-safety advisories on the dangers of suction entrapment.

Lorenzo Peterson
On June 17, 2000, Lorenzo Peterson, 14, was entrapped on a drain in a semipublic pool in Miami. He survived, but was left in a permanent vegetative state. All parties settled out of court except for pump manufacturer Sta-Rite Industries, which ended up losing 5104 million in the case--the largest jury award in Florida history. Sta-Rite was later sold to Pentair Pool Products.

Virginia Graham Baker
In the summer of 2002, Virginia Graham Baker, the granddaughter of former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker Ill, was entrapped on a spa drain while attending a neighbor's backyard party. The 7-year-old drowned and the incident made national headlines, causing the country to be more aware of the entrapment phenomenon.--B.D.

I just pray that you would not ever need to services of a Trail Attorney - obviously you wouldn't be open to the idea of having someone help you.

[dajoki]

27. gettting a bunch of money...

is rare. I went through a workers' comp. case and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. The ins. co.'s have the power to make your life a living hell if they choose to, and they always do. I do not have the time to go through my entire case, but just let me say, if it wasn't for my "trial lawyer" and MY Dr's, I would not have made it through. My life and my family's lives were changed forever. Its not bad enough that you are suffering, medically speaking, but that's when they attack, like a bunch of crazed wolves, when you are sick and defensless, and they keep attacking, every day. As far as "a bunch of money", it doesn't happen. So I have NO sympathy for any insurance company.

[Nederland]

30. True

But that is only a portion of the costs. The real burden comes from the gamut of tests that get run unnecessarily because doctors fear being sued.

[melody]

7. Very good post n/t

[cali]

9. that's just one of his weak spots.

The pukes will have a harder time going after either Obama or Clinton if one of them is the nom.

Here's an ad you'll see if Edwards is:

Two nice looking youngish women standing beside the SUVs parked on a leafy street in front of a school and chatting.

Barb: "Have you heard what John Edwards wants us to do, Anne?"

Anne: "No, what do you mean?"

Barb: "John Edwards has said Americans should make sacrifices and stop driving SUVs because of Global Warming. And yet John Edwards lives in house that's 28,000 sq feet with an indoor swimming pool and squash court. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to heat or air condition?"

(Arial shot of Edwards house on screen as Barb speaks.)

Anne: "How can he ask us to sacrifice or childrens' safety when he doesn't make any sacrifices himself?"

(adorable small children come running up to the women. Barb hugs a sweet looking little girl and says "C'mon, honey, hop in and buckle up.")

Women say goodbye. Screen fade and lettering.

It's about honesty
It's about integrity
It's about leadership

Does John Edwards really have them?

[flamin lib]

11. 'Tis obvioiusly a matter of ppinion. nt

[cali]

13. Actually, it's about common sense. The pukes can't afford

a full frontal assault on either Obama for fear of it backfiring horribly. They can with Edwards.

[flamin lib]

15. Possibly, but history tells me otherwise.

Consider what the Bush machine (with the help of the RNC) did to McCain in the primaries.

Can't attack a black man? Think about Max Cleland.

You better start thinking real hard about how you're going to reply to the viral emails and soft word of mouth campaigns aimed at your candidate.

I'm working on that eventuality too.

Drugs and madrassas.

It ain't here yet, but you better believe it's comin'.

[cali]

16. Of course it's here. It's been here for quite some time

And yes it will intensify. To date, Obama's campaign has handled it all superbly. And a national presidential campaign is not a state campaign. If they come on too heavy with the racism/muslim thing, they'll have amazing blow back.

Now, how about responding to what I wrote about your candidate?

[flamin lib]

18. Your mind is made up--and that isn't a bad thing, it just is.

And all things considered it's made up for a very good candidate. I see no reason to try to dissuade you.

I'm more in the "get prepared" mode.

There are two campaigns that will be run against the Dem candidate whoever they are; the open media campaign and the soft word of mouth campaign. The RNC and surrogates are extremely good at the latter. That's what they used to kill McCain and McClellan: McCain's black love child, his mental instability from years in a tiger cage; McClellan's unjustified Bronze Star and being fragged by his soldiers.

Don't forget where you are here. This is DU; a place for activists, people who pay attention and people who have justification for their opinions. Go out to the mall and look at the people who will cast 90+% of the vote. How much would it take for them to be swayed by a completely un-substantiated email forwarded by a friend?

That's what we're up against m'friend. You and me, we're on the same team. It's them we need to get ready for.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Cleland, I believe you mean

but the points are well taken.

[flamin lib]

20. Thanks for the correction nt

[XemaSab]

12. Ouch

:P

[cali]

14. Yep. and after that they'd run

the Fortress/offshore accounts/poverty number. Then they'd go to the war resolution/Yucca Mountain/bankruptcy number. How on earth would he be able to respond when they have 10x more money?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Here's another ad......

a real look at John Edwards full record and what it tells us about him.

Here he is a few years ago (shows what he voted for, his speech selling the war)
and here he is now (shows him saying he was sorry about this mistake and that mistake)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwjvAs9J-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byf8RSyzOkg&feature=related

Can we afford a President who learns by making mistakes over and over again?

No we can't.

---------
Campaign finance limitations and caps will yield this response from the Edwards campaign:

[LSK]

23. on the other hand, FOXNEWS only has to say Barack Osama a few million times

On accident of course. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

24. Everyone already knows Barack's name.....

so I'm not quite sure why that's going to "surprise" anyone? He didn't get to pick his name.

Plus Obama will just talk about the fact that he's the skinny kid with a funny name, and only him becoming President could happen in the United States, the land of Opportunity......and give them that smile.

Fox Viewers won't give a shit about that, just like Iowa didn't.

[Occam Bandage]

35. LOL. Yeah, Edwards is a hypocrite with an atrocious record and no money to fund counterattacks

but Obama has a dumb name! Totally unelectable!

[Wednesdays]

36. Yeah, they'll say "Barack Osama" a few million times, and

also have nightly features on "Is America Ready for a Muslim President?" :puke:

[LSK]

22. Erin Brockovich

Wasn't she a hero in that movie?

:shrug:

[flamin lib]

25. So was John Travolta in "A Civil Action", another movie based on

a true story.