Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

snood has been drinking too.

What in the hell is going on around here?

0 Replies

They're all drunk, gus. It's Saturday before July 4th, except on this thread the fireworks have started early.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

snood has been drinking too.

What in the hell is going on around here?

Okay, if we're drunk, what's your excuse?

0 Replies

elizabeth edwards,nomatter what you think of her husband is a brave woman ponying through cancer. How 'bout you Bill? Shown your steel like she has? Ann Clulter is a c**t. If John Edwards disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, those statements would be true.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

You sure talk a lot of shyt. When you first cited Edward's cases "from memory", your bias was evident.

Well I would certainly hope so. I made no claim to being 'fair and balanced' and in fact you can expect my every post about Edwards to shine unfavorably on him... because I obviously think he's a scumbag.

snood wrote:

The families for whom he's won millions probably see him differently than you. Just as there are two sides in any legal argument, opinions can vary about Edwards. And just like as*holes, you just have your one.

Yes, I'm sure those who shared in the spoils of his scumbaggery see him in a different light than I do. I'm reminded of an insurance policy ad suggested by a lunatic in the movie "Crazy People": "We know you love him... but if he dies; we buy you two Mercedes Benz and a Beach House. Wouldn't that be nice too?" Now I'm not going seriously suggest that any of his clients were the opportunistic scumbag that he is. Each may very well have considered the target of Edward's debauchery genuinely at fault. They, however, being the be-grieved in most instances; were in no position to offer an unbiased view. To the unbiased observer, not under the influence of Edward's scumbaggery; the truth is easier to spot. It is a fact that Edward's practice dramatically altered the way Doctors tend to deliver babies. It is also a fact that no measurable good has ever been shown to come of this. Now you can go ahead and disagree with my take on this but I'm not sure how you could do so without displaying an obvious bias, since the meat of my argument is incontrovertible FACT.

Same goes for the Grate that didn't perform it's function after some kids removed it. That part of my opinion is incontrovertible FACT so it's difficult for me to see how the unbiased mind could blame the manufacturer of the grate for the job it wasn't available to do. There is a word for this kind of tragedy; accident. Besides; how can there be any doubt that both the contractor who incorrectly installed the grate AND the kids who removed it are more responsible for the tragedy that the manufacturer who was NEVER even present? The simple fact is; Edwards went after Sta-Rite because they have money, NOT because they were ultimately responsible for the tragedy. I remain confident that your assumption that those who shared in the ill-gotten gains view Edward's actions differently whether by greed or unintentional misplacement of blame brought about by grief. Edwards himself has no such excuse. He's just an opportunistic scumbag, plain and simple. Buy, by all means; feel free to disagree.

Yes BPB. Hat's off to Elizabeth... but that doesn't mean I'll let her scumbag husband off the hook for a minute... or when (not if) he starts exploiting her suffering as well; which I'd wager dollars to doughnuts is up and coming.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It is a fact that Edward's practice dramatically altered the way Doctors tend to deliver babies. It is also a fact that no measurable good has ever been shown to come of this. Now you can go ahead and disagree with my take on this but I'm not sure how you could do so without displaying an obvious bias, since the meat of my argument is incontrovertible FACT.

Really? I kind of doubt that. I have to admit that I don't really know very much about that specific case. I've just kinda been following your repeated rants on that issue.

However, I know that the percentages for birth by caesarean in Germany went up from 18 percent in 1995 to 28 percent in 2005. A rather dramatic increase of some 56 percent. So, if there's a similar development observable in the States (and I admittedly couldn't be bothered to look up the numbers) - what makes you so sure that Edwards rather than other reasons are responsible for this development? (On the face of it, Edwards certainly can't be responsible for the drastic change of numbers in Germany, can he?)

So, as the increase of caesareans and their consequences seems to be kind of the premise of your argument (at least as you make it here), let me ask you (as this thread seems to be as good a place as any other): what makes you so sure about your opinion, OB? What exactly are the incontrovertible FACTS you base your opinion on?

(Hey, and I really haven't read up on the case or on the topic, and you might well be right... But the argument you are making right here doesn't seem to be very convincing.)

0 Replies

O'Bill's "incontrovertible FACTs" are full of beans. Sta-Rite was proven to be liable because they provided no warnings about securing their covers on the grates, even after they'd seen the horrible results of not providing those warnings several times.

O'Bills rants about his supposed insights into Edwards are just his swollen ego trying to pass off a guess as "incontrovertible fact".

Its ridiculous that Edwards is considered a hypocrite and scumbag for being a politician who has done work and study about poverty, and who talks about the poor. I suppose those hundreds of rich politicians who never talk about the poor or appear to give a shyt about them are better?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

so the horrendous precedent of forcing Doctors to perform unnecessary C-Sections continued... continues. Along with higher insurance costs; this is the scumbag's legacy. Scores of cases followed the blueprint, dramatically altering the way Doctor's choose to practice medicine...

Some more thoughts on this one.

The above quoted argument doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are saying that the result of this specific case was that doctors, afraid of being sued for medical malpractice, started performing unnecessary c-sections en masse.

However, the statistics seem to suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a caesarean section will die. Which is a very high risk compared to a vaginal delivery, where the risk for the mother to die is one in 10,000.

Your argument seems to be that doctors, afraid of being sued for millions of dollars for malpractice, took up performing unnecessary operations, which seem to have a mortality rate up to 4 times that of a vaginal birth.

Do you see the problem with your argument?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It is a fact that Edward's practice dramatically altered the way Doctors tend to deliver babies. It is also a fact that no measurable good has ever been shown to come of this. Now you can go ahead and disagree with my take on this but I'm not sure how you could do so without displaying an obvious bias, since the meat of my argument is incontrovertible FACT.

Really? I kind of doubt that. I have to admit that I don't really know very much about that specific case. I've just kinda been following your repeated rants on that issue.

However, I know that the percentages for birth by caesarean in Germany went up from 18 percent in 1995 to 28 percent in 2005. A rather dramatic increase of some 56 percent. So, if there's a similar development observable in the States (and I admittedly couldn't be bothered to look up the numbers) - what makes you so sure that Edwards rather than other reasons are responsible for this development? (On the face of it, Edwards certainly can't be responsible for the drastic change of numbers in Germany, can he?)

So, as the increase of caesareans and their consequences seems to be kind of the premise of your argument (at least as you make it here), let me ask you (as this thread seems to be as good a place as any other): what makes you so sure about your opinion, OB? What exactly are the incontrovertible FACTS you base your opinion on?

(Hey, and I really haven't read up on the case or on the topic, and you might well be right... But the argument you are making right here doesn't seem to be very convincing.)

I wouldn't pretend to know what effect lawsuits have in Germany or anywhere else. I do know that when Edwards was lining his pockets with natural child birth/CP cases that the experts on the cause were roughly split on whether or not C-Sections would be an effective remedy to reduce the prevalence of CP, so yes; there would be a corresponding spike with or without Edward's scumbaggery. However; a split between Doctors anywhere near 50/50 should not be legally punishable as an error one way or another, should it? Is it malpractice to be wrong in your best educated guess (though in this case the Doctor, not Edwards, was in all likelihood right)? In
FACT: The dramatic increase in C-Section deliveries has NOT EVER been shown to have decreased the prevalence of CP... but IMHO that is beside the point. Large strings of massive lawsuits will inevitably alter the decisions of Doctors... and in cases where it's one educated guess versus another... laymen at Medicine like myself or John Edwards shouldn't be influencing the decisions of the experts. Consider the horrendous precedent that winning a case against an innocent Doctor, for doing nothing more than delivering babies the best way he knows how has on Medicine. I'm not currently on my own computer, so I can't even check to see if I saved the links I studied, but if memory serves there was no question that baby-delivery was and remains altered to this day over an educated guess that ultimately proved incorrect. But, again, even if that guess had proven correct; John Edwards would be no less of a scumbag... because it was an educated guess by the man most qualified to make it at the time.

Besides; that is hardly the whole of my reasoning to determine Edwards a Scumbag. :wink:

Ps. I may have posted some links while debating this with Nimh... but I'm way too lazy to search right now.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
so the horrendous precedent of forcing Doctors to perform unnecessary C-Sections continued... continues. Along with higher insurance costs; this is the scumbag's legacy. Scores of cases followed the blueprint, dramatically altering the way Doctor's choose to practice medicine...

Some more thoughts on this one.

The above quoted argument doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are saying that the result of this specific case was that doctors, afraid of being sued for medical malpractice, started performing unnecessary c-sections en masse.

However, the statistics seem to suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a caesarean section will die. Which is a very high risk compared to a vaginal delivery, where the risk for the mother to die is one in 10,000.

Your argument seems to be that doctors, afraid of being sued for millions of dollars for malpractice, took up performing unnecessary operations, which seem to have a mortality rate up to 4 times that of a vaginal birth.

Do you see the problem with your argument?

That's the problem with Edwards and scumbags like him's interference with Medicine... not my argument. Think it through.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

O'Bill's "incontrovertible FACTs" are full of beans. Sta-Rite was proven to be liable because they provided no warnings about securing their covers on the grates, even after they'd seen the horrible results of not providing those warnings several times.

O'Bills rants about his supposed insights into Edwards are just his swollen ego trying to pass off a guess as "incontrovertible fact".

Its ridiculous that Edwards is considered a hypocrite and scumbag for being a politician who has done work and study about poverty, and who talks about the poor. I suppose those hundreds of rich politicians who never talk about the poor or appear to give a shyt about them are better?

Snood; how bad do you want to ignore the obvious? Sta-Rite is a giant manufacturer who produces industrial supplies for a wide range of industries. Holding them responsible for a contractor's incompetence is absurd. Throw in the fact that kids had removed the damn thing completely before the tragedy occurred and you are so far off the logic train to blame the manufacturer for not branding it with a warning label it is ludicrous. The jury endured 1.5 hours of closing argument where Edwards misdirected all the way to his own son's tragic passing as if that had any relevance on Sta-Rite's culpability. Get a grip, man. Slipping in your tub is 1000 times more likely to kill you and your tub doesn't need a warning label branded into it. Should you happen to die slipping in your tub; there is only one kind of lawyer that will sue the manufacturer on your behalf: A SCUMBAG.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

old europe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
so the horrendous precedent of forcing Doctors to perform unnecessary C-Sections continued... continues. Along with higher insurance costs; this is the scumbag's legacy. Scores of cases followed the blueprint, dramatically altering the way Doctor's choose to practice medicine...

Some more thoughts on this one.

The above quoted argument doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are saying that the result of this specific case was that doctors, afraid of being sued for medical malpractice, started performing unnecessary c-sections en masse.

However, the statistics seem to suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a caesarean section will die. Which is a very high risk compared to a vaginal delivery, where the risk for the mother to die is one in 10,000.

Your argument seems to be that doctors, afraid of being sued for millions of dollars for malpractice, took up performing unnecessary operations, which seem to have a mortality rate up to 4 times that of a vaginal birth.

Do you see the problem with your argument?
That's the problem with Edwards and scumbags like him's interference with Medicine... not my argument. Think it through.

Looks like he's thought it further through than you. You're saying Edward's "interfered" in medicine in a way that the statistics don't support.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
old europe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
so the horrendous precedent of forcing Doctors to perform unnecessary C-Sections continued... continues. Along with higher insurance costs; this is the scumbag's legacy. Scores of cases followed the blueprint, dramatically altering the way Doctor's choose to practice medicine...

Some more thoughts on this one.

The above quoted argument doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are saying that the result of this specific case was that doctors, afraid of being sued for medical malpractice, started performing unnecessary c-sections en masse.

However, the statistics seem to suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a caesarean section will die. Which is a very high risk compared to a vaginal delivery, where the risk for the mother to die is one in 10,000.

Your argument seems to be that doctors, afraid of being sued for millions of dollars for malpractice, took up performing unnecessary operations, which seem to have a mortality rate up to 4 times that of a vaginal birth.

Do you see the problem with your argument?
That's the problem with Edwards and scumbags like him's interference with Medicine... not my argument. Think it through.

Looks like he's thought it further through than you. You're saying Edward's "interfered" in medicine in a way that the statistics don't support.

Nonsense, Snood. Look again: That isn't what he's saying at all.

0 Replies

Dude, stop arguing and think for a second. If C-Sections are more dangerous for women, but failure to perform them at the drop of a hat are more costly Lawsuit-wise; and the science behind these lawsuits is unproven (let alone the pure BS it turned out to be), you have the perfect example of a class-A A-hole lining his pockets AGAINST the best interest of medicine, women and the general public at large. In short; a scumbag.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FACT: The dramatic increase in C-Section deliveries has NOT EVER been shown to have decreased the prevalence of CP... but IMHO that is beside the point. Large strings of massive lawsuits will inevitably alter the decisions of Doctors...

Yes, I understand that that is your argument. In my opinion, you have failed to show that it's true in this case.

Sure, there has been a lawsuit in a America, and there has been an increase in the number of c-sections. But correlation Not Equal

causation.

There has been 10 percent higher increase in caesareans in Germany (without a massive lawsuit) than in the USA (with a massive lawsuit). In fact, it seems there has been an increase across western countries (all without a massive lawsuit).

Assuming that conditions are somewhat comparable across countries, it seems that the lawsuit in the United States didn't have much of an effect.

It seems to me as if there were a number of reasons that seem to be far more likely than the Edwards lawsuit to explain not only the increase in c-sections in America, but across western countries:

A higher live expectancy. Women plan accordingly, and get pregnant later - in their thirties and forties rather than in their teens and twenties (resulting in higher risks for the mother resulting in more c-sections).
Emancipation. More and more women have careers and positions that make it inconvenient to have kids in their teens and twenties. Women plan accordingly, and get pregnant later - in their thirties and forties (resulting in higher risks for the mother resulting in more c-sections).
The problems associated with vaginal deliveries. Women know more about the complications that vaginal births can result in, and opt for the safety of their child and a c-section instead.
The better control over c-sections. While caesareans are still riskier for the mother, they have become very much a standard procedure that takes about 3 to 4 minutes, with an ever decreasing risk.
The situation in hospitals. The personnel is often stretched thin, and waiting for a vaginal birth can take a very long time. In that situation, doctors might decide on a c-section instead.
The profit motive. Hospitals receive more money for a caesarean operation than for a vaginal delivery.

All of the above points seem to be at least as likely as a single lawsuit in the United States to be responsible for a larger number of c-sections.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

snood wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
old europe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
so the horrendous precedent of forcing Doctors to perform unnecessary C-Sections continued... continues. Along with higher insurance costs; this is the scumbag's legacy. Scores of cases followed the blueprint, dramatically altering the way Doctor's choose to practice medicine...

Some more thoughts on this one.

The above quoted argument doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are saying that the result of this specific case was that doctors, afraid of being sued for medical malpractice, started performing unnecessary c-sections en masse.

However, the statistics seem to suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a caesarean section will die. Which is a very high risk compared to a vaginal delivery, where the risk for the mother to die is one in 10,000.

Your argument seems to be that doctors, afraid of being sued for millions of dollars for malpractice, took up performing unnecessary operations, which seem to have a mortality rate up to 4 times that of a vaginal birth.

Do you see the problem with your argument?
That's the problem with Edwards and scumbags like him's interference with Medicine... not my argument. Think it through.

Looks like he's thought it further through than you. You're saying Edward's "interfered" in medicine in a way that the statistics don't support.
Nonsense, Snood. Look again: That isn't what he's saying at all.

Well, what I am saying is: I think it's highly unlikely that doctors would start performing more unnecessary operations that have a dramatically higher risk to result in the death of the patient if they were afraid to become the target of medical malpractice suits. You would rather expect the opposite to be true.

0 Replies

BBB
Oh, that Ann Coulter:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/215/gallery/17310.html

0 Replies

What I find both funny and sad is that for 18 pages so many of you have proffessed your hatred and disgust for AnnCoulter,yet you continue to pay attention to her and you continue to let her bother you.

Maybe its just me,but why would anyone continue to pay attention to someone they seem to hate so profoundly?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It is a fact that Edward's practice dramatically altered the way Doctors tend to deliver babies.

And back to this statement of yours for a bit...

It seems the precedent the Edwards case set was that physicians and hospitals could be held liable for failing to determine if the patient understood the risks of a particular procedure.

The obvious conclusion would be that hospitals and doctors would have started to make sure that patients were informed about the risks, even the potential risks, of a procedure rather than changing the procedures themselves.

---

Frankly, the only objective point you seem to have is that Edwards, in a situation where experts were split on an issue, relied more on his performance than on evidence in order to win a case.

0 Replies

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Chris Mathews chases ratings and attention like a whore after a John, adding to his reputation for sucking up to his guests with disgusting insincerity. ---BBB

BBB: Are these mean attacks on whores really necessary? You are lowering the debate with them.

0 Replies

Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know