I found the Vice Presidential debate to be a big disappointment. It promised to be great: A clash between the youthful, energetic John Edwards and the lumbering, robotic Dick Cheney. Edwards was touted as a great trial lawyer. He sure as hell didn't sound like one to me. When asked about same-sex marriage, he said he's against it and added that there's never been anything that required a state to honor a marriage in another state.
Senator Edwards might want to take a look at Art. IV, Sec.1 of the United States Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) which requires states to recognize other states' legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions. The fact of the matter is that, under the full faith and credit clause,and I know of no exception, a marriage in one state must be recognized in all other states. That's what the controversy is all about.
The other thing that really bothered me about Edwards was that he didn't challenge Cheney's comments on medical malpractice. Cheney said that caps on jury awards are needed to bring down medical malpractice insurance premiums. The unstated premise in Cheney's argument is that high jury awards are reponsible for high premiums. The debate moderator, Gwen Ifel, could have asked Cheney to back up this statement with facts, but instead allowed him to ramble on about some obstetrcician he knows who left the medical profession to become a cop because he couldn't afford to pay his insurance premiums. And Edwards, a plaintiff's medical malpractice attorney, rather than challenging Cheney, agreed with him that frivolous lawsuits are, indeed, the problem. He just disagreed with the admistration's means of combating them. The reality is that jury trials represent the tip of iceberg in medical malpractice litigation, amounting to less than 10 percent of all cases, and of those, the defendant prevails most of the time. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these 10 precent involve patients with the most serious injuries. Of the other 90 percent, a large portion of those are disposed of without payment by the defendant. See "Medical Malpractice and the Amercian Jury" by noted jury expert Neil Vidmar. As Vidmar also points out, plaintiffs and their lawyers genarally do not fare well under this system. In that minority of cases where the plaintiff prevails, there are few large jury awards and many small ones.
One case Vidmar cites, part of a study of medical malpratice in Edwards' home state of North Carolina, comes to mind. A doctor prescribed a drug for bursitis, despite the drug company's warning not to prescribe it for that condition. The patient died. The plaintiff was awarded a grand total of $4,000! Is it any wonder that less than 10% of cases make it to a jury trial? With the prospect of receiving little or no damages, is it any wonder that only the most seriously injured insist on having their day in court?
Of course, Kerry and Edwards don't want to take a stance that might make them appear to be in the pockets of the trial lawyers. I say: Let their detractors say what they will. If I were in Kerry or Edwards' position, I'd simply point out that their Republican opponents are in the pockets of insurance companies, which are, after all, behind the whole "tort reform" movement . But insurance companies will have to be the subject for another journal entry.
Senator Edwards might want to take a look at Art. IV, Sec.1 of the United States Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) which requires states to recognize other states' legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions. The fact of the matter is that, under the full faith and credit clause,and I know of no exception, a marriage in one state must be recognized in all other states. That's what the controversy is all about.
The other thing that really bothered me about Edwards was that he didn't challenge Cheney's comments on medical malpractice. Cheney said that caps on jury awards are needed to bring down medical malpractice insurance premiums. The unstated premise in Cheney's argument is that high jury awards are reponsible for high premiums. The debate moderator, Gwen Ifel, could have asked Cheney to back up this statement with facts, but instead allowed him to ramble on about some obstetrcician he knows who left the medical profession to become a cop because he couldn't afford to pay his insurance premiums. And Edwards, a plaintiff's medical malpractice attorney, rather than challenging Cheney, agreed with him that frivolous lawsuits are, indeed, the problem. He just disagreed with the admistration's means of combating them. The reality is that jury trials represent the tip of iceberg in medical malpractice litigation, amounting to less than 10 percent of all cases, and of those, the defendant prevails most of the time. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these 10 precent involve patients with the most serious injuries. Of the other 90 percent, a large portion of those are disposed of without payment by the defendant. See "Medical Malpractice and the Amercian Jury" by noted jury expert Neil Vidmar. As Vidmar also points out, plaintiffs and their lawyers genarally do not fare well under this system. In that minority of cases where the plaintiff prevails, there are few large jury awards and many small ones.
One case Vidmar cites, part of a study of medical malpratice in Edwards' home state of North Carolina, comes to mind. A doctor prescribed a drug for bursitis, despite the drug company's warning not to prescribe it for that condition. The patient died. The plaintiff was awarded a grand total of $4,000! Is it any wonder that less than 10% of cases make it to a jury trial? With the prospect of receiving little or no damages, is it any wonder that only the most seriously injured insist on having their day in court?
Of course, Kerry and Edwards don't want to take a stance that might make them appear to be in the pockets of the trial lawyers. I say: Let their detractors say what they will. If I were in Kerry or Edwards' position, I'd simply point out that their Republican opponents are in the pockets of insurance companies, which are, after all, behind the whole "tort reform" movement . But insurance companies will have to be the subject for another journal entry.
VIEW 17 of 17 COMMENTS
And that we miss you for your wide range of wisdom on stuff that everyone seems to be interested in...You may even be one of the appropriate members to guess at one of this months querries...Nonetheless...Hope ALL is well, and hope to see you soon...OOogaBOOoga