John Edwards

[Vanquisher]

NOOOOOOO!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16377918/

[rainbabies]

well, i know a whole bunch of doctors who wont be voting for his sorry arse.

[houseelf]

Should I be embarrassed that when you mentioned John Edwards, this is who came to mind?

http://www.johnedward.net/



Note to self: Limit late night tv watching.


Kelly

[Stella]

Oy vey...

[DCJenn]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here-

What if the doctors that were sued were really sucky docs? (and I don't know either way) but why shouldn't patient's pursue legal recourse if they were legitimately harmed by the actions of a physician.

Are physicians automatically excluded from responsibility merely because they're well educated? I think we all know people or have heard of people who really ought not to be practicing medicine.

Of course, doctors are also easy targets because they do have insurance coverage BUT all I'm saying is that sometimes it's legitimate.

Jenn

and off topic- can you imagine what Elizabeth Edwards oncologist must have thought? ("holy crap, why did I get out of bed today...")

[rainbabies]

and off topic- can you imagine what Elizabeth Edwards oncologist must have thought? ("holy crap, why did I get out of bed today...")

dh and i thought the same thing...."who the hell is gonna touch that one??"

[Amiens]

I third that one. Not only is he a malpractice lawyer that makes me skin do creepy crawlies, but the man has very little experience. I mean come on he could have at least thought about serving another term or something.

Again creepy crawlies....

Crystal

[Sheherezade]

Although I agree there are bad docs in the world.....I have to say I can't vote for Edwards. Even holding my nose. :>

I knew a big wig lobbyist once that worked with him. He wrote a lot of health care legislation that crossed Edwards way. The lobbyist was very opinionated and strongly in favor of lots of health care changes. That's all good. What hung me up was that the guy knew diddly about medicine. He was totally clueless. He didn't know any science or any details of the "real" medical system. It frightens me to think that's the kind of person writing health care legislation. It frightens me more to know that Edwards LIKED and SUPPORTED this uninformed goo from a policy/legal wonk. In fact, if elected, this guy might even be a White House advisor. You'd think a lawyer that worked in malpractice would have good medical advice from medical types. Wouldn't you? It makes me think he doesn't care - or he's one of those people that thinks the system is corrupt and all docs suck so we better talk to outsiders. Either way, he gives me a bad vibe. Democratic Dan Quayle.

[JaneDoe]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here-

What if the doctors that were sued were really sucky docs? (and I don't know either way) but why shouldn't patient's pursue legal recourse if they were legitimately harmed by the actions of a physician.

Are physicians automatically excluded from responsibility merely because they're well educated? I think we all know people or have heard of people who really ought not to be practicing medicine.

Of course, doctors are also easy targets because they do have insurance coverage BUT all I'm saying is that sometimes it's legitimate.

Jenn

This may or may not stray from the original post, but to address the issues you posed, I don't know that suing doctors when they make mistakes is the right answer either. Doctors, like any other profession, should be held accountable when they make mistakes; however, except under certain circumstances, I don't think paying money to those who have been wronged works for several reasons.

First, I believe it increases the cost of health care (though, I don't believe it is the sole reason health care costs have soared in recent years) as well as limits access to it. For example, doctors, especially in highly litigious specialties such as ob/gyn, pay more for malpractice insurance and/or chose not to practice in that field. This hurts everyone in the long run while only really benefiting a minority. Second, I think rather than money, most people really want doctors to not make careless errors or cause injury/death. I think a better solution to preventing medical errors is to go after licensure. I think a modified system of "three strikes your out" would be better for everyone as a whole than to make everyone pay. This would really get the bad apples out of the profession, lesson the costs of insurance (I think) and prevent frivilous lawsuits in which people really aren't the victims of medical errors but looking for an easy buck. Of course, I don't believe that all "medical errors" should constitute a "strike," but certainly the most aggregious would.

I don't think the financial aspect should be wiped out completely and victims of medical errots should be able to get reimbursed for any medical bills, income due to a loss of work caused by the errors, etc. However, I definetely think that people should not be entitled to get damages for things such as "pain and suffering" or "emotional distress". It is too subjective and I don't really think the system is working.

I'm sure there will be people who disagree with my thoughts . . .

I admit I didn't the entire thread. As I've said in the past, J Edwards is a POS. My FIL, a doc who is also a true blue straight ticket democrat has said he is a POS. FIL has been an MD witness for other docs in court and says he has seen J Edwards "do his thing" in court -- and you guessed it -- J Edwards is a POS.

Sorry stop reading now if you must. But I think JE is a total demagogue. His poverty thing is pure schtick. His own party said he was absolutely AWOL in his brief time in the senate when they tried to work on poverty issues. But when he latched onto it .... you know his daddy was a mill worker... you would've thought that he'd been kicking ass and taking names on the issue for all of his life.

I don't want to hear any more about how he and his wife eat at wendy's for every frickin anniversary (yeah, right). Nor do I want to hear of all the hardships he and wife has endured (death of child, her cancer turned into a melodramitic book -- that by the way is not about politics you know). He has trotted those ponies out ad naseum.

Okay, I'm taking deep breaths and will leave for the basketball game in 30 minutes. And if I see him there......(course you don't know where I am) I can't be held accountable for my actions.....

[Amiens]

Okay, I'm taking deep breaths and will leave for the basketball game in 30 minutes. And if I see him there......(course you don't know where I am) I can't be held accountable for my actions.....

[DCJenn]

Finally, a medical spouse will make it to the Front Page for something really juicy.

(and to be honest, I'm 90% sure that suing a doc isn't going to do anything except make the lawyers rich. which gets back to the original post...)

Jenn

[Laker]

America gets to choose between John Med Mal Edwards, John my wife is a billionaire Kerry, and Hillary free healthcare for all Clinton. Even though the Iraq war is a disaster, I won't vote for any of the above so that I can keep more of my money and so that DW can get paid for her medical services.

Surely we are not making our voting decisions 100% based on our spouse's profession and a highly speculative connection between Edwards and malpractice policy? Could this potentially be a short-sighted way to vote?

I am more concerned about medicare, education, defense spending, climate change, tax reform, and the widening gap between rich/poor. My voting decisions will be based on a broad array of issues. I can see not liking Edwards based on perceptions of his his agenda/skills on a range of issues, but to vote based on a narrow - -and potentially misguided - - sense of self-interest, I'm not so sure about . . .

SMS92,

Actually, a little of my rant was hyperbolic (and intended to be humorous), though perhaps I need my sense of humor checked as I'm no longer allowed to talk politics at family holiday gatherings .

But a few quick replies. No, I don't make all of my voting decisions based on my spouse's profession. I'd cast my votes the same way if DW was a school teacher. JE to me represents one of the things I find so abhorrent about America -- the hidden tax of litigation (especially torts) but it just so happens that his thing is malpractice.

As far as speculating what JE might mean for malpractice / healthcare, well just read a little about how he made his money on the backs of Ob/Gyns in North Carolina. The trial lawyers virtually own him and catapulted him to his seat in NC. He didn't really care about politics or issues until he found out he could win.

As to other issues you reference in your post, I bet we would differ on every one of those issues so you and I wouldn't be looking at the same set of candidates from the get go. But if find JE doing more than slinging catch phrases and holding his own on any of those issues, you're definitely seeing something I don't see. But I could be blind to it.

To me, he's scary not only for his profession but I find him to be interested in one thing -- winning. Sure, all politicos want to do that, but I don't think he has any substance or gravitas. And I think he's a dangerous demagogue.