I admit I paid no attention to the candidates this time around, so I'm just today becoming familiar with John Edwards.

What I learned is that I am very unhappy with this VP choice. Considering he made a ton of money suing doctors, which in turn raises malpractice insurance, which in turn raises medical costs abhors me.

True, my family did sue the hospital for medical negligence 16 years ago with respect to their gross negligence in causing my mother's death (in a big city's teaching hospital), but there's just something wrong with suing over every little thing these lawyers come up with.

Edwards suits were (mostly) based on what's called "junk science." I am and have always been VERY against junk lawsuits and having the likes of one of them only a heartbeat away bothers me.

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but I think I'm up to the task or I wouldn't have opened it.

For what it's worth---

I have a law degree, but have never practiced law, not even for a day, & have never cashed a pay check from a lawyer or a law firm. I'm not familiar with Edwards much at all at this point, including how he made his money or what type of lawsuits he has argued.

I'm a CPA & work for a CPA firm & have done a little expert witness work, & have spent many a frustrating day trying to explain accounting or taxes to trial attorneys & judges. It's often shocking how little they know or understand. Many tend to have no knowledge of anything cept for how to win a case.

The point is that it's possible that Edwards has no idea whether the cases he has taken are based on junk science or not. I can imagine some of the trial attorneys I know hiring a medical expert for a certain case & not comprehending anything they're being told.

The legal profession often gets a bad name, often deservedly so. I know attorneys who are good guys & some who aren't, but you can't necessarily judge 'em by the kind of cases they take. Like I said, I'm not well read on Edwards, just throwing out this possibility.

And remember---he's not Cheney!

That lawsuit stuff is 95% rightwing propaganda, you know. I'm always amazed as regular people buy into the BS and want turn in what few weapons they have left to the powers that be. Regular people have little means of redress and in this age of rampant deregulation there's very little way of reigning in corporate power. Tort reform is just hammering the last nail in the coffin that holds whatever populist power use to exist.

I've paid attention to every single candidate from before the primary season started. John Edwards reputation as a trial lawyer is sterling except in Republican circles. More importantly, his message about Two Americas is the message that needs to get out to all of America. People are voting their own rights away year after year. People are voting to have the wealth of this country move ever upward while the middle class becomes less secure and less stabe and it becomes harder to move out of poverty. He's a trial lawyer? Good. That means he's educated himself about what legnths some corporations will go to in their ever increasing greed. He knows how HMOs will refuse needed medical treatments to their members. That's the kind of person we need in office.

You can like him or not like him, but don't let rightwing talking points form your decisions.

What you said, Terrie, is almost exactly what John Stossel (right wing corporate shill) said in an interview I heard recently.

The cool part is that the person interviewing him was a trial lawyer, and exposed him for the scum he is.

Stossel's point is that you don't need to sue the drug companies, because people dying from bad drugs will take care of the problem.

Uh hum. If you are interested, you can download the interview from airamericaplace.com - it's under "Ring of Fire" which is a show hosted by 2 trial lawyer - Mike Papatonio and Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Good morning, Pat & Joe.

Your points are well-taken. But how does one go about figuring out which new reports are right- or left-wing? And if one is right- or left-wing, isn't that report slanted, regardless of direction?

Let'sassume that all news reports are one or the other... then there's no way of really knowing the "real" candidates.

I guess my question is really one of trying to figure out where the unbiased stories are to be found.

<FONT size="1">(Edited to fix a typo. Still typing one-handed)</FONT s>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Terrie on Jul 08, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Just what Pat said. There are two America's out there. It all boils down to 'Which Side Are You on Boys" Which side are you on?

*Besides what credentials are we looking for. Would it be better if he was a plumber. Personally I'll go with the Attorney. Bush is cornered. Lets just hope more than 1/2 of America realizes it, before it's too late.

**Altho I don't agree with Nader running, he sure does slam the republican party....

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terrie:


I guess my question is really one of trying to figure out where the unbiased stories are to be found.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everybody here wrestles with that question, I'm sure.

For me, I'm more of a "book" person than a "TV" or "magazine" person. If I wanna know about a subject, I'd rather read a book where the bibliography & footnotes show that the author was diligent & tried to get both sides of the story.

Until a book comes out on a subject, I try to rely on my own instincts.

I definitely do not believe Rush Limbaugh or FOX news. The need for FOX to constantly remind the public that they're "fair & balanced" would crack me up if it wasn't so pathetic. "Fair & balanced" shouldn't be something that a respectable news organization sez about itself; it should be something that they let others say about them, which will occur if it's true in the 1st place. And it's ridiculous to have a show titled "The O'Reilly Factor." If he were a serious newsman, he'd wanna communicate the news, not become a "factor" in how we think.

I also ask myself whether anybody who's trying to get me to believe something has a financial stake in me believing what they say, e.g., polluters who tell me that environmentalists are "wackos."

And over the years I've followed politics I've noticed certain recurring themes. The right have been trying to make the public fear trial lawyers, Hollywood, environmentalists, Ivy Leaguers, etc. ever since I can remember. Supposedly terrible things were gonna happen in the Clinton years coz he was in bed with the "trail lawyers." The Republicans were buying ads during the Democratic primaries attacking Howard Dean coz he was from Vermont, where they "eat sushi, drink latte, drive Volvos, & read The New York Times."

Well, this is starting to turn into a ramble, but that's my take on who or what to believe.

What Pat and Pittsburgh Joe said, big time! "Trial lawyer" is an epithet like "liberal" that the right wing likes to throw around like mud so they can dirty their opposition without really confronting any substantive issues.

Bush will be heading back to Crawford, TX if the American people are given the truth; let's all stay focused on issues, not namecalling.

Therein lies the (my) problem. I don't know What to believe.

I know that I'm fed up, sick to death with lawyers suing doctors. I've seen medical care costs increase to the point that I choke when one of my kids gets hurt or sick. I have a disabled child (Michael) who lives on (and is alive because of) nebulizer treatments that didn't exist for my cousins a generation ago, steroids, very expensive asthma medications, and hospitalizations.

Medical costs are high, yes, because of greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, but also because of the kind of R&D that made a nebulizer that fits in my bookbag possible!

Medical costs are high, tho... mainly because of the premiums doctors have to pay out their asses because such liability is shared across the specialty. In PA, several hospitals actually closed down in the past year because their doctors had to give up their practices. And NOT because THEY were sued, but because of the shared liability, higher premiums. And they weren't neurosurgeons either! They were orthopedists, for crying out loud. You'd think that the neuro and OB guys would be packing up, but it's the everday docs, the GPs and orthopedists who are getting slammed.

Yes, it IS greed. I've known too many lawyers who salivate at the mere thought of suing a doctor. They have their lists of "cooperating" docs who will pad bills in accident cases, and lists of those who don't "cooperate." Guess which ones are more likely to become suit-bait?

And it's greed on the part of the client, too. Since these suits are filed with absolutely no cost to them, they are more than happy to actually look for things to sue over. Only when (if) a financial recovery is made does the client actually "pay" anything. The reality is that the lawyer takes his 50% or 65% "off the top" after expenses. Lawyer makes his money, client gets a "FREE" windfall. It's all too tempting.

And I admit to having participated in these lawsuits, back in my teens and early twenties. Why not? I didn't have to even do anything but go for physical therapy a few times a week, take some prescription pills and sign on the dotted line. Chances are good that part of my joint problems now are from being misdiagnosed after car accidents and being treated improperly by these "cooperating" docs. I was born with joint disease and have sustained injuries to various joints, but mainly my right ankle over many years. I have, for the past 20 years or so, been dealing with chronic joint injuries and pain. I just had surgery to remove part of a diseased bone in my wrist, tighten the ligament and clean up the tendon. Maybe if my lawyer hadn't sent me to his "preferred" docs... maybe if I hadn't been lawsuit-happy... maybe... maybe...

Anyway, I now have a distrust of lawyers who file what could be perceived as "frivolous" suits. If something goes wrong, sue the doctor, even if the patient is the one to blame. Sorry, I don't want a bunch of lawyers running this country.

It's a "catch 22". Without malpractice suits and trial lawyers, health care would be more affordable, but less safe. The trouble is with the system and it's abuses by the greedy.
Kerry and Edwards may not be the best choices, but they have to be a zillion times better than the incumbants.
And somebody please smack Ralph Nader upside the head for me!

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Larry on Jul 08, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

On Kutztown's website update today, I found out that there would be a viewing area for "supporters and protesters" across the street from the arena where Bush will be holding a 2-hour Q&A Town Hall Meeting. Since I couldn't get tickets (I found out a day too late), the "kids" and I thought we'd drive up to the campus and be with the "supporters and protesters."

When I called the university for more info, I found out that our view will be totally blocked by "Old Main" and we'll be several campus-blocks away. Roads and parking lots will be closed. We could go to the SUB to view the entire thing in air-conditioned luxury on closed-circuit TV, but in the end we've decided to watch it at home on a local station and then [probably] see Fahrenheit 9/11 in the afternoon.

In an aside, getting back to my previous post, please don't think I was ever involved in staging phoney car accidents. I realized some may have gotten that impression from my post. The accidents were real, the pain was real, but I'm not so sure about the cooperating docs being real. And take it from me, hot red cars really are tagets!

Of course, this newsletter is one-sided--the side I'm on--but they give sources and it's an excellent starting point on many issues. It' daily. Considering what they cover, it probably could be hourly if they had the time. This is the July 6 issue:

BUSH & CHENEY MISLEAD ON TORT REFORM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to dishonestly claim that
trial lawyers are to blame for skyrocketing health care costs. President
Bush said Friday that "frivolous lawsuits...run up the cost of medicine" and
that solutions to health care problems were stopped in Congress "because the
trial lawyers are powerful in the Senate."[1] Similarly, Cheney said last
week that "medical liability reform" is the key to "control the cost of
health care."[2] But, according to undisputed government and academic data,
lawsuits have little -- if anything -- to do with health care costs.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), costs from
malpractice lawsuits represent less than 2%[3] of the nation's total health
care spending, and the tort reform legislation pushed by President Bush
would reduce health insurance premiums by less than one-half of one
percent.[4] While President Bush has claimed that lawsuits cause "docs to
practice medicine in an expensive way[5] in order to protect themselves in
the courthouse," a study by the Harvard University School of Public Health
"did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and
medical costs." Additionally, a study in the Journal of Health Economics[6]
compared medical costs in states with limits on lawsuits to states without
limits and found only tiny savings - less than three-tenths of one percent.
In all, CBO reported "no statistically significant difference in per capita
health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice
torts."[7]

The White House's insistence on pushing the trial lawyer myths are designed
to obscure its record in other areas that would seriously reduce health care
costs. For instance, the Bush Administration's recently-passed Medicare bill
specifically prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug
prices from large pharmaceutical companies.[8] Similarly, industry studies
have found that widespread adoption of the President's Health Care Savings
Accounts "could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers."[9]

Sources:

1. Remarks by President Bush on the Economy, PRNewswire.com, 7/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43773.
2. "Cheney rallies the faithful at Wheeling bus tour stop,"
Observer-Reporter, 7/04/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43774.
3. "Economic and Budget Issue Brief: Limiting Tort Liability for Medical
Malpractice," Congressional Budget Office, 1/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43775.
4. "President Bush's Rhetoric on Medical Malpractice Doesn't Match Reality,"
DPC.Senate.gov, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43776.
5. Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 1/26/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43777.
6. "President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits,"
FactCheck.org, 1/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43778.
7. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43778.
8. "Bush Admits Drug Card Concerns," Washington Post, 6/15/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43779.
9. "Out of pocket costs may soar," USA Today, 4/25/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1265951&l=43780.

Visit www.misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. »

===========================================================

Subscribe to the Daily Mislead! Go to http://www.misleader.org and enter
your e-mail address in the "Receive the Daily Mislead" box in the
top-left corner of the page.

Terrie, you're learning about "Free speech zones". It used to be that the whole country was a free speech zone. No more.

As far as the malpractice goes, I don't buy that insurance premiums are the main reason. One reason, no doubt, but I recall my OB complaining quite bitterly about them years ago. At that point, medical care and insurance was quite affordable. Go back another generation or so and you'll find that doctors were not necessarily wealthy. With all the suffering doctors are doing, I still see the physician's parking lot populated with Mercedes and BMWs at my local hospital. I think I'll wait in feeling too badly for them. One problem is simply progress. There are many expensive tests and treatments. If they're indicated by not administered, a malpractice suit might be the result. OTOH if you can't sue, then insurance companies will refuse to cover much of that. Then there's medical school. We make it very expensive and difficult for Americans to become doctors, too. Why is that?

As far as what to believe, there are probably no totally unbiased sources. Even a straight up report on facts is going to leave a lot out of a complicated matter. You have to follow up and read all sides and come to your own conclusions a lot of the time. You're going to see events through your own prism. Mine bends the light leftward. Always has and always will because I think that's what's moral and right.

When it comes to this administration though. I can't imagine why anyone in this country would see them as anything but evil and dangerous.

Sixteen and a half years ago, when my mother was lying in ICU, brain-dead at the hands of a negligent nurse, I was torn between what I knew my father needed to do, and punishing the nurse, and what I believed (no lawsuit). I was pretty adamant that there had to be another way! That was LONG before Bush-Cheney "decided" to blame med-malpractice lawsuits.. I guess I'm just an innovator of thought.

As for anyone else being better than Bush, i do agree.

consider that Kenny (boy) Lay is now hoping to get someone of Edwards caliber to be HIS trial lawyer... wonder which lever he'll pull this november (if he hasn't lost his voting rights, poor poor misguided boy)