quote:

Posted by sinister
'why don't you vote for Kucinich in your heart'

Yeah, he is as good as it gets I reckon.

He's pro-choice (i think), he's for same-sex marriage, he would repeal the Patriot Act, he would abolish the death penalty (please!!) and he doesn't like this phony 'War on Drugs' that is swallowing so much US resources.

Wish he was running in Oz ha ha.

He also wants the US to withdraw from NAFTA and WTO!

MMmmm, there it becomes a little muddier....

I've got a few problems with that. His campaign looks great, and then he's got this anti-trade thing, and it all falls apart from there...

uh huh. i'm gonna find out more about this, cos right now he's the only one I would vote for...

The problem with Kucinich is that he's completely unelectable. I appreciate his views, but there's no way anyone who's the least bit conservative would support him.

And many liberals, for that matter. By the by, Ish, you wouldn't vote for Obama?

I'd vote for Kucinich over Obama every time.

Obama is too moderate for me. He holds decent political platform positions, but he did vote against some stem cell research, if I am correct, and his religious ideas may well come into play, which is worrying.

On the positive side, he is good on energy alternatives, doesn't seem to be a warmonger, and is interested in rebuilding those severely damaged inner city neighbourhoods across the US.

I still haven't figured out Kucinich's thoughts on international trade.

The problem is that Kucinich is completely polarizing (So is Clinton - but not as much), because he is so radically liberal that not a single Republican would vote for him. I fear that there are more Republicans, too. I think that Obama is the person most likely to get votes from both sides. Plus, with these biologists making recent advancements in stem cell research (turning skin cells into other types) showing promise, will we need more stem cell research? I don't mean that I agree with Obama the most, but he's certainly able to garner votes from both Democrats and Republicans, imo.
By the way, here's the wiki article on Kucinich.

For all practical purposes, the Democratic run-in comes down to Edwards, Clinton and Obama.

From this pack, I guess I gotta tick the Obama box.

Ha. I can't vote for Edwards. Filthy money. Malpractice lawyer. As for you, ish, good pick. (In your heart.)

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
Ha. I can't vote for Edwards. Filthy money. Malpractice lawyer. As for you, ish, good pick. (In your heart.)

I know your Dad's a doctor, Sin, but do you really think Personal Injury/Malpractice law is evil? If someone's truly negligent in the product or service they're offering (and injure someone as a result), you don't believe they should be held responsible?

Some of the Republicans picked on Edwards last time around for getting rich from a "jacuzzi lawsuit". The case in question involved a girl who was pinned to the bottom of a pool by a faulty drain. So faulty in fact, that it ripped most of her intestines out. This wasn't the first incident, and it would've cost the manufacturer less than $1 per drain to fix the problem. They chose not to.

I admire Edwards for taking on irresponsible corporations and fighting for victims of this kind of stuff.

I realize some people abuse the legal system, but I don't think those exceptions prove that the whole system is faulty.

Sinister supports intestine ripping!

In theory, no, but in all practical purposes, yes. A doctor that does his very best to heal a patient should not be open to a potentially million+ dollar lawsuit. But how do you tell the difference between a doctor that tried his best but the patient worsened because it was a risky operation and a doctor who was just negligent? If you are charging innocent people, then you can't continue doing something, even if it does weed out some negligent doctors. Leaving out negligent doctors is bad, but charging innocent doctors is worse. Yet that is how malpractice lawyers make money. If a product is made badly, and someone is injured, that is a different matter, since most things today are made with machines. So people aren't there doing their "very best" to make sure the product is perfect. That is, however, the manufacturer's job. Thus, manufacturers should be able to be found responsible.
This is the nanny state I was talking about last night, though. If there's a faulty drain strong enough to rip your intestines out, any normal-brained person would notice that and not enter.

quote:

I admire Edwards for taking on irresponsible corporations and fighting for victims of this kind of stuff.

Ha. You sound almost socialist when you say that (not that it's a bad thing ).

"Some" people? I realize it's not a large percentage, but the many publicized cases where people find loopholes and exploit them to no end ("hot coffee" case, anyone?) show that the law system needs a major overhaul, and shouldn't be used every day for some case of personal negligence portrayed as one of manufacturer's negligence. Honestly, if a person gets a coffee from a coffee shop, and in the vast majority of circumstances, coffee is made hot unless requested cold, they are going to expect it hot. So when they spill the coffee, and it burns them, it's their own fault, and responsibility. Personal negligence doesn't merit attack of the innocent corporations! Down with the people! Up with the revolution!
...Okay, maybe that's a little too far.

Probably not since the people came up with the verdict and the award. However, even though I hate to do this, the "alleged facts" of the case are found here.

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
Leaving out negligent doctors is bad, but charging innocent doctors is worse.

I'm not a sue happy guy, but I like knowing I have some sort of recourse if anything bad (knock on wood) should happen that is clearly the result of someone else's negligence. I disagree that we'd be better off letting negligent doctors slip through the cracks to avoid having a good doctor potentially face a lawsuit.

We can probably sit here all day and find examples of stupid, frivolous lawsuits, but we could probably find just as many that actually helped make the world a better place.

As far as the McDonald's case, McDonald's coffee is a risky proposition to begin with. You deserve what's coming to you. They're lucky I wasn't on the jury.

Any system where innocent people face suits and lose because they are basically assumed guilty from the start is a faulty system. Also note I wholly agree that manufacturers should be able to face lawsuits due to negligence. But since doctors work with a very fragile object, liable to explode in their face, doctors can be sued to no end.

Like I said, it's not a large percentage. But the number of the stupid ones where someone exploits the judicial system is large enough to merit some sort of retrospection by the judicial system and perhaps some change.

quote:

They're lucky I wasn't on the jury.

Ha ha.

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
Any system where innocent people face suits and lose because they are basically assumed guilty from the start is a faulty system. Also note I wholly agree that manufacturers should be able to face lawsuits due to negligence. But since doctors work with a very fragile object, liable to explode in their face, doctors can be sued to no end.

I don't really have any statistical data on how many "innocent" doctors lose malpractice suits every year.

It is possible for a patient to be injured (or killed) as the result of a mistreated or misdiagnosed medical problem, without the doctor being guilty of malpractice. I'm pretty sure the burdon of proof is on the patient, who has to show that the doctor's negligence resulted in their injury.

It's not even whether they win or lose the lawsuit (It's how you play the game ). The lawsuit exhausts a doctor's time, money, and attention; their name is denigrated; no one will offer to protect them; no one will want their care.
The premiums for malpractice insurance are skyrocketing - people are quitting medicine because they can't afford the insurance. Millions of dollars every year are spent on "insurance" medicine, to make sure something else isn't wrong by ordering all color of tests.
Returning to John Edwards. His main targets were free clinics. Doctors offering their work for free, and when the procedure didn't turn out right the people who got free care turned to John Edwards, who extracted millions from these clinics. His slogan went something like "Just because you didn't pay for your service doesn't mean you can't sue." Malpractice law is there for a reason, but it has been abused. People can't just sue a doctor if something didn't turn out right.
Even if the burden of proof is on the patient, how hard is it to prove? "I got operated, and then got such-and-such complications, and got sick, and then I had to undergo such-and-such procedure to fix it. Clearly it was the doctor's fault." Juries in such cases wouldn't be doctors, because they might be partial, so the jury wouldn't have medical knowledge and would be easily swayed.

I realize this may be personal, but you don't think doctors are partial and wouldn't own up to their own mistakes? This is coming from someone who was a pre-med student in college but grew disenchanted with my fellow students. (I didn't go to school with kendo though! )