Republicans don't take too kindly to trial lawyers. Not lawyers, as such….but "trial" lawyers. To hear conservatives and Republicans talk the way they do about them-there "trial" lawyers, you might be led to believe that, whoever they are, trial lawyers are just slightly less dangerous to our nation than al-Qaeda members.
One recent example of this we-hate-trial-lawyers craze has been the dropping of the occasional "tort reform" bomb during health care reform discussions. Though it has been clearly shown by neutral data compilers that medical malpractice lawsuits only account for somewhere between 1% and 3% of our total national health care costs…..Republicans, when they have offered anything at all, have always raised the idea of limiting, capping what those trial lawyers can win for their crippled, butchered or dead clients.
I've always recoiled from the ugliness of this Republican tic. Yes, I understand it…..the Republican constituency, after all, is big business, big money,….that's who the GOP represents. Anything that diminishes the profits of big corporations, like, say, being punitively fined for paralyzing one of your customers, must be controlled, limited or eliminated altogether. Ohio's Republicans, abhorrently, have successfully capped the punitive awards against doctors who might negligently kill one of your children.
That dehumanized and compassionless ugliness ain't nothin' in comparison with the subject of today's post. The F"cking Insane Gang-Rape Posse.
Jamie Leigh Jones was a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an “arbitration” process that would be run by KBR itself.
Miss Jones was so brutally gang-raped that she required reconstructive surgery….and wasn't the imprisonment in the shipping container a nice touch?
On Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) introduced an amendment guaranteeing victims like Miss Jones the right to have their day in court. Franken's amendment would stop funding defense contractors, like KBR, who deny assault victims that day in court.
Naturally, if that amendment passed, trial lawyers would have the right to extract financial punishment in court from companies whose employees, you know, gang-raped, another employee.
Enter the F*cking Insane Clown Posse.
Franken's amendment passed with 68 yes votes. THIRTY Republican senators voted no. 30 Republicans, insanely crazed by their partisan hatred of trial lawyers and Democrats voted for the gang-raping company and against the gang-rape victim.
In a theoretical hell, Lucifer, himself, couldn't turn the thermostat up high enough for these "values voters" politicians.
Often, conservatives and Republicans have said that their current disfavor with American voters is because they just can't get their "message" out properly, whatever-the-hell that "message" is. I categorically disagree. Indeed, the reason that voters are avoiding those R's on their ballots is because Republicans ARE getting their "message" out….and that "message" is ugly, viciously hateful, detached from real human life, intolerant, and defensive of all things Americans detest about cold-blooded corporations.
Tuesday, the Insane Gang-Rape Clown Posse delivered that "message" once again.
Tuesday, Al Franken did the late Paul Wellstone proud. This video is 10 minutes long, but I'm telling you, it's worth every minute. Though not often seen in the wilds of Washington D.C…..this is what a true Democrat looks like…..
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear sad clown known as the Reverend,
Tort reform doesn't help the "big corporations." It helps the doctors, who don't have to pay huge malpractice insurance premiums to those big health insurance corporations. It helps the insured, who don't have to pay more for health insurance because of those huge malpractice premiums and settlements the doctors and insurance companies pay for.
Rocket science, it ain't.
And everybody is entitled to their day in court. Neither KBR nor anyone else can deny it. Franken's amendment is superfluous grandstanding, moral preening signifying nothing.
And 3% of health care comes out to about $ 80 billion. That's without counting all the defensive medicine costs. It's significant. But maybe you are in favor of making trial lawyers wealthy (like John "scam" Edwards). I care more about the people.
Thanks for bashing those trial lawyers. Fits right in.
"And everybody is entitled to their day in court. Neither KBR nor anyone else can deny it. Franken's amendment is superfluous grandstanding, moral preening signifying nothing."
Typical anti-democratic nonsense. The very reason the amendment was necessary was because Miss Jones could not get her day in court. She was bound by KBR's inhuman contract.
"It helps the insured, who don't have to pay more for health insurance…"
Those companies that sell that health insurance are "big corporations."
I know you're not oblivious to these realities, but sometimes…..it's hard to tell.
One more thing…
"Tort reform doesn't help the "big corporations."
Who do you suppose gets sued for punitive damages? It's the health insurers.
Who do you think pays those punitive damages, Reverend? I'd guess it's the health insurers' customers. Who benefits from the awards? Judging from the tort case announcements I've received in the mail, no one but the lawyers.
In class action suits, that may be correct. But we're not talking about class actions.
This issue is not primarily about monetary awards. Those who are shouting the loudest about tort reform in health care are arguing on the side of doctors, and the insurers who insure them, those who maim, cripple and kill regular Americans, negligently.
It's the principle. Conservatives do not want to deter doctors from being negligent, apparently. There is no other available process by which negligent doctors can be held accountable other than through the court system.
Unless we go back to the wild west….or better yet, the Old Testament laws. If a doctor cripples a child because of negligence, then the doctor's child should be crippled. How about we return to those Juedeo-Christian principles?
You are talking in circles, Reverend. If it's not about monetary awards, and just about principle, why not outlaw monetary awards and simply take away medical licenses if a doctor is proven negligent?
I get the feeling you know you should take a liberal stance on this issue but do not have the energy to look into it. Maybe you could tie the Christians or Jews in somehow.
Rev says, "Who do you suppose gets sued for punitive damages? It's the health insurers"
Yes, and who do you suppose those costs get passed on to ? It's the doctors, in the form of ever higher malpriactice premiums, who then have to pass those costs along to their patients. That's the American people, in case I lost you. The American people are the ones who CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE ANYMORE and are uninsured, in case that connection also evades you.
But those trial lawyers make out like bandits. That's why the advertise on television all the time. Their scam works. Ask John Edwards. The ambulance-chasing scam made him very rich.
And you claim to not like anyone who rakes in profits from health care. Sure buddy. Whatever you say. Tell me another one.
That "feeling" could also be heartburn larry.
But please, continue to support health insurers whose job it is to deny claims and defend against threats to their profits by misleading Americans into looking at trial lawyers as the villains and away from the real villains…themselves.
Tell me again how it's just so wrong for a parent to sue for punitive damages when a doctor cripples or kills one of their children. That one is especially rich with appeal.
I don't know of anyone who promotes the idea of denying anyone the right to sue, Reverend. If you're going to make stuff up, I still think bringing in the Christians or the Jews might be your best bet.
this reminds me of the time I hired Akron lawyer Sandra Machan as probate attorney for my father's estate. She had me sign an arbitration only contract. To put it kindly, Sandra Machan was and for all I know still is an incompetent idiot.
Well, she made an error when she calculated her attorney fees. So I wrote her a letter, pointed out her error and demanded the $687 that the firm Machan & Whalen owed the Estate. No answer, not a no, just not a reply. According to the agreement, fee arbitration would be handled by the Akron Bar Association. So I went ahead and went that route. My request for fee arbitration was denied by Akron lawyer John Dohner. His reasoning was because of a pending lawsuit I had filed against Machan in Akron Small Claims on a totally unrelated matter. He advised me that the only way the Akron Bar would accept this fee arbitration would be if I dropped the complaint in small claims on the other totally unrelated matter. I pointed out to Dohner, and he agreed, that the 2 issues were distinct, separate and unrelated. I said no. According to the contract, fee arbitration was to be addressed by the Akron Bar where in the other matter the Akron Bar had absolutly no jurisdiction.
These contracts were later ruled to be unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court becaused they denied clients the right to sue.
30 republicans voted no and to continue the funding KBR even when there is ample investigation and conclusions of wrongdoing after they voted to end funding for ACORN where there was no investigation.
sounds about right?
"I don't know of anyone who promotes the idea of denying anyone the right to sue,.."
You mean, like, promote on highway billboards? Or do you mean, other than those 30 GOP senators? Are you counting them?…because they voted to deny employees of government contractors the right to sue…you know, should you get gang-raped and locked in a shipping container by other company employees.
You're moving the goal posts, Reverend. Why don't you just wave the white flag or apologize for fibbing or something. Or maybe tie in the Christians or Jews somehow.
Rev,
Tort reform doesn't mean people wouldn't have the right to sue. They still would. It would be helpful if you focused.
I don't need your nannying,…..thanks but, you know, no thanks.
Tort reform is for whose benefit? Say it……corporations.
Limiting punitive damages so insurance corporations can simply budget for doctors crippling and killing patients….I don't know…..seems barbaric and inhumane to me.
Also….in the case of the gang-rape, as it stood…..without Franken's amendment, the rapee was bound to arbitrate her gang-rape punitive damages, an arbitration KBR had total control of. So, I don't need a lesson on what tort reform would or wouldn't do.
By the way….I think it's shameless to argue against the rights of a gang-rape victim to have her day in court. That, in effect, is what you are arguing.
larry…."You're moving the goal posts, Reverend. Why don't you just wave the white flag or apologize for fibbing or something."
My bowels moved this morning…..but "goal posts"? No. You said "no one promotes" against the right to sue. That is incorrect….and I mean glaringly. Thirty GOP'ers "promoted" the idea that victims should not have the right to sue in court. They did this by voting against Franken's amendment mandating the cessation of funding for government contractors who bind their employees over to arbitration and restricts their employees from sueing.
I see where republican David "Diaper Dave" Vitters voted to keep the money going to the rapists protecter KBR.
I guess wearing a diaper to go see the prostitute makes you truly a famliy values republican
That's funny. I thought Al was a democrat.
http://images-partners.google.com/images?q=tbn:T3hbmKXHUifiAM:
Not that it matters…but the Franken photo is a photoshopped piece…..while Vitter, you know, really paid a prostitute to diaper him. But I can see how a conservative would see those as the same.
Rev says, "Tort reform is for whose benefit? Say it……corporations."
Wrong. I already shot this bit of illogic down. Tort reform benefits doctors, and patients, by lowering health care costs.
Rev says, "Limiting punitive damages so insurance corporations can simply budget for doctors crippling and killing patients….I don't know…..seems barbaric and inhumane to me."
Yes, because everybody knows doctors raison d'etre is to cripple and kill patients. It's not like doctors exist to help people and save lives. Doctors are satan. Such reasonable arguments the Reverend makes.
Rev says, "By the way….I think it's shameless to argue against the rights of a gang-rape victim to have her day in court. That, in effect, is what you are arguing."
If you were directing this at me – like hell I am, scumbag. What I'm saying is, someone who was gang-raped WILL get their day in court. No piece of paper will stop that. A crime is a crime.
Your comment demonstrates that you honestly do not know what you are talking about.
You remain oblivious to the fact that tort reform warriors are shills for health insurers who use doctors as their pawns in a profits game.
You remain oblivious to the demonstrated fact that KBR bound their employees to arbitration instead of civil court proceedings, thus necessitating Franken's amendment.
Because you remain oblivious to these facts, you feel justified in labeling me a "scumbag" for pointing out that obliviousness.
King sez….."What I'm saying is, someone who was gang-raped WILL get their day in court."
How about the rapists? Why haven't the rapists been delt with? KBR's connections with your fellow travelers Bush/Cheney/Boehner?
Rev,
So, your point is that malpractice case suers should be awarded like $50 million in court, rather than $250,000, in order to enrich the lawyers and make it financially rewarding to pursue lawsuit after lawsuit against doctors, like John Edwards did, making him rich, even though those lawsuit rewards raise the price of health care for every other American that follows, and even though the object of the lawsuit is DEAD, and cannot possibly benefit. Sure, that makes sense, if you're a freaking idiot.