What kind of harm did MLK do to people? Not sure what you mean, and how this is analagous to what trial lawyers do.
Again, I am unconvinced that anyone was seriously harmed. And the question is, were MORE people MORE greviously harmed by the bankrupcy?
And look who caused that harm (from the bankruptcy). A cop doesn’t cause the hardship to a thief’s family that they suffer while the thief is in prison. Similarly, if a company produces an unsafe product, and goes bankrupt when sued, it is a little churlish to put the blame for that on the lawyer who fought the case.
The bus boycott, for example, hurt bus lines. Similar boycotts hurt other businesses, and the civil rights legislation he championed cost many businesses money. But we don’t blame MLK Jr. for this. After all, the corporations that were affected all did something wrong (even if not every bus driver, or lunch counter waitress did). If you condemn trial lawyers because in pursuing their just ends they end up inadvertently hurting some innocent corporate workers, to be consistent, you must also condemn others who do the same thing.
Well, I don’t know how you weigh breast cancer against lost income, but I think it’s a bad comparison anyway. Your blame should be placed on the corporation for behaving irresponsibly, not the lawyers for enforcing the law.
Well, I’m not weighing breast cancer against lost income, because for one thing, I don’t believe it was proven that anyone got breast cancer from implants, and for another, I’m not talking about lost income but lost livlihood, which is a different thing.
But one thing you are missing in the point I am trying to make is that I do, indeed, think you have to weigh one against the other. These are philosophical issues that are much deeper than, “John Edwards got a bunch of poor people some money from a corporation that harmed them, so he must be a hero!!!” The point is that, as **Gadarene ** & I already discussed, there are varying degrees of harm on both sides, and whether or not someone is a hero may very well depend on how many people were helped, to what extent they needed or deserved the help, to what extent people where harmed by the helping, and so on. JUST winning big settlements does not make one a hero in my book. I would need to know a lot more about Edwards and the cases he tried to fall for the “he’s a champion of the downtrodden” bit. That was my only point. Looking at MLKs accomplishments vs. harm caused and then John Edwards’ accomplishments vs. harm caused may lead me to very very different conclusions about who was a hero.
But what you’re suggesting, that on one end of the scale you put the help he’s given to the poor, on the other side you put the cost to corporations, is unfair to Edwards. Why should the cost of corporate wrongdoing count against Edwards? He’s just helping to enforce the law.
Right…he’s doing his job. That’s what I said. Doesn’t make him a hero.
Allow me to quote from my OP: No one, not even Edwards, is arguing that he was a selfless knight out there fighting only for the rights of the poor during his trial lawyer career. The argument is that what he did actually helps poor people directly. What many of the other candidates did, did not.
Could you maybe back this up with some statistics? How many manufacturing jobs are left in the US compared to 1970 or 1950? My experience is that the tort system is slowly throttling manufacturing in this country (along with many other problems). My experience is the tort system is a major component of our high cost of medical care in this country.
How many of Edward’s lucrative cases that built him a fortune actually benefited the downtrodden?
Jim
Your experience is mistaken, at least with regard to medical costs.
According to the NPDB, in 2005, the average damages award was $461,524. The median was $139,100. Less than 1% of payments exceeded $1 million. None of these figures have grown considerably in the last decade–indeed, the overall number of malpractice lawsuits are down.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that all costs related to medical malpractice account for less than 2% of total health care costs. In the past five years premiums have more than doubled, while claims payments have been stable.
If you want to blame someone, blame the insurance companies.
Interesting, sounds like the insurance companies do have much to answer for. Can you provide a link to your stats please. I know too many Doctors paying far too much in malpractice insurance.
Jim
The 2% figure and the information on insurance premiums is taken from here: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0#F3
The other information comes from here: http://www.atla.org/pressroom/sreports/CommonwealMedMalOct2004.pdf (the figures are culled from National Practicioners Database information, which can be found here: http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/annualrpt.html.
And the insurance companies in turn blame the tort system, claiming that groundless suits are brought. Well, fight them. If contingent lawyers aren’t getting settlements, they aren’t going to bring baseless cases to court, as it will cost them money with no pay back.
Unfortunately, insurance companies too often take the easy route out, and settle a case, then just pass the cost on the the insured.
Here is one CBO page dealing with tort liability and medical costs. It supports Richard Parker’s general position, although it does note that the average payout in malpractice claims has rosen substantially since the 1980s:
But:
And, perhaps most significant for your earlier assertion that the tort system is a big factor in the high cost of medical care:
Bolding mine.
And i see now that i’ve been beaten to the punch.
Why do we not question the corporate lawyers who defend the corps from the people they damaged.? They are paid to prevent the less powerful from getting justice and will do everything they can to keep them from getting it.
Here’s my original rant on this topic, from almost 4 years ago… It was a suit against Whirlpool, there’s some more data in the last post, but at least one of the links is long dead.
As far as I can tell, based on my memory and my old posts, the entirety of the damage was being unable to use your microwave for a period of time. A period of time during which you could have bought a replacement microwave on Whirlpool’s dime.
My complaint isn’t so much the disparity as the ridiculous unimportance of the initial complaint, coupled with the fact that Whirlpool spent a ton of money to try and make it right. Whirlpool hired local repairmen to make housecalls and fix the faulty microwaves, that’s gotta cost big money when you’re repairing a million of them, and they offered to pay up to $100 for replacement microwaves. Even with that, the company had to pay out millions more to settle the suit, which they could have invested back in the company.
For the record, I did opt out, based on the documentation sent by “my” lawyers.
Maybe this experience has colored my thoughts on plaintiffs lawyers, since it’s been 4 years and I’m still angry about it. :mad:
Thank you Richard Parker & mhendo. There is much there to digest.
Jim
Maybe some of what he did has helped poor people directly. Maybe it has hurt MORE poor people INdirectly. I don’t know. As I said, I don’t know enough about his cases to say. But I think it is questionable. Also, as you allude here, he is not what I would call “selfless.” He has managed to make quite a bit of money helping the downtrodden.
I realize now that I was assuming it was a tort-based class action suit because of the John Edwards context. However, it seems like it must have been a breach of implied warranty suit of some kind. I can’t really speak to the merits of those suits as class actions, but I think that the class actions Edwards was involved in were all torts-based.
There is no maybe about the first statement, and the second maybe only applies if you hold him responsible for the legal effects of corporate wrongdoing. Again, no one is calling him selfless.
Any discussion of tort reform and potential savings in healthcare costs should not be limited to lowering of premiums for medical liability insurance.
There’s a hotly debated item known as defensive medicine, where physicians order huge numbers of unnecessary tests in order to cover themselves in the event of lawsuits.*
More on defensive medicine and its impact on what we pay for health care.
One of Edwards’ “landmark” malpractice lawsuits (he goes into great detail in his book about it) had to do with problems found to be due to lack of a C-section for a pregnant woman. As a results of big awards in suits like this, C-section rates have gone up considerably. As noted here, C-section rates are especially high in some southern Texas counties that are hotbeds for malpractice suits. Now, lots of the women living in those counties who “benefit” from extra C-sections (as noted in the linked article, this is not exactly a minor procedure of no consequence) are poor and Hispanic. Are these women examples of the “downtrodden” who are benefiting from Edwards’ work?
As to monetary savings, there are claims and counterclaims about how much all this costs and what tort reform might do to save money, but if you save 50 billion dollars here and 100 billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money. 
In a prime example, a couple of years ago I went to an emergency department for a transient medical problem that needed immediate attention. The clinical presentation was absolutely classic and all I needed was a brief physical exam and a short course of antibiotics. But the attending doc required I get a completely unnecessary CT scan of the head*. Big bucks, wasted.
**To paraphrase Yogi Berra, they CTd my head and found nothing. 