Kerry Concedes to Bush

[Hazard]

College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.

[Adron]

College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.

[hismajesty]

No, it's because doctors are scared to operate because they're getting sued - even when they don't do stuff wrong. That is why we're losing doctors here in the states.

[Hazard]

College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.

No, I'm saying that doctors side with Republicans because we care about health and wellbeing, because the liberal whores that are also lawyers suck the life blood out of our doctors. Lawyers become Democrats because Democrats fight alongside the lawyers in courts to rip off doctors in high-risk practices. What would happen if the Democrats had their way? Doctors would no longer practice high risk procedures because the insurance rates and lawsuits would be too high. Liberals = scum? Of course.

[Adron]

Ah, of course. Your legal system is seriously flawed. I didn't think of that. Way too much money to be extracted through lawsuits. Is it safe to assume that your new strong republican majority will put a stop to that forever now? Make it so suits will only produce as much money as here in safe cozy little Sweden?

[Hazard]

Ah, of course. Your legal system is seriously flawed. I didn't think of that. Way too much money to be extracted through lawsuits. Is it safe to assume that your new strong republican majority will put a stop to that forever now? Make it so suits will only produce as much money as here in safe cozy little Sweden?

The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.

[Adron]

The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.

[Hazard]

The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.

When a man A sues man B after man B hit him with a sledgehammer for parking too close to the curb, a lawsuit is certainly in order for any damages. When a doctor performing a dangerous operation is unable to save a life and is sued for "malpractice" for a ridiculous amount of money, it is way out of line.

[Adron]

The Republican legislature is aiming to cap malpratice lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance. Your little Swiss system wouldn't work here in the United States, so stop applying your system to ours.

And why is that? You sue people for ridiculous amounts there.

When a man A sues man B after man B hit him with a sledgehammer for parking too close to the curb, a lawsuit is certainly in order for any damages. When a doctor performing a dangerous operation is unable to save a life and is sued for "malpractice" for a ridiculous amount of money, it is way out of line.

A lawsuit for the actual damages, $1000 or so is entirely ok. A lawsuit for $100000 or $1000000 is completely out of proportion for virtually every issue.

[hismajesty]

In America, a human life is worth more than $1,000. That's how they get away with sueing for a large amount of money.

[quasi-modo]

College professors would definatly be in this. They will drag it to the left. Lawyers will drag it to the left. But how long have doctors gone right? They are now because of the bush reforms, but I thought they were historically lefties.

Doctors have tended to vote Republican based on the rising costs of insurance, malpractice lawsuits, etc. and the Republican attempts to stop those things.

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.

Its because of the corruption of trial attorneys and it is screwing up our healthcare. I want to tell you to yank your head from your ass, but then again I am not going to say that because you are the admin. Please refrain from making comments ike that when you do not understand what is going on in our country. It is ignorance at its finest.

[hismajesty]

Blame Halliburton!

[Adron]

So you're saying doctors become Republicans because they want to be able to maltreat their patients without risking punishment? Ah. I see. Republican = crooked? Of course.

Its because of the corruption of trial attorneys and it is screwing up our healthcare. I want to tell you to yank your head from your ass, but then again I am not going to say that because you are the admin. Please refrain from making comments ike that when you do not understand what is going on in our country. It is ignorance at its finest.

That was already commented on, and as you should've seen, I've responded further on along that line... Honestly, I don't see how corrupt attorneys should be a problem. If the justice system works, having someone accuse you corruptly should just cause them trouble?

[Adron]

In America, a human life is worth more than $1,000. That's how they get away with sueing for a large amount of money.

But how often are human lives lost? I was thinking more of things like spilling coffee in your lap and other similarly stupid things.

[Kp]

Honestly, I don't see how corrupt attorneys should be a problem. If the justice system works, having someone accuse you corruptly should just cause them trouble?

To my knowledge, there's nothing formal that can be done about a corrupt attorney as long as he/she stays within the letter of the law (i.e. there's no explicit provision for asserting that he is "corrupt" in a sense recognizable and punishable by the system).  It might be possible to revoke their bar license if the bar association gets annoyed with them, but since it is itself run by lawyers, don't count on them turning out one of their own until he really screws up big.  A few dozen frivolous lawsuits isn't enough to annoy the bar association.

To address the other part of the statement, the implication that a corrupt accusation should be easy to defeat: yes, it should, but it usually isn't.  During jury selection, each side is permitted a small number of dismissals, so you can get rid of the unacceptable jurors before you waste time presenting evidence to them.  This is intended to be for situations like a juror who has already reached a decision before opening statements.   "He just looks like such a nice young man, he's definitely innocent."  This also goes the other way, dismissing people who might have undue bias against the defendent (e.g. cops in a case against an alleged cop-killer), or who are deemed to be a little too trusting ("Would you believe any testimony from a cop?"  "Of course."  "Why?"  "Because he's a cop."  <Judge> Next!).

Anyway, lawyers who are out for victory in a frivolous suit will pick their dismissals to get rid of certain classes of people, such as the college-educated (particularly masters/PhD), on the assumption these people are highly analytical and won't readily succumb to theatrics.  The result is that the jury ends up composed of the less competent section of the populace, which can be more easily manipulated with theatrics and appeals to irrational emotion.  In the case you mention about coffee, an emotional appeal might include the alleged victim testifying about all the problems the scalding has caused him.  The problems it caused him are a direct consequence of his spilling the coffee on himself, and thus are as much (or as little) his fault as the original spillage, but the emotionally-susceptible jurors will generally be swayed more in his favor by a good tear-jerker story.

[Side note on terminology, in case you haven't seen this before: frivolous lawsuit is the term commonly applied to suits that are allowed by the system despite that most people with a little common sense would say that the suit has no place in the court system.]