Video: Krauthammer says Dean “speaks the truth”
posted at 11:36 am on August 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
How foolish was Howard Dean’s admission that the Democrats lack the testicular fortitude to offer tort reform as part of ObamaCare? Every opponent of ObamaCare now has a handy sound bite to press the demand for tort reform as a show-stopper — and clearly paint the Democratic Party as a mouthpiece for trial lawyers. Charles Krauthammer used the clip to damn Dean and the Democrats with the faint praise of Dean’s “truth”, as Townhall’s Greg Hengler catches:
Krauthammer’s right about the trial lawyers owning the Democrats, but not so much on Dean. Dean did speak honestly about not wanting to make enemies of the trial lawyers, but not completely honestly. ObamaCare didn’t avoid tort reform out of concern of making too many enemies; it avoided tort reform because Democrats oppose tort reform altogether, and not just in the context of health-care reform. Trial lawyers indeed own the Democratic Party, which is why we’re not seeing tort reform now, and why we won’t see it in the future as long as Democrats control Congress.
Dean spoke in half truths in this clip. That still puts him ahead of most of his Democratic colleagues pushing this bill.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I knew that! Why can’t I get a cushy job on TV saying stuff like that?
Akzed on August 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Not to mention many dem congress critters have history as trial lawyers themselves.
Fletch54 on August 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I saw that last night, it was quite astonishing but the Democrats will pretend it never happened, they will lump it in like a Joe Biden gaffe, you know its just crazy Howard.
rob verdi on August 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Heeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwww
Knucklehead on August 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM
3…2…1…”Not the Howard Dean I knew.”
publiuspen on August 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Good luck showing that sound bite in some commercial.
WashJeff on August 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Democrats are trial lawyers whose trial period expired.
Daggett on August 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Of course the GOP will leave this low hanging fruit hanging.
It’s much more fun to dis Sarah Palin.
CurtZHP on August 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM
If the long-time failure to institute tort reform against the Unions is anything to go by, the Right won’t do anything, either.
OldEnglish on August 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Howard Dean was sent to HELP Rep. Moran???
The Moran – Moron Show.
Elizabetty on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Howie off a teleprompter is ALMOST, I said ALMOST as much fun as Barry Hussein……..
SDarchitect on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM
And the MSM will help the public forget.
John Deaux on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM
What Howard said? You vicious jerks. A Kennedy just died.
(playbook -Fri, Sat, Sun – maybe Monday?)
Marcus on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I would like to see the trial lawyer itemized cost on all my future health care bills.
fourdeucer on August 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM
see what happens when you pressure Dems…. the truth eventually comes out.
the pressure must be kept on.
ted c on August 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM
funny–!
Hey, Dean just spoke a half-truth.
MSM response: What a wonderful life Ted Kennedy had.
ted c on August 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM
When one finds a democrat that inadvertently tells the truth, well, it is so shocking and rare that it stands out…There was once a time when most democrats, like most republicans were assumed to tell the truth…no more.
JIMV on August 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Nice headline Ed. But isn’t that an oxymoron?
conservative pilgrim on August 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Tort reform needs to happen. If only someone had the courage to tell the trial lawyers to stand down and take a hike.
conservative pilgrim on August 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM
You people are so confusing. Is it Soros, the unions, or trial lawyers that “own” the democrats?
hottieinthehouse on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Hold on…………how could Dems not be telling the truth? I mean The Messiah was crowned in a Greek Temple and born in Nigeria? That speaks to truth right there……….and Mrs. Messiah has $10,000 shoes, $20,000 handbags and got a job as a Community Organizer for some small Chicago hospital for $300,000/year where she didn’t have to work or even show up? I mean if that isn’t an honest couple……..then I don’t who would be?
Cinday Blackburn on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You people are so confusing. Is it Soros, the unions, or trial lawyers that “own” the democrats?
hottieinthehouse on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Yes.
kingsjester on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
He is a liar. Obama’s biggest supporter is the Trial Lawyers Association. What a screwball, actually he means the more enemies he will make in Congress and the White House since most are LAWYERS, like Obama!
txstar on August 27, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I hate to say, I told you so, but I TOLD YOU SO!
txstar on August 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
“Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.”
Luke 20:46
Hening on August 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Obama and the Dems vilify Big Pharma. They also vilify medical doctors.
Not to be outdone, conservatives vilify lawyers?
When unfortunately you need to have a leg amputated for one reason or another, and the OTHER one is removed, do you want compensation? When a disease becomes fatal to your daughter that any doctor acting competently would have uncovered, but your doctor blew it, do you want compensation? When your infant’s brain is damaged because the hospital gave him medicine different from that actually prescribed, do you want compensation? For the extra expenses you will incur? For the pain endured? For the emotional distress suffered?
Did the otherwise brave Krauthammer engage in cowardly rhetoric in scapegoating lawyers?
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I hate the term “Trial Lawyers.” They used to be just called Plaintiff’s Lawyers (and, way back when, ambulance chasers); both terms are more accurate. What a wuss Howard Dean is. I take on these plaintiff’s lawyers all the time- they’re not scary at all!
LASue on August 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM
kingsjester, to answer your question, yes!
Bevan on August 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Coburn has tort reform in his Health Care bill, but in a town hall he agreed with Dean — very unlikely to happen since the trial lawyers own the Democrat party.
So we have on the one hand the party of NO (and RI-NO)
And on the other hand the party of Destroy America, “do it for the little guy and for Teddy.”
It’s up to the American people to wake up and make these “public servants” listen.
Christian Conservative on August 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Dean spoke in half truths in this clip. That still puts him ahead of most of his Democratic colleagues pushing this bill.
this was a slip of the tongue on deans part, nothing more.
SHARPTOOTH on August 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM
All of the above, you idiot. Now go back to bed.
Knucklehead on August 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM
kingsjester, to answer your question, yes!
Bevan on August 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM
That was hottie’s question. I answered yes to it. All of the above and more have a say in the Senocrat’s agenda.
kingsjester on August 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM
President Obama has claimed that this nation can no longer afford the cost of healthcare and serious reform is needed. Dean says the writers of the bill chose not to take on the trial lawyers because it would create too many “enemies” at a time when “everybody else they were taking on” is more than enough. One has to wonder who Dean thinks “everybody else” is. With Obama already reaching agreements, (and support), with the giants in the pharmaceutical companies, and the health insurance industry–who have already spent 35 million in lobbying congress to defeat the public option, who are these mysterious enemies that Dean claims congress is taking on?
Rovin on August 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Like John Edwards? That kind of Trial Lawyer…well the Democrats can only go up now ;)
I believe George Soros owns the Democrat Party, how did Move On Org, treat John Edwards early on in the Presidential Campaign? When he didn’t pan out Move On moved onto the next Lawyer…remember Obama sued Citi Bank for not approving sub prime loans…Barack H Obama who’s your Daddy :)
Dr Evil on August 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
You people are so confusing. Is it Soros, the unions, or trial lawyers that “own” the democrats?
hottieinthehouse on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You are so confused. The three you named are not mutually exclusive, nor are they in competition. A claim of any subset of these three “owning” the Democratic party would be both logically consistent and supported by the evidence.
My personal opinion: Soros *funds* the Democrats, while the unions and the trial lawyers own them.
jwolf on August 28, 2009 at 11:54 AM
It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. They’re partners in a sleazy, sham investment partnership called the Democratic Party. And unfortunately, we (taxpayers) are the ones subject to unlimited liability for their waste, mismanagement, and corruption.
BuckeyeSam on August 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM
“Speaking (half) truth(s) to (full) power”
anuts on August 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM
When ‘Rats are talking,
Half the truth is all you are
Ever gonna get.
Haiku Guy on August 28, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Not to be outdone, conservatives vilify lawyers?
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Most of your questions were legitimate, we don’t villify all lawyers only the ambulance chasing scum of the earth type.
fourdeucer on August 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Joint venture.
Mr. D on August 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Take any state, set up a state compensation system funded with millions of dollars for patients so profoundly injured, give them 100 percent compensation based on the decision of a medical-legal panel.
Watch the tort lawyers stomp scream and screech.
Marcus on August 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Pelosi’s been proven to be a liar?
But……..she promised to oversee the most ethical congress ever!
Does this mean Santa Claus isn’t real either?
rukiddingme on August 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
That Sarah Palin should “shut up”, Pinnochio says, she doesn’t “quite get it, is not ready yet”, Krauthammer, should stay bare foot in the kitchen and have “an abortion to establish her political creds”, any number of Liberal opponents,
But by God when she puts out a message on Facebook the whole wide world decides its’ Tort Reform that needs to be taked about!
Right after she crucified the False Jesus from the same forum a week ago.
Go Sarah Go
Palin/Cheney(LIZ) 2012 To see liberal heads explode!
dhunter on August 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Speaking for myself, it is not the compensation, but the amount, and what for that bothers me.
To use your example, how does mollifying your pain and distress help your child? Payment for ongoing expenses, not covered by insurance, is fine, but whining about life not being perfect, is not.
OldEnglish on August 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM
This conversation underscores what I believe is indeed a true discrepancy in America. Legal representation for the rich versus legal representation for the rest. The difference there dwarfs any differences in health care.
We need a system where the poorest among us has the opportunity to defend themselves against the richest.
Trial reform. Wouldn’t that be fun to hear discussed in Washington?
redshirt on August 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Punative Damges are in place to prevent bad behavior. If the judgement is too high, it can be modified by the judge in most states or modified on appeal.
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM
You have to slam Sarah Palin first. Not worth it.
rbj on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I’m unable to play the clip, but I saw this last night.
What was even better that Krauthammer’s comments were those of Kirsten Powers. Even in her twitty, liberal delivery, she had to concede that (I can’t recall the exact words) “everyone agrees that we need tort reform.” My problem with her comments is that she couched the issue as a bone that Obama should throw to the right in an attempt to appear bipartisan.
That’s a non sequitur. That is, if tort reform is something on which all agree is desirable, it should be introduced in the first instance rather than being used as a bargaining chip. Only issues subject to debate require the give-and-take of compromise.
That said, I loved hearing her own up to what we all know to be true.
BuckeyeSam on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Cash Bar – How trial lawyers bankroll the Democratic party
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915714/
Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare
http://www.redstate.com/izoneguy/2009/08/27/tort-reform-spurs-economic-growth-aids-access-to-healthcare/
Plain and simple truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlhp1hZsQ7I
izoneguy on August 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM
They are called “Public Defenders” in Florida they are elected (stupid) because then those accused people get only as much representation as the general public wants (which is none).
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM
You know, for someone
Who now is irrelevant,
We see her a lot!
Haiku Guy on August 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM
You know, I agreee with Krauthammer’s basic point here, but his language really debases the debate, and is totally over the top.
I think he should just leave the room, so we can discuss this rationally, like adults.
Brian1972 on August 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Yes.
John the Libertarian on August 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
No, he was just caught up in the moment and too stupid to realize it…I guarantee he now wishes he never ever said that, and he will back away from that statement…if anyone ever can find him again to ask the question.
BTW, I wonder if the fairness doctrine, if ever initiated will include Town Hall meetings….
You mention town hall meetings to a liberal, and they break out in a sweat…more truth has been discussed at these meetings then ever spoken in public before.
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
hottieinthehouse on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM
5′ 0″ tall, 205 lbs.
Akzed on August 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
No. It’s the classic “Man Bites Dog”.
LibTired on August 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Ira, would you object to a loser pays system, so that lawyers would be more realistic in deciding what cases to accept?
Yes, those examples you cited are legitimate, but rare. There are lots of frivolous suits that need to be eliminated. Lawyer won’t take the risk of incurring expense if they know it is a bogus case.
redshirt on August 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
For anyone that has seen the AARP ad with the ambulance dodging around all the supposed obstacles conservatives are placing in the way of health care reform just imagine those traffic obstacles as trial lawyers.
fourdeucer on August 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Can a body live without a; brain, heart, lungs? That fact is, your list are all part of the living entity of liberals…take one away and they would perish…
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yer on to something, and why not? Lawyers assigned by lottery. All lawyers make, oh I dunno, $80/hr.
No lawyer may see more than six clients a day.
Only one lawyer per 250 square miles.
If you’re over 65 and want to sue, you might have to consult with a panel of experts to discuss your options.
I like it.
Akzed on August 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Exodus, Chapter 23
1 Thou shalt not utter a false report; put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice;
3 neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause.
4 If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him.
6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.
7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.
8 And thou shalt take no gift; for a gift blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
9 And a stranger shalt thou not oppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus, Chapter 19
15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Deuteronomy, Chapter 1
16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying: ‘Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man; for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me, and I will hear it.’
Deuteronomy, Chapter 16
18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
20 Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deuteronomy, Chapter 24
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
17 Thou shalt not pervert the justice due to the stranger, or to the fatherless; nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge.
Deuteronomy, Chapter 27
19 Cursed be he that perverteth the justice due to the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say: Amen.
Shakespeare, King Henry VI, part 2, Act IV, Scene 2:
CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
reformation. There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,–
ALL
God save your majesty!
CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
They share joint custody of the corrupt, bed-crapping, diseased, smelly donkey party.
Birds of a feather who crap on the American people together.
NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Can anyone ever address tort reform by discussing the merits rather than how much money it will save? Is it fair to the victim of medical negligence? Rationing medical care will save money too. So why do one and not the other?
tommylotto on August 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Yes, public defenders are there, but they aren’t usually the very best the system has to offer. Would you want a “public doctor” to perform your heart surgery, or would you prefer to have the best doctor in the country?
What options do us regular folk have in civil court?
But even in criminal court, the rich have better lawyers than the public lawyers.
redshirt on August 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Soros owns their attack on liberty, the unions own their attack on property, and the trial lawyers own their attack on logic.
Count to 10 on August 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
fattieinthehouse? Hide the Krispy Kreme’s!!!!
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM
HA! Under the bus.
marklmail on August 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Heh. A couple of months ago, a California legal magazine said the problem with the California legislature was that there were not enough lawyers.
Blake on August 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Until we stop electing lawyers things will never change.
BrianA on August 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Exactly!
redshirt on August 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Well that’s the first time she’s owned up to anything lately that would be the least bit negative on this administration.
She now has her lips so firmly attached to Barry’s a$$, she’s reminding me more and more like Bob Beckel in a dress. What is Fox thinking by putting her on the “panel”?
Knucklehead on August 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Most of the time the looser pays for the winners legal bills.
“Frivolous Suits” are a red herring, if a party thinks that a suit is frivolous, he can motion for sanction and Summary Judgement, if the court agrees that there is no further facts to decide he can issue a judgement as a matter of law.
Tort Reform is just another restriction on free enterprise, telling attorneys how much they can make of any one case.
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Which would you rpefer,Israel or Utopia?
Akzed on August 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
No kidding, in my district, Patrick Murphy claimed the bill does address tort reform. He basically says it is built in the design. He is the only one I heard make such a claim.
msmveritas on August 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM
True, but is rewarding a third party the right way to go about it? The injured party, yes, but no-one else.
As to the amount, and possible reduction, doesn’t that usually involve yet more litigation, and more cost? Given some recent jury-awarded figures, maybe a move towards a panel would be more efficient.
OldEnglish on August 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM
We have a few ciruits who keep some really good attorneys in the PD’s office. You get what you pay for.
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Because increments, slow changes are more effective and more easily measured.
Take just two items, selling across state lines (insurance), and tort reform…now wait 3 years and see the impact.
Listen, Edwards made millions with that line…and he was suing doctors for birth defects that were not attributed to doctors, but to DNA…get in court and nobody wants a child or parent to suffer, so they steal money from the deep pockets.
Remove that enticement, and you will see premiums drop.
When I moved here, OB’s in NC (because of Edwards) could receive 100% financing, and 0% loans if they moved to NC. The state was decimated with OB’s moving out because Edwards and his ilk milked them to the point where they couldn’t even get insurance…wise up.
Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the decline of “normal” life in the U.S.
See any swings, teeter totters, merry-go-rounds, in any Calif. city parks lately?
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Tort is a restriction of free enterprise, telling attorneys that they can grab as much money as they can convince a jury to give them (out of someone else’s pockets).
Lets not forget that, in addition to frivolous lawsuits, there is also a problem of ridiculous damages awards. “Pain and suffering” might as well be known as “the lawyer’s cut”.
Count to 10 on August 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM
: )
publiuspen on August 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Obama gets a bit of payback from Dean. :)
AnninCA on August 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I think it comes to quality of judges. The standard for excessive damages is an amount that “shocks the conscience” few judges really keep that in mind.
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM
500 years of common law would disagree
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM
But it should be about the victim, not the lawyer.
OldEnglish on August 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Gotta love the ‘hammer
Hilts on August 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
No, it is reining in an out of control legal system originally established to protect “all people”. It has nothing to do with “free enterprise”, but everything to do with regulation attorneys, which are licensed and certified to practice law. They have rules to abide by, and one of the rules should involve tort reform.
That is like saying a doctor should be able to charge you for anything, once on the surgery table…hey look, I think to pull this guy out of the coma, we are going to need another $15,000 dollars, pay now by credit card please.
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Squid Shark’s response is mostly correct.
In most state cases, and in all Federal cases, a plaintiff bringing a frivolous case, or a defendant putting on a frivolous defense, runs the risk of paying all or part of, or even more than, the other side’s expenses. In Federal cases, the rule is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Even the attorney can be held liable for the penalty.
In cases coming under certain statutes (e.g., patent, trademark and copyright statutes-in the area of law I practice), the loser may be required to pay the winners legal fees. In patent and trademark cases, the court must find the case to be “exceptional,” which usually means that the case was frivolous or the defense was frivolous, or the losing side litigated vexatiously.
While one could argue that perhaps courts should award the winner his, her or its attorney fees more often, think about the folks who would be denied their day in court but for the ability to have what might be a close case heard without the fear of paying two sets of legal fees. Think how much harder it would be to bring and prosecute cases which may overturn erroneous precedent.
In any event, kudos to Squid Shark for his or her pithy answer to redshirt.
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Better analogy, it is like telling a senator not to accept lobbyist money, that is a restriction on his free enterprise.
It may have nothing to do with a bill, or a pending bill…often can’t prove the quid pro quo…but it is illegal to accept large payments (unless you are a liberal).
right2bright on August 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
This is so out of control that it borders on some kind of legal treason. I have been reading that most of the Association of Trial Lawyers new found wealth and power comes from the endless cash flowing from the tobacco settlement. What has this country come to and where is it headed? Of all the horror stories that have come out of the Dems rise to power, this is by far the worst–the absolute worst. Apparently ATLA gives millions in soft money to the Dems every year and continues to do so. We really, really need to wash this country out and throw out the dirty linen and all those who would wear it. I’m beginning to understand those people who say this country needs fixing big time and are not happy with it as it now exists. My reasons might be different but my dismay is becoming just as great.
jeanie on August 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM
It doesn’t take much to confuse you.
thomasaur on August 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM
They produce nothing and add no wealth to the economy.
A judge tossing out a frivolous lawsuit would also not be a restriction on free enterprise… or would argue that ALL lawsuits should go to trial so juries can be sure that lawyers make money?
mankai on August 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’d like to see a law similar to what England has, in which the loser pays the bill.
AnninCA on August 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I agree that medical expenses are…EXPENSIVE.
I also agree that Sue Happy Lawyers expenses are…EXPENSIVE.
If we are going to tell the Dr. how much they can charge for a procedure, let’s also tell the Lawyer how much they can charge for a suit. I believe .5% of whatever the plantiff is awarded is payment enough. ($1,000,000 settlement = $5,000. Sound “fair” to me.
Now lets see how many frivolous law suits there are.
PappaMac on August 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Democrats unfortunately do not.
WashJeff on August 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Doesn’t matter any more whether the Democrats are owned by Soros, or the Trial Lawyers, or the unions—it’s the unassailable and thoroughy abhorrent fact that they are owned at all—that they are and have been for sale to the highest bidder and that integrity or honesty or trustworthiness of any kind in their ranks(and perhap GOP too) is simply for sale like a used care or a pair of shoes or anything. Nothing more that political whores–for sale and then forced to do the bidding of the buyer. Extremely put? You bet!! And also,it seems, true.
jeanie on August 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM
The ONE is owned by the trial lawyers…
d1carter on August 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Hey, PappaMac, when YOU need medical services, YOU will pay as much as YOU can to get the best medical services YOU can afford. When YOU need legal services, YOU will pay as much as YOU can to get the best legal services YOU can afford. YOU would be pissed if YOU were forced to accept a lottery doctor or lawyer.
Reminds me of a friend who was about to enter into a particular deal. He called me and said he needed a contract, but to keep expenses down the contract did not need to be bullet proof. When I asked him which bullets he didn’t mind being hit by, he of course had no answer.
By the way, here are links to a couple of arguments which indicate that tort reform just might not reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums. (I do not represent that these articles are accurate, and at least one of them was written by plaintiffs’ counsel.)
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/24569
http://www.corboydemetrio.com/news-pressreleases-143.html
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Related parody: “We all know the threat of bankrupting lawsuits in our ‘jackpot justice’ system causes doctors to engage in wasteful ‘defensive medicine’ in which they prescribe drugs and order extra medical tests that aren’t necessary in order to reduce their risks of liability,” said the President. “That’s why I’m proposing that medical services and operations be performed right in the courtroom, where lawyers can provide advice to doctors and patients in real-time, limiting litigation transaction costs.” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-plan-calls-for-making-health-care.html
Mervis Winter on August 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM
If those are the only two choices, the answer is easy: Israel.
Ira on August 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM
5K is barely enough to cover legal fees for a reasonably difficult civil case. unless you are talking about the strict profit.
Squid Shark on August 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM
A whore can have more than one ‘John’.
gwelf on August 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »