0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 02:26 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
blatham wrote:
bill
Quote:
(FACT: It took him several dozen interviews to find one that would endorse his junk-science on the stand).

Please point me towards what you allude to here. I'll look and if not satisfied you have it right, I will hunt you down like a dog.
What's the point? It should be no harder to find some way to disregard this fact as easy as you did the FACT that from the time of Edward's first suit: there was never, ever a consensus of experts sufficient to justify even the accusation of malpractice against his victims. But hell; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Will you settle for New York Times?
The New York Times wrote:
An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.
In another:
The New York Times wrote:
Mr. Edwards's associate interviewed 41 obstetricians before finding one local doctor who would make a good witness.
Now watch the excuse-makers work...


Gosh. And I thought you might have a compelling case to make. Are you presently upset about something else in your life?

(sorry, I live with an analyist)

There are a number of fundamentals here with which you and I disagree. It's probably not worthwhile to argue them out (I get the notion you've been through that before). It is the case that the US is a far more litigious environment than Canada though I'm not sure how that difference has arisen as both our legal systems arise out of British law.

Personally, I'm far less bothered by tort law and lawyers than you clearly are. We'll simply have to disagree and I'll have Lola prescribe you some meds if Edwards is your next CIC.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 02:43 pm
C.I. This is why "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their... their love with women all across this country."

That's all you got, Bernie? You asked me for proof, so I gave it to you. Now you backtrack to who cares? (You apparently did a minute ago, or you wouldn't have requested proof. Rolling Eyes) Bob and Weave. This would-be emperor isn't just nekid. He's relieved himself on innocent doctors. But stay blind to the facts. It's easier that way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 02:47 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
C.I. This is why "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their... their love with women all across this country."

That's all you got, Bernie? You asked me for proof, so I gave it to you. Now you backtrack to who cares? (You apparently did a minute ago, or you wouldn't have requested proof. Rolling Eyes) Bob and Weave. This would-be emperor isn't just nekid. He's relieved himself on innocent doctors. But stay blind to the facts. It's easier that way.


Malpractice lawsuits are not the driving factor in rises in Malpractice insurance costs, Bill, as has already been explained to you. So I don't think your link is meaningful to the conversation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 02:54 pm
That's interesting, but that doesn't quite jive with the average salaries of ob-gyn doctors:


Physician Jobs Information - Salaries
Physician Specialty: Obstetrics-Gynecology
Lowest.............Average..............Highest

..159K... ...................261K...................417K


Most are working for their insurance or they're all making $417Gs.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 02:59 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
C.I. This is why "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their... their love with women all across this country."

That's all you got, Bernie? You asked me for proof, so I gave it to you. Now you backtrack to who cares? (You apparently did a minute ago, or you wouldn't have requested proof. Rolling Eyes) Bob and Weave. This would-be emperor isn't just nekid. He's relieved himself on innocent doctors. But stay blind to the facts. It's easier that way.


Malpractice lawsuits are not the driving factor in rises in Malpractice insurance costs, Bill, as has already been explained to you. So I don't think your link is meaningful to the conversation.
That's because you have some retarded illusion that money paid by insurance companies, doesn't come out of the general public's pocket. I passed on commenting on this utter idiocy, of pretending claims are paid out of profits... so they don't effect the cost, in hopes you would do your homework if left unprovoked.

$200,000 per year Mal-Practice insurance means the first $100 an hour (assuming a 40 hr work-week) a doctor earns is already spoken for. No Cyclo; "bad investments" doesn't explain away this absurdity. Suggestions that factors other than Mal-Practice claims have a bigger effect on the cost of Mal-Practice insurance are tantamount to idiocy.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 03:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
C.I. This is why "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their... their love with women all across this country."

That's all you got, Bernie? You asked me for proof, so I gave it to you. Now you backtrack to who cares? (You apparently did a minute ago, or you wouldn't have requested proof. Rolling Eyes) Bob and Weave. This would-be emperor isn't just nekid. He's relieved himself on innocent doctors. But stay blind to the facts. It's easier that way.


Malpractice lawsuits are not the driving factor in rises in Malpractice insurance costs, Bill, as has already been explained to you. So I don't think your link is meaningful to the conversation.

Cycloptichorn

We haven't even brought up yet what is known as "defensive medicine." Countless tests and treatments are prescribed simply to protect doctors and hospitals from covering all their bases even when they figure they are unneeded.

Then we learn the hazards of numerous tests, such as X-rays and other things causing cancer and other things.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 03:02 pm
Quote:
That's all you got, Bernie? You asked me for proof, so I gave it to you. Now you backtrack to who cares?


No, it is that I don't consider the information in that article to constitute "proof" of, or warrant for, your claims ("junk science") and for your opinons of either him or the evils of tort law even where (probably the most problematic issue) it involves individual doctors/surgeons (even that is in question though as we'd have to establish what percentage of such cases involve individual doctors or medical congrlomerates and what role insurance companies play and on and on).

In order to move through all of this stuff in a concise and orderly manner would be a big project and I just don't want to do that.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 03:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's interesting, but that doesn't quite jive with the average salaries of ob-gyn doctors:


Physician Jobs Information - Salaries
Physician Specialty: Obstetrics-Gynecology
Lowest.............Average..............Highest

..159K... ...................261K...................417K


Most are working for their insurance or they're all making $417Gs.
And therein lies the problem with escalating mal-practice insurance costs... and the reason so many aren't able to "practice their love..." Idea You have learned.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 03:38 pm
blatham wrote:
In order to move through all of this stuff in a concise and orderly manner would be a big project and I just don't want to do that.
Nope. You sure don't. You would first have to forfeit your predisposition to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt; and rely on actual science... which isn't really all that tough to do. In summary:
John Edwards science: Doctors who fail to perform Cesarean Deliveries at the first sign of fetal distress are responsible for giving kids Cerebral Palsy. He proves this by reading a fetal heart monitoring strip, compares the time of disturbance to the time of delivery and Gotcha! Next; He pretends to channel the unfortunate victim of happenstance and explains how the evil doctor didn't give a ****.

Real science: States unequivocally, over several decades, in eight countries, that a 500% increase in Cesarean Deliveries resulted in Zero Change in the rate of Cerebral Palsy. Got that? Zero. His junk science was conceived in the 60's (fetal heart monitoring, combats CP… nope, no it doesn't), and was already heavily questioned by half the experts in the field before he ever channeled a baby. This half, (the correct half) (the half not guilty of Mal-Practice, among other things) increased steadily throughout his career (since every single study shows the same, simple truth).

This was all common knowledge the last time Edwards was questioned about it; yet he still responds (in 2004) with:
wiki wrote:
After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least twenty similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"

Clever answer, in 1960 or 1970. Questionable in the 80's and outright absurd the day he offered in in 2004.

His legacy of building the blueprint to screw innocent doctors is still alive and well. At the same time all of this information was gathered; some other scumbag had just used the John Edwards formula to win a hundred million $ lawsuit.

But you're right. You wouldn't want to learn any of that before choosing to defend the scumbag that got this big bogus ball rolling.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 04:49 pm
Did any of you catch that Politico field report on Fred Thompson's floundering campaign last month?

It was a doozy, with memorable passages like these:

Quote:


That already looked like an obituary for the Thompson campaign. But on he's soldiered, and he's managed to consolidate his support in Iowa at a little over 10%. Although "soldiered" is perhaps not the best word, judging on a new vivid if overly embellished field report from Michael Crowley:

Quote:
Show's Cancelled

Oskaloosa, Iowa--This is what a disaster looks like: Fred Thompson, the former future "savior" of the Republican Party, looking droopy-eyed and jowly in a black leather jacket and tan ten-gallon hat, wandering like some lonesome lost cowboy through the snows of southeastern Iowa in search of voters--and not finding many.

A few minutes earlier, the former U.S. Senator, "Law and Order" star, and would-be conservative hero had emerged from the Smokey Row coffeehouse, where, in his endless search for the only kind of media he can afford--free--he'd sat down with the local newspaper. Otherwise, Smokey Row held at most two dozen largely disinterested patrons. Thompson famously loathes the grip-and-grin side of politics and smiled wanly through his chit-chats. As he staged a handshake with one woman, the photographer had called out, "Look at each other!" Thompson couldn't resist mocking the artificiality of the forced smiling eye contact. "That's the hardest thing in the world to do," he chuckled.

At least someone cared enough to get her picture taken with him. Many of the folks in the quiet coffeehouse ignored Thompson, more interested in their laptops or newspapers than a presidential candidate. A pair of enthusiastic teenagers did approach him on his way out, however. "It's good to be a young man," the often depleted-looking actor-lobbyist told them wistfully. Yet the moment deflated when one of the teens confessed that he's not an Iowa resident. [..]

Currently embarked on a 50-stop statewide bus tour--with the unwieldy moniker of "The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down!" emblazoned across the vehicle--Thompson has staked everything on finishing a strong third here in Iowa. [..] This past week, Thompson had to mount a tragic online fundraising appeal in which he begged supporters to help him scrape up the cash--$248,846, to be precise--that will allow him to buy one measly ad on the Iowa airwaves. A week earlier, by contrast, the flaky libertarian Ron Paul had raised $4 million in one day. [..]

After leaving the coffeehouse, Thompson trudged his way through a snow-covered city park, as aides pointed out patches of snow and ice to prevent a symbolically catastrophic wipeout. He arrived at his next stop, at the town's county courthouse, on his feet, but couldn't summon much enthusiasm. Escorted by the county supervisor, Willie Van Weelden, Thompson popped into a series of dreary administrative offices staffed by a homogenous and somewhat befuddled-looking crew of middle-aged ladies. In the county tax office Thompson greeted precisely one worker. "This lady takes all the property tax money!" Van Wheelen exclaimed with the enthusiasm only a county worker could muster. "Is that right?" Thompson replied, sounding as impassive as he surely was. In the neighboring registrar's office, Thompson delivered a quick round of hellos and then cast a puzzled glance at a shaggy-haired boy scribbling at a table under a sign: "Drivers' Test In Progress." As if that were the final straw, Fred finally made a break for it back through the winter cold and into the warm comfort of his massive bus. [..]

But why did he flop so badly once he did run? Where to start? He got in too late, didn't sound prepared, lacked the movie-star presence people expected, and suffered from staff turmoil (widely attributed to Jeri). Above all, Thompson never offered a clear rationale for his candidacy--a curious defect for a star contender, unless you consider what's become increasingly clear of late: On some level, the guy never really seemed to want it.

That much was obvious at a town hall forum later that day in nearby Ottumwa. At a time when other candidates are pulling in several hundred voters per stop, at most 75 voters turned out (albeit on a very snowy day) to hear him. Thompson put in a soporific performance made worse by an over-warm room and a noisy child in the audience. And echoing a moment famously recounted on the front page of the New York Times several weeks ago, Thompson had to coax enthusiasm out of his audience. Speaking of the distinction between legal and illegal immigration Thompson said, "We need to be a nation of high fences and wide gates." A man in the audience called out in agreement. "You like that?" Thompson asked hopefully. "Alright," he continued, looking for some momentum. "Can I get a round of applause?" A few long seconds later, the crowd obliged.

After Thompson spoke, his state chairman, the Iowa Congressman Steve King, bounded to the back of the room to greet voters. "How ya doin?" he eagerly asked one woman in her forties. "We're having a ball out here! Where is your head and where is your heart?"

The woman paused. "Probably Huckabee," she said apologetically. Meanwhile, Thompson shook only a quick batch of hands and disappeared from the room within about three minutes.

Out in the hallway stood three campaign workers holding clipboards. "Would you like to sign up to caucus for Fred?" they called to the departing voters. Few stopped.

"That's it. The room's empty," one worker reported back to the others. I could see the signup sheets from over their shoulders. One had two names recorded on it, another just a single name. The third was entirely empty. And so this is the way the savior's campaign ends--not with a bang, but with an empty signup sheet.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 04:55 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
the scumbag that got this big bogus ball rolling.


this is about as convincing as Gore inventing the internet

~~~

Edwards is a good plaintiff lawyer. There are many good plaintiff lawyers in the U.S., getting as larger or larger settlements in many areas of claim in the U.S. He's not that important in the world of U.S. plaintiff law.

The U.S. could clearly benefit from tort reform, but if a few big settlements make corporations/vendors/providers reconsider what they can get away with, I think it's worth it.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 05:11 pm
nimh wrote:
Fred Thompson's floundering campaign


"That's it. The room's empty," one worker reported back to the others.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 05:27 pm
ehBeth wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
the scumbag that got this big bogus ball rolling.


this is about as convincing as Gore inventing the internet

~~~

Edwards is a good plaintiff lawyer. There are many good plaintiff lawyers in the U.S., getting as larger or larger settlements in many areas of claim in the U.S. He's not that important in the world of U.S. plaintiff law.

The U.S. could clearly benefit from tort reform, but if a few big settlements make corporations/vendors/providers reconsider what they can get away with, I think it's worth it.
I concur with your conclusion, though it doesn't address what I wrote. Edwards isn't a good plaintiff lawyer; he's an extraordinary plaintiff lawyer. Still, I agree he's not important in the larger picture of civil law. However; in the world of scumbags that shamelessly prey on innocent doctors who in turn reject unnecessary Cesarean Deliveries; John Edwards is the legend who started it all. Believe that. And any serious FACT Checking of the science will lead you to realize that it is indeed bogus.

I would agree that it would be beneficial to eliminate the soft-spot in our system, that's routinely exploited by scumbags like Edwards; but I don't know how to do so without forfeiting the deterrent value of lawsuits in general... so I've endorsed no such reforms as of today.

As far as healthcare is concerned, interestingly enough, I'm to the Left of ALL of you. I believe we'd be better off with a single payer system... and barring an Edwards Nomination; will likely be delivering the most important vote (mine) to a Democrat... to move closer to this ideal. It is not even beyond the realm that I could pull the lever for the scumbag myself, in the General, but not before educating as many people as possible in attempts to avoid another "lesser of two evils" General decision.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:14 pm
Romney holds thin edge in 5 man race nationwide, per Rasmussen, Jan 3, 2008.
Romney 18%, McCain 17%, Huckabee 16%, and Thompson & Giuliani with 13% each.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 07:59 am
Byron York this morning at the National Review
Quote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzgzYzBjZjg2YWM3ZTU1MjNhZDFjMmFiM2U4MGI3MmQ=
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 09:09 am
Quote:
New Hampshire Identifies Firm Behind Anti-Mormon Calls -- But Not Their Sponsor
By Greg Sargent - January 3, 2008, 4:07PM
Okay, the New Hampshire attorney general's press release on the probe of the anti-Mormon, anti Romney calls has now been released. And the AG has identified the firm behind the calls as Moore Information.

But the AG has not been able to determine who contracted the company for the calls, which obviously is the crucial info here:

Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte is requesting the public's assistance in identifying who employed Moore-Information of Portland, Oregon to conduct a poll in New Hampshire, in November 2007, which has been alleged to be a push-poll. New Hampshire's voters deserve to know whether any candidate in our Presidential Primary violated New Hampshire's push-poll statute.
Apparently Moore Information is dragging its feet and asking for more time before it coughs up info the AG wants that could help her track down the sponsor of the calls. And this info looks like it won't be forthcoming until safely after the January 8th New Hampshire primary.

Had the identity of the sponsor of the calls become known in time, it could have had a big influence on the primary's outcome. Some have charged that John McCain's camp is behind them; others have wondered whether someone connected with Romney himself might have done them, to test anti-Mormon messages or diffuse the Mormon issue by airing it publicly.

According to the AG's release Moore Information outsourced the job to Western Wats, the firm that actually made the calls -- and Wats was tied to Romney in various ways, giving weight to the theory that Romney himself was behind the calls.

More in a bit.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/new_hampshire_identifies_firm_behind_antimormon_calls_but_not_their_sponsor.php
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 11:05 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
. Edwards isn't a good plaintiff lawyer; he's an extraordinary plaintiff lawyer.


This is part of the world I work in. He's not extraordinary.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 11:43 am
ehBeth wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
. Edwards isn't a good plaintiff lawyer; he's an extraordinary plaintiff lawyer.


This is part of the world I work in. He's not extraordinary.
Perhaps you know better than I why nearly 3 quarters of Americans polled said they don't trust lawyers. :wink: I based that opinion approximately 70/30 on 2nd hand peer reviews... and my own amazement that anyone would be so without boundaries in their ambition… but I see no point in quibbling over good, very, or great.

I just hope the doom-sayers are right about his candidacy. In which case; my work is done here. Hmmmm. Maybe I'll go after Thompson next… :razz:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 01:16 pm
Excuse me for interrupting, and maybe this has come up before. But can someone point me to an informative and reasonably objective description of Mike Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas? Now that he's a serious contender for the nomination, I find myself knowing to little about it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 01:28 pm
One of my lunch colleagues just explained to me that no sensible American is going to vote for anyone with a name like Huckabee or Obama.

"Seriously, look at those names. They're not going to vote for them. Those names are just wrong."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/28/2025 at 02:38:56