"What if He Were an Axe-Murderer? So What?"
I read your story in the Arizona Daily Star ripping on [sic] Senator John Edwards, and poking fun at Senator John Kerry. Which is your right, [sic] and I respect the fact that you exercise it. However, it is very short-sighted to make such a big case over the way they have earned or obtained their personal income. In contrast, our current President and Vice President are both wealthy men, and have obtained their money in questionable fashion at times. How many of the World's [sic] richest haven't [sic]. John Edwards is not the problem with our health care system, nor are malpractice cases. That's just ridiculous.
It was a well-written piece, but so what?
Dear Ms. Farrington:
Translation: "Damn the torpedoes (or facts, as it were), full straight ahead with Kerry-Edwards!" I informed you that many ob/gyn doctors are fleeing the field while others are paying as much as $250,000 this year (and more next) not because they have had so much as a lawsuit filed against them but just because they happen to live in the wrong state. And you ask: "So what?" I point out this is a direct result of not only what lawyers LIKE Edwards do but also what Edwards actually did himself to get rich and you ask: "So what?" I show that the bottom half of the Democratic ticket is a born liar who steals from the working class by raising their health premiums (Bill Gates doesn't sweat his insurance costs) and gives to the rich – namely himself – and you ask: "So what?" Instead you talk about "questionable" earnings of Bush and Cheney, but unlike me provide no evidence. When I wrote the piece I couldn't help but feel there were at least a few Americans who felt that all of this did matter and many have informed me I was correct. Apparently you feel that if Edwards murdered, raped, and pillaged his way through North Carolina it would be a big fat "So what?" But others feel differently and so, as to your prejudices I must ask: So what?
"Riddle Me This!"
OK, now I know you don't like John Edwards and Democrats. It is also obvious that you attribute the high cost of malpractice insurance to all of the attorneys in America. I have a question.
1. How much are malpractice insurance premiums going to go down when we reduce/eliminate jury awards for medical malpractice? Where restrictions have been placed on jury awards has there been a reduction in premiums to doctors or have the insurance companies merely plead other increased costs if they gave any reason for not reducing rates?
[If you list a "1;" shouldn't there be at least a "2"?]
Moderate Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 (I voted for McCain in the Arizona primary) but who won't vote for him again.
Sure, I blame the high cost of malpractice insurance on all the prosecutors, the criminal defense attorneys, probate lawyers, real estate lawyers – the whole bunch. Or so you apparently read in a version of my piece that I don't recall writing.
But yes, because Edwards is an even greater liar and thief than your average politician, I don't like him. The Demos made him their VP candidate knowing this, so I don't like them for that either.
Nobody is talking about eliminating malpractice awards, and it shows a serious lack of knowledge on your part when you simply say "reduce" insofar as there are any number of proposals that would do so.
Independent who abstained from the last election but will vote for Bush this time because Edwards is on the bottom of the Democratic ticket and Kerry is on the top of the ticket.
Defense from a Fellow Shark
I write to give you feedback on your "Ill-gotten" op.ed. [sic] piece which appeared in Wyoming papers over the weekend.
Admittedly, I am biased in my opinions and outlook as I have devoted my life to practicing law in Wyoming, representing only injured people who are usually up against corporate interests and the powerful insurance industry.
Although I am nearly certain you have never seen litigation from the trenches of a courtroom, I would hope that you would have a better understanding of the civil justice system and the American "politics" being pushed upon us in recent years, locally and nationally, by Corporate America, the insurance industry, and the faithful GOP.
John Edwards, like most talented and successful plaintiffs' attorneys, represents David's slingshot in the battle for justice. His talents and abilities could have been used to "protect" Ford Motor Company, Wal-Mart, Halliburton, or St. Paul Insurance. He would certainly have been financially successful and he would have surely deprived many deserving injured people out of fair compensation with his trial skills. He choose to help people, not corporate, non-breathing entities that only exist for the love of money and profits. Thank God for lawyers like Mr. [sic] Edwards. Thank God for our legal system which is supposed to be fair and open to all. He has fought the good fight and seems qualified and willing to fight the more important fight – taking back our country!
I encourage you to study the insurance industry and our country's 60 year old [sic] practice of granting complete exemption from federal antitrust laws. In theory, each State [sic] is supposed to be able to "regulate" the international insurance companies doing business in their State [sic]. In most States [sic], there is no way to even force the State [sic] insurance commissioner to make a [sic] insurance carrier (auto, health, life, malpractice) to demonstrate [sic] exactly why they "need" more premiums due to claims and verdicts. There is no longer any justification for placing "blind faith" in the insurance industry and simply "trust" them [sic, "it"] when they say they need to raise our premiums every other month or so.
I also encourage you to read John Edwards [sic] book, Four Trials. In it, you can sense the compassion he has [Or more precisely, that his ghost writer has.] for his clients and the pursuit of justice. His clients could never have fought and won without his help! He should be praised, not chastised.
Dear Mr. Tennyson:
Apparently you intended your letter for the consumption of the person you CC'd, since I am no more impressed by its "argument" than I am by the incredible number of spelling errors. (FYI, "state" is spelled thus unless referring to a specific state such as "State of California," in which case it is capitalized.) Unless we have different Bibles, when David was in his slingshot days he was not lining his pockets with vast amounts of money taken from doctors whose only offense was to deliver a baby that turned out a few years later not to be perfect. Trial lawyers serve only themselves. They repeatedly turn down people clearly harmed by others but whose case simply isn't worth the lawyer's time. Or, as in the case of my wife, they negotiate a quickie settlement over a three-martini lunch for horrific injuries rather than go to court where they are almost certain to win at least three times as much. Why would her lawyer not want 40 percent of a three-times-larger court victory than a third of a much smaller settlement? Because he was able to dispatch the settlement in just a few hours, while going to trial would have taken weeks. So much for my wife; so much for "the little people."
I've written about the famous Hinkley settlement, in which the attorneys and Erin Brockovich not only took more than 40 percent but then divvied up the remnants not on the basis of need but on who sucked up to them the most. Slightly-ill people got millions and deathly-sick ones got nothing or close to it.
So I've seen you people in action, I've obviously studied your ways, and I've practiced as a lawyer myself - albeit not in the reverse-Robin Hood profession you and Edwards chose. Have fun with your money, but don't even try to pretend to anybody with a brain that you're anything but a thief who works within the laws - in great part because so many of you, like Edwards, have gone into government and written those very laws. There's absolutely nothing wrong with our government that keeping lawyers out of Congress couldn't fix.
Finally, since you seem to like Biblical references, I encourage you to read the New Testament. If they had trial lawyers back then, there wouldn't have been any references to the wickedness of tax collectors.
Typical Democratic Smear
What rock did you crawl out from under?
Typical Republican BS and smear.
If you really want to look at something, why not examine all the obvious lies from this sleezeball [sic] administration?
Can't? Against your religion?
Dear Mr. Sanders,
Wow!!!! You accuse me of smearing, but your email wasn't exactly the height of reasoned argument.
I crawled out from under the rock of investigative reporting. Why do you have nothing to say in Edwards' defense except that anybody who criticizes him is a GOP BSer.
For the record, I have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration. But a piece on Edwards stuffing loot into his mattress from innocent doctors didn't quite seem the place for an Administration critique. I don't think one has to bring religion into it. You can crawl back under that rock now, or are you one of those beetles that lives in dung?
Got to you huh. :-)
I work primarily as an expert witness in court. I'm not in the medical field. However, I typically work for attorneys protecting their clients from the government.
These attorneys make a good living for what they do. AND they earn it.
As it turns out, I have several doctor friends. Whether in your philosophy Horatio [sic] you believe all doctors are competent, then continue in your delusion.
You offered absolutely no evidence to [sic] your thesis that these doctors were innocent. Thus, you are just a sensationalist hack as most editorial writers are.
Now go to bed and do not worry about it. No sense worrying about what you haven't a clue about.
No that's not exactly my interpretation of my response, Big Jim. You think you got my goat simply because I replied. But I did so only because I post idiot letters like yours on my hate mail pages and those letters usually contain a rebuttal displaying just how much of an idiot the writer is. Actually, I offered three large studies showing no connection between cerebral palsy and physician malpractice and I noted that Edwards made a bundle out of claiming just such a connection. I also pointed out that the Michigan Supreme Court just tossed out a $27 million case based on the same circumstances that brought Edwards so much loot. In most circles that constitutes evidence. By the way, what's your area of expertise – knowing absolutely nothing about absolutely anything?
Dear Mr. Fumento,
Fair enough. Can you provide a link [sic]
I'm a statistician specializing in economic data. When I go to court, I go with the burden of proof. So, you have proof, show me where I can read this study, when the study was completed and when Edwards did his supposedly dirty deeds?
I'm sure you realize the timeline is important.
So you know, the snotty pubescent tone of your editorial would be a turnoff to most rational people no matter how correct you may be. And yes, I got to you. Are you man enough to admit it or do you need the Republican spin masters to spin to convince otherwise?
Santiago (means Saint James)
[Then he wrote this follow-up before I could respond.]
Seems the Hudson Int. has its own detractors: http://watch.pair.com/Hudson.html
So much BS out there and false "think tanks."
Clean up your style if you want to make a point.
Adios mikey [sic]
So now you believe yourself a saint. Maybe in the Church of Satan, but last I checked the Pope had yet to canonize you.
Here's your link:
And incidentally, even if you think somebody's column was "snotty" and "pubescent," don't write it. It makes you look, well, "snotty and pubescent." Stick to facts, which in your case means sticking like Teflon. And no, I'm not going to get into a "I'm not; but what are you!" over whether you "got to me." I passed that stage of maturity when I was five or else I bypassed it altogether.
Hudson has detractors? No, please, say it ain't so! Or better yet, understand that if you DON'T have detractors in the world of ideas it's because nobody cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Abraham Lincoln, Jesus, and Socrates all have detractors? Indeed, weren't all three murdered by their critics? Last I heard, at least Hudson hasn't been shot, crucified, or ordered to drink hemlock.
Finally, a short language lesson for you. "Adios" in Spanish generally means "Farewell," as opposed to "Hasta luego," which means "Until later." Since you used "adios" I'm going to keep you to your word, knowing as I write this that the emails will keep flooding in because my responses make you feel important when you know as well as I that you are as unimportant as they come.
In Your Next Column, Please Address Every Political Issue in the World
In your piece regarding ill gotten [sic] gains, why did you stop with Mr. Edwards?
You were doing so well I thought perhaps you may have left out the Ill [sic] gotten gains of Dick Cheney, Haliburton [sic] indirect thievery from taxpayer monies via Halliburton who profits from destruction caused by WARS.
Now Lets [sic] go further [sic] George W. Bush and the whole BUSH family, Oil [sic] And [sic] Arms [sic] Merchants [sic] Of [sic] TEXAS fuel and supply the Backing [sic] to keep this family in POWER so as to use the AMERICAN Peoples (sic, sic) Armed [sic] Forces [sic] and Weapons [sic] of mass Destructio [sic] to illegally [sic] Invade [sic] A soverign [sic] nation ,murder it,s [sic] people all to obtain their cache [sic] of OIL.
Now why Would [sic] you leave these impotant ["Important?" Or, rather, "impotent?"] facts untold? Oil in Iraq is the finanical [sic] tool these people needed to fuel their Plan [sic] to control the Middle east [sic] and the wealth of the World! [sic] I will watch eagerly for your next piece explaining your omissions.
Sincerely Yours [sic]
Dear Mr. Preston:
Maybe, just maybe, the reason I stopped with Edwards is because it was a 700-word column about Edwards. Perhaps you think that a book on 19th Century French painters, a novel about growing up in the old South, and a volume of poetry should all also condemn George Bush; but my guess is others would beg to differ. Most people like to see one subject covered at a time, especially in such a short format but obviously (and thank God for it) most people don't think (or write) like you.
You My [sic] Friend [sic] Are [sic] Mentaly (sic, sic) Bankrupt [sic], on a drive off the CLIFF!
If so, my friend, I'll meet you at the bottom.
Damn the Facts and Science, Just Transfer the Bucks
I am responding to your editorial that bashes John Edwards for earning his money by helping victims of Cerebral [sic] Palsy [sic] and their families. I was just wondering, do you have any personal connection to anyone with a severe case of CP? I don't think you could even begin to comprehend how challenging life can be at times unless you know someone with CP. What John Edwards does for victims of Cerebral [sic] Palsy [sic] is that he gives them a second chance at the American Dream by providing them with the resources to succeed in life. That is a damn good way to make a living; profiting from improving peoples' lives as opposed to profiting from war and bloodshed, the way that our current vice president chooses to make a living.
Victims of CP should not be left to suffer just because a doctor makes a negligent decision. Maybe someday you will have a grandchild with CP and then an [sic] only then will you realize that John Edwards does not "exploit" victims of CP but he gives them a second chance at living a quality life. As a college student with a severe form of CP, I am honored to have John Edwards as my next vice president. [Tough luck!]
Thanks for confirming what I've often said about juries in personal injury cases, that they often ignore whether there was any real wrongdoing but merely decide to hand a check to somebody who is sick or hurt. But that's not the way the tort system is supposed to work, and that's why the Michigan Supreme Court tossed out the $27 million CP case. In a malpractice case there must be evidence of negligence, not simply a showing that somebody wants or could use the bucks. It's irrelevant whether the injury or illness is major or minor, and hence your tear-jerking, pox-upon-thy-house spiel about the awfulness of CP and my failure to understand it is also irrelevant. Under your standard, anybody with any ill could sue anybody else to transfer money to the ill person. Well, actually not ANYBODY. You see most people with real injuries that indeed resulted from the negligence of others can't get any lawyer, much less a John Edwards. That's because the lawyer thinks their case isn't worth his time. Further, as I noted in the piece you attack, when a case goes to trial the lawyer normally takes 40 percent – plus expenses. The lawyer gets almost as much as the plaintiff. Even with your Marxist-like scheme of "From each according to the deepness of his pockets; to each according to his real or alleged complaint," this is a highly inefficient transfer method.
Life isn't fair and I'm sorry that you or anybody has CP. But I'm also sorry that anybody has any other debilitating disease or injury and I realize we can't simply toss other people's money at them. I also understand the selfishness of your position.
In Your Next Column, Please Cover Every Issue in the World
Now – tell [sic] us about the increased earnings by the insurance companies. Of course you were after Edwards. Now lets [sic] talk about Cheneys [sic] earnings using off shore [sic] non headquarters [sic].
Dear Mr. Balisle:
No, no! Let's discuss tea and crumpets! Or perhaps the World Series! As you noted in your own quaint little way, the piece was indeed about Edwards. I find that in a 700-word format, my readers prefer to read about one subject as opposed to five or ten hand-picked by Mr. Balisle.
Does that Mean You Liked it?
I have never read such a ridiculous, unsubstantiated, incongruous bunch of bunk as your hogwash article, "The Anti-Baby Candidate." First, "Anti-baby" has nothing to do with your premise that health premiums are on the rise and that there are fewer doctors in rural America largely due to John Edwards. How absurd.
Your premise further implies that he frightened the doctors' malpractice attorneys into settling their lawsuits because he appeared trustworthy. Horrors!
You made several statements concerning cerebral palsy and delivery, but quoted no sources. What are they? Are you an expert in this field? Didn't the doctors' attorneys have these sources? Why didn't they use them?
How could you, as a journalist, in good conscience imply that John Edwards almost single-handedly has ruined our complicated health system? Our justice system is based on pro and con. The doctors and hospitals have more that [sic] ample resources for defense. For anyone who has every [sic] been a victim of malpractice, it is evident who is on the weaker side. It is important to have to have [sic] the balance of strong attorneys to fight for victims. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not if their [sic] cases are valid. If the hospital and doctors do not choose to take this avenue it is not the fault of the attorneys for the victims.
If being rich is filthy to you, you've forgotten that you live in the greatest capitalist country in the world. John Edwards didn't just rest on family money, he educated himself and worked for others. He was apparently very good at it and made money. Isn't that what we all strive to do?
Find your objectivity and sources, Mr. Fumento.
Dear Ms. Freundlich:
Aw, c'mon! Never?
First, you'll please note I never used the term "anti-baby" in the piece. Nor did I in my title. That was the editor's doing.
It was not my implication that Edwards "frightened the doctors' malpractice attorneys into settling their lawsuits because he appeared trustworthy." I wrote: "Indeed, he was so feared, according to the Center for Public Integrity, "that doctors would settle cases for millions of dollars rather than face him at trial" and "Yet Edwards won his cases not because scientific evidence favored him but because of his smooth-talking "trust-me" demeanor – and heart-wrenching pleas in which he would sometimes pretend to be the voice of the unfortunate child crying out for justice." Do you think I don't read my own columns?
Unfortunately, keeping a detailed column to 700 words often means only giving a partial citation of sources. You'll find all of them on my website including the title I gave to the piece: "Ill-gotten Gains Keep Edwards Smiling." Now what say you? All of these data were collected long after Edwards left doctor-robbing to become a senator, but the Michigan Supreme Court DID have access to it which is why it overturned that $27 million CP case.
I didn't imply that Edwards single-handedly did nothing but lie and line his pockets; you INFERRED it. I did state outright (no inference needed) that Edwards and those like him are putting good doctors out of business and raising our insurance premiums. Yes, doctors and hospitals can afford to defend themselves but only by passing the costs on to us. Maybe you're so wealthy that yearly jumps in premiums just bounce off you like a BB fired at Godzilla, but most of us aren't. I note your defense of the "filthy rich." Got some mud on your hands?
As for malpractice victims being on the weaker side, that's absolutely true. But lawyers do little to affect this because they take only the most lucrative, most winnable cases. The vast majority of malpractice cases are turned away by John Edwards and friends because he's not into defending the little guy; he's into expanding the bank account of the big guy. Himself. If you strive to do what Edwards did, then you are equally wicked. Me, I'm happy with my decision to stop practicing law and start writing about health. I wouldn't necessarily mind making millions a year, but if I have to lie and cheat to get it then it's just not worth it.
So, you had to make this personal. [!] Just to let you know something about myself – I can read – well – I did infer – I inferred exactly what you expected all your readers to infer. It's simple reading comprehension.
I'm sorry you didn't make it as a lawyer, but don't take it out on Edwards.
And – what does this sentence mean – "I didn't imply that Edwards single-handedly did anything but lie and line his pockets; you INFERRED it." Check the sentence structure; you just disagreed with yourself. [The sentence structure is fine, thank you, and logical as well.]
If you do read your own column, why didn't YOU note the title? [I did note it; after it was in print.]
Look, kid, I don't want to get nasty with you as you did with me. You're in the wrong arena. Just think before you write. You didn't group Edwards in with ALL malpractice attorneys. You attack just him. You made vague generalizations that bordered on slander. "Lined is [sic] pockets"? Doesn't that imply fraud? Just an example.
Good luck to you.
Dear Ms. Freundlich:
Yes, by definition an email sent to a single person is "personal." Guilty as charged; I will remove my shirt for the 40 lashes. But if by "personal" you mean "insulting," then what do you think of an email that refers to one's work as an "unsubstantiated, incongruous bunch of bunk" and "hogwash"? No, that's not being personal; that's just an objective observation, right? Very freundlich of you. [Friendly.]
As for not knowing you, I hardly need a reminder. I also consider it a blessing.
(Now THAT was personal.) I expected readers to infer that claims that CP is caused by insufficient c-sections is unsupported by science and that John Edwards made a fortune with such claims. That's fairly straight-forward, yet somehow you missed it. And no, I didn't disagree with myself – though I reserve the right to do so. I was referring specifically to your "single-handed" claim. It's not in the piece; you read between lines that weren't there. And none of this has anything to do with sentence structure.
I did "note" the title the New York Post gave my piece, I'm saying I didn't write it. And I stand guilty of not buying up each copy, pasting on a new title, and putting it back on the newsstands and in the stores.
I'm glad you're not getting nasty with me, that you're not doing anything like saying I wrote an "unsubstantiated, incongruous bunch of bunk" and "hogwash;" and that you said I "couldn't make it" as a lawyer. In fact, I graduated from a top 25 law school (University of Illinois), passed the bar exam on my first try, and remain a member in good standing with the Pennsylvania Bar. When I say I elected to go into health writing I meant just that and you knew it. Insofar as lawyers in this country outnumber national health writers by probably thousands to one, I'd say it appears I've been a success. I'm just not rich like so many of my classmates are – especially the trial lawyers.
When you say "bordered on slander," you implicitly admit I did not slander him. What I said certainly made him look like a skunk, but it was true. That's why it's not slander, or more specifically libel. And yes, I did imply fraud in a moral sense but in no ways in a legal sense. Diet book authors are almost universally frauds, but they don't break laws. They just line their pockets by making readers fatter than ever. Just an example.
How dare you say that John Edwards is anti-baby for helping the families and children? Negligent doctors should not be rewarded for their errors. Yes, insurance premiums may increase but someone needs to defend these people. If a doctor is scared into performing a c-section when he feels it is not appropriate, then he or she should not be a doctor in the first place. They [First a doctor was a "he/she," but now a "they."] should not be put in such delicate situations because obviously they do not work well under pressure. I understand that doctors are human and they are entitled to make mistakes but they placed in a very high regard in our society and they have an obligation to perform responsibly. I am simply outraged by this article and I don't even have children. Let's see if you will feel the same way if one of his [Whose?] children suffers do [sic] to a doctor's error.
Dear Ms. Tavares:
I didn't say he was "anti-baby." That was a title chosen by the editor and obviously doesn't fit the piece. Edwards isn't anti-anything, he's just pro-Edwards - no matter whom he has to hurt. The point of my piece was that these doctors were NOT negligent; that the science does not support blaming a doctor for CP because he didn't perform a c-section. Just because your baby has CP or a birth defect doesn't mean that the doctor caused it and therefore you need "defending." Further, if your "doctor is scared" rule were applied so many ob/gyns would leave the field that American women would have to go to Canada or Mexico to give birth. Tell me that the idea of losing $27 million for a decision made in a split-second wouldn't put just a bit of pressure on you. Why is it that you feel doctors should act so responsibly but trial lawyers, U.S. senators, and would-be vice presidents need not? I am simply outraged by your letter and don't even have children.
An Expert on Bumbling Idiots
If the [New York] POST [sic] [where he saw my op-ed] is owned by the fox [sic] news [sic] channel [sic]. ("Fair and balanced") Can't [sic] wait to see your next article about Chenney's [sic] ties to Haliburton [sic]. ( Now there is a story of interest ! ) Think Chenney [sic] and Bush are skimming any barrels of oil for themselves? Of course not ! These bumbling idiots have oil in their blood !!( trace their roots ) Remember Edwards went to school to become a lawyer. His game was "fair and balanced" trials. Don't knock his livelihood ! Blame the state government for no financial caps. It wont [sic] be long before fox [sic] news [sic] will be jumping off the Bush bandwagon. Kerry's point lead in the polls is only going to get stronger. And my prediction is, with that momentum changing you will see fox [sic] turning their [sic] cheek to support the new winner of the free world John Kerry .
a registered Republican
( swing voter in pa.)
Insofar as you can spell neither "Cheney" nor "Halliburton," I think anything I wrote on the two would be lost on you. But you're right about there being a connection; Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. Happy? And insofar as on the day you wrote all the major polls were showing deadlocks in the popular vote but giving Bush lead in the electoral college vote, well, between all this you're not quite in the position to be labeling anybody a "bumbling idiot."
You might want to follow in Mr. Edwards [sic] shoes and go back to school for law, or brush up on your own writing skills. Looking forward to a celebration in D.C. – I'll be looking for my own personal invite buddy! (25 days and counting ) What color suit do you think Sen. Kerry will be wearing at the Inuagural [sic] Ball ? Good luck Bush Wacker. Did you see Bush get his ass kicked again? Wow!! (Here is a writing idea. Why can't bush [sic] answer a question that is asked of him ? Instead he avoids the question and resorts back to wmd's [sic], or goes off on a [sic] irrevelant [sic] tangent. Why )
The swing voter in Pa.
P.S. side bet 5-1 odds on a bush [sic] re-election interested? [sic]
You may prove to be correct about the election, but insofar as the polls are showing Bush either tied or leading in virtually all of them I'd have to say that your political race handicapping is about as good as your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.
[After the election I wrote this.]
It appears that Kerry will not be wearing anything at the Inaugural Ball, which is not to say he will arrive naked. As far as your invite goes, you'll need money to pay off those five-to-one wagers you've been making. I'll see if I can get you a waiter job at the Ball.
Obviously a Hand Lover
I must say that I found your column on John Edwards' work to be amusing on one hand and typically under-handed Republican on the other.
Yes, John Edwards made a livlihood [sic] as a lawyer...please try to fine [sic] a majority of accomplished attorneys which does not make [sic] money as a lawyer, either Democrat or Republican. And, when someone is hired as an attorney, isn't it his/her job to represent his/her clients in the best way possible to attain damages for malpractice or other malfeasance? I would call that doing what he/she was hired to do. Are you trying to suggest that only John Edwards or only Democrats have represented people in malpractice suits? Are you saying that no Republican has ever done the same?
[976 words of pap omitted.]
As I recall, I did not write that it's wrong for lawyers or anyone else to make money. It's the lying, cheating, and stealing part I objected to. And no, it's not the job of an attorney to lie, cheat and steal for his plaintiff, much less for himself. I would say he/she is a liar, a cheat, and thief. I would really have to be quite the idiot to write that John Edwards is the only person to have filed a malpractice suit, so no I wouldn't say it was suggested in the piece. Nor will I say that you're the only idiot to ever write to me. It's just that you, like your idol, are a standout in your own way.
Thank you for the response. I apparently hit a nerve somewhere in you since you felt you needed to resort to name-calling...no wonder you think George Bush is so wonderful [sic]. : ) Again...typically Republican – you have to put someone else down to make yourself feel superior. Maybe it was reading your idiotic column that qualified me to become an idiot...who knows or even cares at this point? However, I do think that maybe I should include your reply in a letter to the editor of our local newspaper so they [He means "he/she".] can see the kind of columnist (for a lack of a better word) that they allow to write (for a lack of a better word) in (sic, "for") their newspaper.
Oh...and speaking of lying, cheating and stealing, I notice that you did not address writing about Mr. Bush and his close ties to the very lucrative oil business nor did you address doing a column on Mr. Cheney and his Halliburton buddies. Just wanted to point that oversight out to you!
Have a good day, Michael!
Normally, calling somebody an "idiot" would be name-calling but in your case it was merely an empirical observation. Now, if I had said you were something like "nothing but a parasite in humanity's bowels . . ." - no, come to think of it that would just be another empirical observation. And yes, I did address not writing about Bush and Cheney, and you obviously read it since this time around you spelled "Cheney" and "Halliburton" correctly. As to not mentioning them in the original column, it was a short piece about John Edwards and his medical practice cases. Were I doing 700 words on Lincoln's Gettysburg address I probably wouldn't feel obligated to discuss Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis.
I can probably spell better than you. I am well-educated for your information [It is new information, albeit rather untrustworthy.] but I suppose I will need to stoop to your level so you might understand, you slime-sucking, obnoxious, libelous, pitiful-excuse-for-a-writer. (And I might add that all of these descriptive words are also based purely on empirical observation.) You couldn't write anything that made sense if your life depended on it, much less being able to write an accurate story.
You obviously must be from Bush's elite one percent that is getting all the tax breaks because I can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would pay you to produce the crap that you put out. I'm sure that you (and possibly the Bushes, Cheneys – yes, I can spell it but a more accurate spelling might be "Crook" – and the Halliburton boys) have to be financing your little propaganda production. Oh – and, of course, I only mean that in the nicest of ways! : )
I guess the only way that I would write a column about you would be if the topic was [sic] "Big-Headed Losers." I will have to give you some credit, though, because you are undoubtedly a "legend in your own mind."
Oh, and by the way – I'm amazed that you even knew who Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis were.
Speaking of hitting nerves, you appear to be undergoing a root canal. Invest a little money in a spell-check button and a brain transplant and you'll be just fine.
She's a Real Gem
Dear Mr. Fumento,
Your article starts with shaming John Kerry for earning money the old fashioned way, what you conveniently leave out is (sic, "that") your man, George W, earned his money the same way!!!!! [The use of five consecutive exclamation marks is a sure sign of maturity and intelligence.] It appears you do not support the consumers but big business instead. [And I always thought it was spelled "Big Business."] It seems hard to believe a gentleman of your intelligence thinks the answer to the high health insurance premiums is one thing, malpractice insurance. What an easy answer and an easy target. Could the high cost of medicine have anything to do with the state of our nation's health, diabetes, heart disease, obesity. [sic] I have also read from folks who are not so simplistic [sic] that insurance companies lost a lot of money in the stock market downturn, and that caused them to raise premiums. Your article does not approach the merit of Mr [sic] Edwards [sic] cases, just CP in general. The insurance companies pay attorneys well and I can imagine they had an equal caliber attorney to face Mr. Edwards, maybe the facts weren't in their favor, perhaps his cases had merit. I find it interesting that you do not mention that. My husband is an attorney and I understand how PI attorney's [sic] are compensated. If the case does not have merit, you can not win an award, and therefore attorney's [sic] do not get paid if there is no award. Reputable attorneys will not take a case without merit. Most doctors are competent, however some perform malpractice, [Is that a new surgical procedure?] it appears you believe doctors and insurance companies should be protected instead of the patient. It seems we are headed in the direction of socialized medicine. I think patients will demand it, if their rights to be protected are taken away. Consider protecting patients against bad doctors, instead of protecting bad doctors. Get a clue, and don't be foxed [Get it? Fox News. What a cut-up!], present a more well researched [sic] and less biased [sic] approach and some other folks might read your stuff besides right wingers [sic] and learn something. I learned you are short sighted [sic] [I do have myopia, but that's "near-sighted.] and biased, and I won't read your stuff anymore.
Well, you certainly are a Diamond in the rough. Rough, indeed!
What I conveniently "left out" would not be true. Both Kerry and Bush were born into wealth, but only Kerry decided to augment it by twice marrying heiresses.
Please point out where I wrote (here or anywhere) that malpractice premiums are the "one thing" increasing consumer health premiums. I said it was a contributing factor, nothing more.
By showing that trial lawyer claims regarding c-sections and CP are bogus and that Edwards made a killing off such claims, I did in fact "approach the merit" of Mr. Edwards' cases. I also made reference to his grotesque tactic of voicing words ostensibly from the mouths of CP victims crying out for justice – or tens of millions of dollars in any event.
You may be the only person in the world who would dare claim that every jury award in favor of plaintiffs is correct. No jury or judge in a tort case anywhere or at any time has ever erred. How marvelous! And while it may be true that "reputable attorneys, by which you mean trial lawyers, will not take a case without merit," all that means is that reputable trial lawyers are outnumbered by living dinosaurs. Further, since I showed that many of Edwards' cases were without merit, in your own words you're declaring the Democratic VP candidate to be disreputable. Thanks for the admission.
There was nothing in my piece defending doctors who commit malpractice; indeed, it was entirely about cases in which there was no evidence of such. Apparently you believe columns are Rorschach blots that you can interpret in any way you wish. That also allows you to see me as "short-sighted and biased" without evidence. In any event, I cannot tell you how heart-broken I am that I have lost as a reader the wife of a trial lawyer.
Thank you for responding to my mail, you moved up a notch. I am not the eloquent writer that you are, I am a CPA. You said malpractice premiums are a contributing factor of our health problem. Well I think you should tell us how much of a contributing factor malpractice premiums are. I believe that as an editorial writer [sic] who reaches lots of people you owe it to us to write about contributing factors of health costs that will make a big difference in your audiences [sic] pocketbook. I have a lot of doctor friends, and they tell me reducing malpractice costs will help them. Is that the group you were trying to reach? By writing your article and placing such importance on this one factor and not mentioning it's [sic] impact to [sic] your readers makes [sic] you a sensational writer [Why, thank you!] and biased. Shall I condem [sic] your profession and limit your words to 250 because you are write frivolous articles? No, I think not, that is not the democratic way, capitalism weeds out the bad journalists, lawyers, doctors, cpa's [sic], etc.
Dear Ms. Diamond,
I'm not an economist, but neither am I a fool. I explained to you the simple formula. Meritless malpractice suits raise insurance premiums for doctors. Doctors have to charge enough to pay overhead and make a salary. If their premiums go up they can only "eat them" so long until they're forced to pass it along to patients and the patients' own insurance companies. Do you really think that ob/gyns in Florida can pay $250,000 a year in malpractice and it won't affect what they charge? I'm sorry if that's not precise enough for you. I also can't tell you off the top of my head how far away the moon is but I can say that you probably can't reach it with a Lear Jet.
Finally, while I am a big supporter of free enterprise I hardly have the faith in it that you pretend to. "Bad journalist" is practically oxymoronic, and I know from personal experience there are many crummy lawyers and doctors. I wouldn't know about CPAs, but I hardly think they're exempt. Especially where I work, in Washington, D.C., essentially everything here is not what you know but who you know. That encourages the dregs to rise to the top. It's hardly surprising that among them is John Edwards.