I'm still coming across "blame the trial lawyers" rhetoric from the right. I think they are way off on this one (surprise!). It's a classic case of blaming the messenger.
Republican opposition to trial lawyers is like gun control: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," they say. But it's time for the republicans to realize that "lawyers don't sue people, people sue people."
They claim that the lawyers are responsible for high medical costs because of malpractice insurance premiums. However: 1) Lawyers and insurance companies are two different things; and 2) Lawyers can't just sue doctors for no reason. They need a client with a case, and the case needs to have some merit or it will be thrown out.
While unnecessary litigation has obviously happened, it is not the rule. The republicans want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by taking away everyone's right to defend themselves legally against more powerful entities. It all plays into the hands of the corporations, who were the big campaign contributors. Besides, it's easy for them to engage in their class-warfare rhetoric and pander to their rural voter base by portraying lawyers as "elite" - the type of people who sip cappucino and listen to jazz instead of slamming brews and watching Springer.
Republicans also frequently express their dislike for judges. Apparently, they find the whole legal system to be quite inconvenient. Gee, why do you think that is? Street criminals hate cops. Corporate criminals hate lawyers and judges. Go figure.
I will not be surprised if they come down next against juries. After all, juries pass judgment and award damages. Soon the repub's will say that the concept of being tried by "a jury of your peers" is a liberal tool designed to eat away at the fabric of Wal-America. What will remain when they have succeeded... a corporate tribunal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Case needs to have some merit or it will be thrown out". Did they throw out the "hot cup of coffee at McDonalds" case? This law keeps attorneys from shopping for the most favorable circuits to file their frivolous cases. Sure, insurance companies raise rates for malpractice insurance, but they do it as a result of the heavy increase in malpractice awards. After having their malpractice insurance rates raised, the doctors then raise the cost of providing healthcare, in order to stay in business. Then the medical insurance company raises what they take out of your paycheck every week because medical costs just went up. So it all starts with frivolous lawsuits based on junk science. Nobody is taking away everyones right to sue. Just look at what has happened with the OB/GYN's. Some people in Pennsylvania have to travel as much as an hour to get a baby delivered.
Oh please, I can't believe you're using that example. That case is the most over-referenced, as well as wrongly referenced, case on the planet at this point. The anti-lawyer crowd always (I mean always like every-single-time-ever-ever-ever) mentions it when this discussion comes up... EVERY time I am involved in this discussion the first rebuttal is "McDonald's coffee case!". The people who cite that as a frivolous law suit end up eating crow, as the McDonald's coffee case was absolutely NOT a frivolous lawsuit, and it was absolutely NOT based on "junk science" (an anit-intellectual term if there ever was one!)
Here is one site that explains it very well:
http://corpreform.typepad.com/corpreform/2003/10/the_truth_about.html
These are also good:
http://caoc.com/facts.htm
http://www.dewoodlaw.com/mcdonalds.htm
http://www.martinandjones.com/articles/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.asp
http://www.mikejansen.com/auto/facts.asp
The story has grown into an urban myth for the anti-lawer crowd, but in the same situation they would sue their asses off. A recent case comes to mind in Sacramento where a "conservative" lady was offended by an anti-war statement someone placed in their front yard, so she is suing them! The right is as litigious as anybody - it's just that they only want their own special cases to be tried, while disallowing the rest of us to have that right. Yes, they do!
P.S. I still maintain that the pharmaceutical companies and other medical suppliers play a huge part in the price increases.
...and yes, dammit, I misspelled the word "anti-".
Where is that bottle of wine with the monkeys on the label--?
Post a Comment