$2.29

Because people believe that to an extent something can be done about gas prices.
Practically that amounts to no more than about 30 cents leeway, granted this would help a lot of people's budgets (including mine), but you're right this doesn't warrant crying like people do.
Like I said in a previous posting, U.S. gas prices have been kept artificially "low" for over a century, so we Americans whine a whole lot more than Europeans do for a given price increase because we depend on it so much. It's human nature to voice content when something you've depended on suddenly changes.

I agree with you in a sense. If Edwards was out here killing people, then you would be absolutely correct. But you have no actual facts about any of the cases Edwards has tried, there could be mal-practice in some of the cases, the article didnt speak of any details. American people pay outrageous amounts for health-care and I see absolutely nothing wrong with having somebody keep them in check if they screw up, Im sorry, thats just how I feel.

Its the American way, it may not be perfect, but its our court system. Edwards is obviously damn good at what he does. He has made a truck load of money at it.

Just face the facts that we are going to pay over $2 a gallon, so deal with it.

"He was very good at it," said Dr. John Schmitt, an obstetrician and gynecologist who used to practice in Mr. Edwards' hometown of Raleigh. "But the science behind a lot of his arguments was flawed."
In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a joint study that cast serious doubt on whether events at childbirth cause cerebral palsy. The "vast majority" of cerebral palsy cases originate long before childbirth, according to the study.
"Now, he would have a much harder time proving a lot of his cases," said Dr. Schmitt, who now practices at the University of Virginia Health System.
Another profitable area of litigation for Mr. Edwards was lawsuits against psychiatrists whose patients committed suicide.
In 1991, he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. It was the first successful medical-malpractice case in Mr. Edwards' home of Wake County.
During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
"I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible," Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.

The #1 cause of the overinflated cost of health care today... Frivolous lawsuits. I've taken a couple classes on the matter and yes though physicians need to be kept in check, do you have to worsen the quantity and quality of health care in doing so? It seems counterintuitive if you're trying to make any sort of a moral argument.

And though I can't list them here I've heard many talks from physicians who have read case studies about Edwards' unethical and scientifically unfounded methods to win cases.

In response to

Poster: burton2019
Subject: Re: $2.29

Just face the facts that we are going to pay over $2 a gallon, so deal with it.

-Okay you obviously can't read. I essentially said this exact same message, i.e. for people to stop whining.

That wasnt directed towards you, but whatever man. Keep posting, it really shows your IQ. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

So doctors should just be put on a pedastal and nothing they do is ever wrong? They shouldnt be able to be sued or face any consequences for wrong doings? The issue to me is really not a big deal. I just dont like the fact that you critisize a man who is doing his job legally and is pretty good at it.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Yes, the Dems do want the assault rifles, plus anything else that goes "bang". They've proved over and over again that their agenda is to disarm America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I SAID they want the assault rifles. You don't need a friggin assault rifle to kill a deer, squirrel, rabbit, or whatever...no use in owning one unless it's regulated and for pure sport (i.e.--for use at a shooting range ONLY or as a collector's item). Their agenda has been pushed to you apparently by the NRA stance that Dems want to "disarm America" which is complete and total libel and slander on their part. The Dems stance is to take highly dangerous assault weapons and fully automatic weaponry off the street where it can kill--now explain to me what is wrong with that??? They're not going to take your shotgun, pistols, hunting rifles, or anything that's for use in sporting and hunting. Every weapon is dangerous if in the hands of the wrong person, but depending upon the type of weapon, the wrong person can have a more dangerous and efficient killing machine. Let me ask you this--is it easier to kill someone with a rifle or with a fully automatic uzi? Probably the rifle, b/c of knockdown power &amp; precision. Is it easier to kill a lot of people at once with a rifle or with an uzi? Probably the uzi because of sheer volume of bullets fired in a short time. Criminals aren't interested in hunting rifles, shotguns, or personal protective handguns, they're interested in the big dogs--the fully autos or the tactical assault weapons.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Traditionally, Reps are pro-gun and pro-life. I base a lot of my voting decisions on those two issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two issues is a bit short sided, don't ya think???

The questioning of a jury is null/void. By the same token, your people who are pro-death penalty, will seek jury members the same way. "Do you think you could convict someone to death." If they say no, then they are removed. No lawyer on either side would want someone who says nope, couldnt do it.

In response to

Poster: greencrest1272
Subject: Re: $2.29

So doctors should just be put on a pedastal and nothing they do is ever wrong? They shouldnt be able to be sued or face any consequences for wrong doings? The issue to me is really not a big deal. I just dont like the fact that you critisize a man who is doing his job legally and is pretty good at it.

Haha I like how you inferred my plans for solving the matter.

But no, I DO believe physicians should be sued for doing things incorrectly. As with any professional occupation, the movement of the field depends on technical consistency, standards, and regulations.

Assuming Edwards was scientifically founded, his lawsuits are good for the medical profession. His obscene multi-million dollar LAWYER FEES are not. I think in such sorts of suits which could affect something as socially important medical care, IF large awards are given, they should be redistributed to charitable causes such that soceity benefits, not one ambitious lawyer.

"legally" does not always mean right or good.
would you consider all the former supreme court rulings on minority rights like brown v. board of education and all the people who supported it and help the decision come about worthy of praise?

yes they did a "good job" with respect to what was legally allowable, but it was by no means right given the thousands of people shafted of health care