John Edwards Health care proposal.....

ExCorporateRN · Feb 10, 2007

I have my concerns about him....he made his millions through his malpractice firm. His targets were OBGYN's and their nurses.

What do malpractice suits do? They drive up the costs of healthcare and make it even more prohibitive to afford care. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Honestly, I would rather see him retire.

See below:

After moving to Raleigh in 1981, Edwards became a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer, eventually specializing in cerebral palsy patient lawsuits that blamed their mothers’ doctors for causing this medical condition by waiting too long before performing caesarian sections to give birth to his clients. In one famous case Edwards swayed a jury and won a multimillion-dollar judgment by dramatically playing the part of the unborn child struggling in the womb.

Because of the courtroom success of Edwards and trial lawyers who have imitated him, doctors who used to perform caesarian sections in six percent of births now deliver 26 percent of babies by C-section. The procedure adds enormously to the expense of delivering a baby, as well as to prolonged healing, pain and injury to mothers. And as ABC “20/20” anchorman John Stossel reported, the old rate of cerebral palsy among children has not declined in the slightest. This suggests that Edwards built his entire career and $70 million fortune on a wrong assertion, perhaps even a lie. The failure to do caesarian births apparently never was a cause of cerebral palsy; had it been, its incidence would have declined measurably as caesarian births jumped more than fourfold.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14362

burn out · Feb 11, 2007

Sorry but I couldn't get to your web site but that is o.k. I am not much of a John Edwards fan. I don't think he is too big on torte reform another major area that law makers are failing in that would greatly help lower the cost of healthcare and keep more qualified doctors in greatly needed areas. What ever happened to all those torte reform ideas anyway..Do we no longer need them or can we afford not to have them?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 11, 2007

from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050307/zegart

not satisfied with nibbling away at the welfare state, already the thinnest in the industrialized west, conservatives have spent more than twenty years demonizing lawyers and ridiculing victims in order to eliminate a uniquely american right, rooted in the seventh amendment, that allows juries to assess damages in civil courts for corporate misbehavior. in europe and japan, governments compensate victims; in this country, it is often done, haphazardly, by entrepreneur-lawyers. the same lawyers are more successful in another, quite accidental way: regulating and punishing companies that pollute, maim or cheat--a critical function at a time when government does less and less to force them to act responsibly. fifteen state attorneys general recognized this when they called on the senate to dump or amend the class-action bill.

see also:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=viewweb&articleid=8978

so we've got an fda that's not protecting consumers from harm, and pending legislation that makes it almost impossible for people who are hurt by drugs approved by the fda to sue for damages. the question must be asked: how is the public going to be protected if the fda remains weak and if private lawsuits are cut off?

you might ask the same question all over government these days. pick an agency - not just the fda, but the securities and exchange commission, the consumer product safety commission, the federal trade commission, and so on. they're supposed to protect the public. but they're all understaffed, their budgets have been whacked, and many of them are in the pockets of the very companies and industries they're supposed to regulate. at exactly the same time, republicans are clamoring for what they call "tort reform." tort reform is a nice way of saying that people who are harmed by companies shouldn't be able to sue them and collect damages.

ExCorporateRN · Feb 12, 2007

i don't think either side is working for us.... they work for the deep pockets of lobbyists.

as a senator, joe lieberman was one of the most prominent democrats in support of tort reform, including voting for cloture in the debate over the class action fairness act. on september 11, 2000, his spokesman, dan gerstein, told the wall street journal that the tort system "drives up costs, stifles innovation, limits products available to consumers and undercuts the competitive advantage our leading companies have." lieberman was on the correct side on the pslra and the product liability bill; we earlier reviewed his promising record when he was named to the 2000 gore ticket (aug. 8, 2000). his presidential campaign web site, however, makes no mention of the issue.

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000651.html

ExCorporateRN · Feb 12, 2007

How Edwards Can Talk About Tort “Reform”

As a former trial lawyer John Edwards can expect to be attacked vigorously by the tort “reform” movement throughout his presidential campaign. During his vice presidential run with John Kerry both candidates shied away from talking about access to justice. In response to a question in one of the 2004 presidential debates about tort “reform” John Kerry said “John Edwards and I support tort ‘reform.’”

http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/01/how_edwards_can_talk_about_tor.html

**Maybe we need to start our own party?

imenid37 · Feb 12, 2007

I am sorry, but John Edwards is the type of individual who has wreaked havoc with the healthcare system. I would never consider voting for him. His actions have spoken louder than anything clever that he or his speeech writers can cook up. (Please bear in mind that I have little faith or regard for any of our political figures right now).

Simplepleasures · Feb 12, 2007

from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050307/zegart
not satisfied with nibbling away at the welfare state, already the thinnest in the industrialized west, conservatives have spent more than twenty years demonizing lawyers and ridiculing victims in order to eliminate a uniquely american right, rooted in the seventh amendment, that allows juries to assess damages in civil courts for corporate misbehavior. in europe and japan, governments compensate victims; in this country, it is often done, haphazardly, by entrepreneur-lawyers. the same lawyers are more successful in another, quite accidental way: regulating and punishing companies that pollute, maim or cheat--a critical function at a time when government does less and less to force them to act responsibly. fifteen state attorneys general recognized this when they called on the senate to dump or amend the class-action bill.
see also:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=viewweb&articleid=8978
so we've got an fda that's not protecting consumers from harm, and pending legislation that makes it almost impossible for people who are hurt by drugs approved by the fda to sue for damages. the question must be asked: how is the public going to be protected if the fda remains weak and if private lawsuits are cut off?
you might ask the same question all over government these days. pick an agency - not just the fda, but the securities and exchange commission, the consumer product safety commission, the federal trade commission, and so on. they're supposed to protect the public. but they're all understaffed, their budgets have been whacked, and many of them are in the pockets of the very companies and industries they're supposed to regulate. at exactly the same time, republicans are clamoring for what they call "tort reform." tort reform is a nice way of saying that people who are harmed by companies shouldn't be able to sue them and collect damages.

thankyou, thankyou , thankyou for this . i too am so sick of lawyers being demonized . i have excellent attornies that have helped me immensly for absolutely no money in my own employment lawsuit.plus my daughter, an attorney, who is a very ethical, principled person is now employed in a malpractice firm and i know some details of some of the cases without knowing any names, you would be very surprised to know that quite a the majority of these cases are very legitamite and the victims and survivors deserve everything they can get. also money speaks, if there would be caps put on rewards, what would the incentive be to improve medical care? ethics? i dont think so, after 29 years as a nurse, ethics seems not to matter anymore to many. the bottom line is money.

pickledpepperRN · Feb 12, 2007

Timid ideas won't fix health mess

...John Edwards is trying to get ahead of the political curve, but he would send us back to the future. To 1993, to be exact.

Edwards would repeat the mistake that was at the heart of Hillary Rodham Clinton's misadventure in trying to fix a health insurance system that was then, and is now, so out of whack that it manages to cover fewer and fewer Americans at higher and higher cost....

...Edwards' advisers say the candidate didn't push public, single-payer insurance -- like Medicare -- because the employer-based system is what we have today and therefore, it would provide the quickest way to cover the uninsured.

But we also have Medicare today. The elderly still get care from private doctors and hospitals, and administrative costs are a fraction of what they are in the private insurance industry. And people tend to like it.

It would be just as easy -- and certainly simpler -- to use Medicare as the foundation for a new insurance system to eventually cover everyone. But that would require candidates to be leaders -- and show more courage than those politicians who simply say they have a plan....

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/121306.html

jjjoy, LPN · Feb 13, 2007

I'm with HM2Viking here... a step in the right direction. At the very least it shows some consideration of important health care issues. I'd like to see other candidate's proposals as well... hmm... anyone got links already?... otherwise I gotta do some research. Hopefully, we'll hear more dialogue about these kinds of proposals as opposed to just sound bites.

mrm1453 · Feb 13, 2007

Thank you for the link. I had been meaning to learn more about this. My only comment at this point regards the "New Health Markets" entry on page 4. It seems pretty awesome that the government may be stepping up to offer a Medicare-like, comprehensive health insurance plan that individuals or employers can choose to buy if their current coverage is not as good or affordable.

I hear from a lot of folks who support market competition, which sounds fine.... We should enhance the competition in the health insurance market by allowing our own government to organize a not-for-profit regional health plan system and let it out into the competitive fray... If people or employers end up liking the government plan, they can choose to buy it (likely a more affordable, comprehensive plan with full mental health benefits). I haven't been this excited about a plan proposal in many years.

Thanks for stimulating discussion on this!

UKRNinUSA, RN · Feb 14, 2007

As I have said before, I don't believe employer based health insurance is the answer. It does not allow US based companies to compete on a "level playing field". This is a global market. America is part of the global market. We can no longer afford to be isolationists. Employer based health insurance is eating away at the bottom line of big and small businesses, jobs are moving overseas, businesses are going bankrupt. No jobs= no health insurance. Have you seen the latest trade deficit figures? Yes, my friends, they are at an all time high

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4551168.html