Here’s an endorsement that few Republicans ever get: Trial lawyers strongly supported Fred Thompson when he was in the Senate.
"We viewed him as someone we could work with, particularly given he had been an advocate in court for individuals and corporations, and had an innate understanding of what went on in a civil jury," Linda Lipsen, the chief lobbyist for the American trial lawyers lobby group, told the Washington Post. That’s the same group that most Republicans love to hate.
Thompson’s background as an attorney made him more understanding of the concerns of trial lawyers and less willing to buy into GOP demagoguery of the profession. For example, Thompson bucked the GOP in not supporting limits on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
51 Comments
Thanks to Nathan it seems we are seeing some more neutral (if not Pro) press on the Republican candidates.
SolDevVB, I enjoyed your posts on the Ron Paul thread, especially liked your response to Kev on his idea for a very progressive “flat” tax proposal. (Kev’s proposal was not much different then the Socialist wealth redistribution we have today)
Sol, I agree with most of your libertarian views, but I think Thompson is the better candidate for several reasons:
1. If you look at his voting record, his too is very conservative. http://ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
2. Thompson is at the top of the polls for the Republicans. Paul is so far behind, I don’t think he has a chance to gain wide support.
3. Thompson has the charismatic appeal that Paul lacks, and so many voters vote for who they like, or who looks good, instead of voting on how their candidate stands on the issues. Sad, but true.
4. Thompson has the name and face recognition that Paul lacks. Yes Thompson was an actor, but he was also a US Senator, Attorney, Factory worker, Shoe salesman, and Truck Driver. Actually a broader more extensive background then Ronald Reagan’s.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=22003
For the record, I do NOT claim either Republicans or Democrats to be my party. I’ve been registered as Independent since I was age 18. I am obviously conservative.
Since I see absolutely ZERO conservative Presidential candidates in the Socialist Democratic pool, my only hope is on the Republican side, at least for 2008 anyway.
The Republicans blew the 2006 election and lost control of Congress (in my opinion) because they failed to take Conservative action.
If the Republicans want to win Congress back, they better make sure true Conservative candidates are on the ballots.
For the most part, I see no Democrat that is even pretending to be Conservative.
I really wish the Libertarian Party would gather some strength and become as powerful as the two leading parties.
I believe America needs more alternatives in choosing those who will lead this country and represent the People. The Democrats and Republicans have both failed to do their jobs, we need another choice.
I would not vote for any Democrat that is a “conservative”. With friends like that, who needs Republicans? I don’t want a Democrat that is too liberal either. I want a Demcorat that wants programs for the people of the country and believes- as I do- in a strong central government. Programs are important and the USA has far too few of them. Also want a pro union Democrat. Rebuilding the labour movement is key to retaining the middle class. Also want a Democrat that is tough on crime, wants to put more cops on the street (a good thing Clinton did do) and build more prisons if needed. My ideal Democrat would be a Democrat in the mold of Richard J Daley or even Zell Miller before he went looney a few years ago and got cozy with the Republicans. He used to stand up for the working folks here in Georgia.
Richard J Daley is a poor, poor example of someone you’d like in a President… mayor Daley is part of an all-too-large, all-too-corrupt political machine. Yes, he makes Chi-town run, but a lot of people get run over in the process. Plus there’s that latent concern of organized crime ties.
Big government is a failure. Look at Kalifornia… they are very progressive with their “green” and their initiatives, but they can’t even keep the lights on, and sooner or later, none of them will be able to own cars or guns, because manufacturers will get tired of having to make California versions of everything updated for the sixty new laws passed. You can’t log, or even buy a reasonably priced chainsaw to clear underbrush, and they wonder why they have so many fires. You can’t have it both ways, and you may be able to legislate away the loggers and the non-CARB (cali air resources bureau) power tools, but you can’t legislate away the fires.
Unless, of course, you ban lighters, matches, cigarettes, sparks, and lightning.
Ah, yes!! Fred Thompson for the repubs and John Edwards for the demos. Two trial lawyers that have made a lot of money. The only thing to talk about will be…hair? …no hair?
We need Tort reform like Lindsey Lohan needs rehab. If we don’t do something it’s going to kill us.
I like Fred Thompson, but if the trial lawyers are endorsing him, I might have to look the other way.
Max,
You just go right on telling yourself that the Republican failure in in 2006 was because they weren’t conservative ENOUGH.
Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Wash, spin, repeat.
Postal,
Big government is a failure; indeed. Just look at GW Bush. But as you yourself say, we can’t have it both ways. It’s untenable to criticize government for regulating and enforcing the laws, while also criticizing trial lawyers for protecting the interests of those who have been damaged because of this same lack of enforcement.
CF2K has less and less patience for the fantastical libertarian utopia of “personal responsibility.” As a little guy himself, he sees nothing wrong with government hemming in the big guys if doing so levels the playing field.
Joe Williams,
Tort reform? So aggreived parties have NO recourse?
Spoken like a Chamber of Commerce true believer.
No CF2K! Just trial lawyers are looking for a cash machine. Frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time.
Just do a loser pay system, and I’ll be happy! Everything else can remain the same.
Tort reform YES. Tort elimination NO. Unfortunately all too often the big corporations mask elimination as reform.
CF2K you just described yourself as a pure SOCIALIST.
You might like this link:http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
I don’t mind if others work hard, are successful, and earn more than I do.
Why is that a problem for you? And why do you think you are entitled to take what others earn?
If there’s two things Republicans constantly say they hate, it’s actors and trial lawyers. So it’s no surprise the Republicans will be going crazy for Thompson this year because of the typical doublespeak and hypocrisy of the Republicans.
I’m no great fan of lawyers, but not all are bad, ya know.
Remember, Bill Clinton used to be a lawyer, until he was disbarred.
Typically, when people speak of “trial lawyers”, they are speaking about plaintiff attorneys practicing civil law; not defense, corporate, or attorneys that practice criminal law.
John Edwards fits the bill, Fred Thompson doesn’t.
An idea here:
Bill Clinton brought us “welfare reform” — he was able to do it by crossing party lines. It was not something his party was happy about.
Richard Nixon went to China. Something a Democrat would not have gotten away with, at the time.
I think Fred Thompson has a CHANCE of actually getting something done on the Tort Reform issue, since he is TRUSTED by the trial lawyers.—-I am conflicted on this issue. I think it should be presented as a choice:
Do we want medical cost increases to continue, faster than core inflation?
What have other countries done, in the medical malpractice area, to help reduce costs?
Democrats who push for more socialized medicine can NOT point to any other country where medical malpractice law is as profitable as it is in the United States.
Other countries have limited class action suits, have capped damages, have initiated “loser pay” laws, etc.
I don’t know what the final answer will be, but the current system does need reform.
Michael Moore is a moron. Our biggest health problem, in America, is morbid obesity, which leads to diabetes, cancer, heart problems, stroke, blindness, back problems, amputations and countless other problems. Moore is a poor example of good health habits. Moore is an example of a person who wants to live an irresponsible life and make us pay for it.
However, if Republicans don’t ACT on the medical issue, we leave the field to the Michael Morons of the world.—-Full and fair disclosure:
I have a severaly disabled relative. The disability was the result of malpractice.
I thank God that the relative had expert legal representation. Yes, he is a Democrat and never lets me forget that point!
Republicans should focus on FRIVOLOUS lawsuits. Things like the million-dollar dry cleaning case. The plaintiff, there, was also a JUDGE. Can’t we bring some professional sanctions from the Bar against such abuses?
That having been said — Republioans can’t be put in the position of:
1.) Defending the high cost of health care, while simultaneously-2.) Refusing to acknowledge that medical injuries are expensive!
Nursing home care runs from $4000 to over $7000 a month, in Kansas. Group health insurance generally does not cover custodial care. What do you do when someone needs a nursing home, or may need a nursing home in the future, due to negligence on the road, in the work place, or in the hospital?
We can’t defend the current cost and then refuse to pay for it, somehow.
Medical malpractice judgements and settlements can actually REDUCE the taxpayer liability, if the injured party would otherwise have to resort to Medicaid for the entire expense of care.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is a Republican principle, a value that we claim to hold dear.
In the case of ACTUAL negligence, error or omission, why shouldn’t we all be held personally accountable? Why should the taxpayers, in general, pay for the health care costs of an injured party?
Can’t we find a way, in the law, to distinguish between the ridiculous and the compelling?
“I have a severaly disabled relative. The disability was the result of malpractice.
I thank God that the relative had expert legal representation. Yes, he is a Democrat and never lets me forget that point!”
Econ – thank you! That needed to be said. One of the big problems with malpractice is MALPRACTICE!
My parent were both medical professionals so we had to deal with this issue. They knew the frivolous; however they both told me about the quacks out there.
An interesting thing I saw on 60 Minutes long ago. DRs could get ‘de-licensed’ in one state and just pick up and go to another one. Hell, you can’t even do that with your drivers license – they chack the database. Our health boards need to be doing a better job weeding them out; as do the hospitals and the insurance companies.
Very goog points Econ.
goog = good
I can neither type nor spell ;^)
Econ101, while you and I may not agree in total with what you post above, your points are most valid, sir.
I would remind those who do not know that in the event a Medicare beneficiary suffers injury due to the fault of a third party, any benefits paid by Medicare on behalf of such person due to these injuries are recoverable by Medicare from the verdict/settlement proceeds. In effect, Medicare is subrogated to the plaintiff’s claim. This is also true for a Medicaid recipient in that the government is so subrogated, for those covered by medical insurance their medical insurer is so subrogated, and, in situations where a Workers Comp claim is due to the negligence of a third party, the employer (or its insurer) is also so subrogated.
remind=tell; sheesh.
For personal reasons I have studied the historical Dr./political relations. The political power of MD’s is exceded only by the trial lawyers!
So much of what we pay for in medical costs is because of the money that the doctors contribute, not the lawyers. Malpractice insurance is rediculous, but it is a small part of the total medical costs.
Dear VT,
You can play hell getting Medicare to pay anything on a PI case!
But your comment holds true for all health insurance plans and employer self pay plans.
If you get injured in the house, homeowners insurance pays. If you get injured at work, Workers Comp pays. If you are in an auto accident the auto insurance pays. If you get injured in a store, amusement park, etc., their liability insurance pays.
Trust me, BCBS, Medicare, and any health insurance company you can think of will deny a claim if they even suspect another party is responsible!
Hank
Oh, by the way, if you are wondering why the boy isn’t participating in ‘his topic’, he’s playing Marine.
He’s on a four day drill weekend. Started yesterday morning.
Hank
Hank,
I know. There are times, however, when there is payment by Medicare, for example, when the provider erroneously bills it in a potential third-party responsibility case. I’d dissent a bit on the Workers Comp area, though. Seems to me that under the statutes, the Comp carrier has to pay so long as the injury arose in the “scope and course”, and it’s then up to the injured employee to initiate an action against the third party against which the comp carrier is subrogated.
HOO RAHSemper Fi
HankPart of the cost associated with health care is the fact that doctors start building their “case file” prior to any lawsuit.There is some weight to the argument that doctors, fearing lawsuits, order some tests and diagnostic proceedures that might not, otherwise, be mandated by routine medical care protocol.
By the way, trying to find time to read the book, “Internal Bleeding” by Wachtman and Shojania, both MD’s.Good book about the culture of hospitals, and how that might lead to mistakes.
Trust me, the reason doctors start building their ‘case file’ is because of clinic or hospital protocal. It’s a business decision.
I would bet that a large percentge of doctors practicing today are unaware of some very basic practice facts. 85% of the MDs are working for MBA’s. They don’t know how much their malpractice insurance costs. They are not aware of the various codes used to bill third party payors, etc.
I’ve read that book. There are some very good books on why you should avoid hospitals at all costs. Did you know that 1 out of every 130 people admited to hospitals die of an infection they got in the hospital? Most of those deaths could be prevented by hand washing between patients.
The CDC can identify certain staff infections to specific hospitals. They have their own unique strain!
Hank
Also, a lot of patient ‘case files’ get built after the lawsuit is filed!
Hank
Hey VT,
Worker’s comp is absolutly the worse way to cover injuries. It immediately puts the employee and employer in a legal confrontation. The worse the employee is injured, the harder it is for him to get proper care without an attorney going to bat for him.
Kansas isn’t the worse state, but it’s bad everywhere. The more the government legislates for the employee, the worse off he is.
Hank
Hank – true, but in the absense of trust I’m not sure what would work better.
I recall a company I worked for in PA where we DID have trust. Minor injuries were handled ‘on campus’ which was great for all concerned. No time off, just light duty/therapy for a while. Didn’t use up any sick time and the company could claim no ‘lost time accidents.’
I also noticed one time when I was in the nurse’s office on a Monday morning a guy coming in with a back strain. She asked him “what really happened?” and he told her about Sunday’s touch football game. She treated it anyway.
Our ‘covering up the details’ worked both ways – for the company and for us. We all won that deal.
Our ‘covering up the details’ worked both ways – for the company and for us. We all won that deal.
Posted by: Ben | July 27, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Can you say-felony?
Hank,
It seems to me that the Workers Comp system is trying to get to that which it replaced, that is, if a worker was hurt on the job pre-Workers Comp, often the worker had to sue the employer under one of a number of common law theories to get recompense for his injuries, if he could afford an attorney and if he could afford to wait for his case to go through the courts. Actions taken over the past decade, for sure, by the legislatures of many states have caused the Workers Comp system, which as I understand it, was intended to be nonadversarial but to benefit both the worker and his employer, back to an adversarial system.
Yep, I don’t practice in that area, so I’m sure I’m leaving something out. Just my observations.
No, not a felony. There was sufficient disclosure and all parties were well taken care of. the key is that I would not escalate a stubbed toe into a lost-time accident when it didn’t need to be. And, my football-playing buddy didn’t really rip off the company either.
Obviously I don’t know all the details but it certainly sounds like your friend committed fraud.
As you say “he didn’t REALLY rip off the company either.”
Sure.
He was never paid any workers comp; instead of taking sick time as he could have he was able to work his full day after getting a heat treatment.
My point is that we didn’t escalate things into what they didn’t need to be. Company wins; we win too. In my case it was a back injury from an auto accident; I gave them all the insurance information since it was on the other guy’s liability. Still, it served the Company’s interest to have me on the job and taken care of on campus. Nurse was on staff so there was not marginal cost to Company.
VT – counselor – your thoughts?
An additional observation. Back then if we hurt ourselves we were embarassed at our clutziness. That seems to have changed.
That said, a REAL injury, especially if caused by COMPANY negligence, should be heavily taken care of.
So, Hank, Nathan wasnt here all day yesterday?? Hmmmm
Typically, when people speak of “trial lawyers”, they are speaking about plaintiff attorneys practicing civil law; not defense, corporate, or attorneys that practice criminal law.
John Edwards fits the bill, Fred Thompson doesn’t.
Posted by: outlander
Again we see the Republicans version of ‘do as I say and not as I do’ crap. Isn’t it ironic that Republicans don’t like lawyers except when it is their own butt they are trying to save from the fire.
Ben, seems to me that there’s no issue with anything here. The most than I can say is that you and your coworker received a de minimis fringe benefit, which arguably wasn’t even a taxable event. Not a Comp issue, one way or the other for the co-worker; same with you. It served the best interests of both parties, it seems to me.
The Trial Lawyers Association’s support for Thompson unveils yet another lie the Republic Party’s been telling people for the past 20 years or so. They always claimed it was a Democratic front.
But my favorite hypocrisy lately has been Robert Bork’s million dollar lawsuit against the Yale Club. Bork used to rail against trial lawyers and for tort reform… until he fell down and bruised his knee.
Thanks VT – my take too. And the flip side is when I cut myself in the lab they bandage it and we are done. No Work Comp or anything like that. We just ‘handle it’.
Speaking of rediculous cklaims; wasn’t it the old GOP Insurance Commissioner who got a huge claim for hurting his back lifting his briefcase?
Yep, followed the next legislative session by an amendment to the statutes. Fletcher Bell was his name, BTW.
Yea, we had a briefcase toss in his (dis)honor.
Ah, yes! Fletcher Bell!
He ought to go into the Traditional Kansas Republican Hall of Fame!
Hey chas,
He’s just in Hutchenson, not the moon. He also has a laptop. He might be able to post in the evening but I know he’s pretty during the day.
Hey folks, bringing up Medicare, Workers Comp. etc is on point — HOWEVER, my mention of Medicaid was intentional.Out of all the government health plans, only the VA or Medicaid do much in the way of Nursing Home care or Assisted Living support.Medicare only pays for SKILLED care, is hard to qualify for, and pays nothing after 100 days.
Group health also pays NOTHING towards custodial or nursing home care.
If someone’s negligence causes Long Term Care needs, only a lawsuit, or the taxpayers, or a very weatly person, could pay $4,000.00 to $7,000.00 per MONTH, for LIFE!
By the way, if you use Medicaid, the Estate Recovery Rules will pretty much destroy the Estate.
A very good reason to go to court!
wealthy, not weatly
“Richard J Daley is a poor, poor example of someone you’d like in a President… mayor Daley is part of an all-too-large, all-too-corrupt political machine. Yes, he makes Chi-town run, but a lot of people get run over in the process. Plus there’s that latent concern of organized crime ties.”
Richard J Daley, for his faults, was a man that loved his city. He dreamed big and made the impossible happen. If it wasn’t for him, Chicago would not be the great city it is. It would be another Cleveland or Detroit. He built that city and he made it work for everybody that lived there. If you wanted it, it was in Chicago.
“No CF2K! Just trial lawyers are looking for a cash machine. Frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time.
Just do a loser pay system, and I’ll be happy! Everything else can remain the same. ”
As a liberal I believe in the tort system. I think that people or businesses that harm people should be severely punished for it. But I could also live with “loser pays”. It would not bother me a bit. If you sue somebody, you ought to have a strong enough case.
“I don’t mind if others work hard, are successful, and earn more than I do.
Why is that a problem for you? And why do you think you are entitled to take what others earn?”
Yes Paris Hilton works harder than me so she deserves more. Same with the CEO of my company. He gets up at 2AM and goes out into bad neighbourhoods to fix cell sites that are down. So he deserves $40 million a year while I should make less. I’ll tell you what- give me his job.
“Hey VT,
Worker’s comp is absolutly the worse way to cover injuries. It immediately puts the employee and employer in a legal confrontation. The worse the employee is injured, the harder it is for him to get proper care without an attorney going to bat for him.”
I have always told my wife that, should I ever be injured or killed on the job, your FIRST call is to the attorney. Do not sign anything or talk to anybody from my job before talking to the attorney- who will of course tell you to refer all such questions to him and sign nothing he does not read first. YOu never ever want to deal with Workers Comp on your own. The insurance carriers will eat you for lunch if you do.
Once again, Oliver Willis shoots… and scooores!Because she’s a Republican, the media will never treat Jeri Thompson in the same shameful manner they have Hillary Clinton, but the Not Ready For Primetime Campaign of Hollywood actor Fred Thompson had yet another person jump ship.Another aide to Fred Thompson’s campaign-in-waiting resigned last night, two sources close to the campaign confirm. Tom Frechette had been effectively serving as campaign manager Tom Collamore’s deputy. Collamore was removed from his post Tuesday and given a “senior adviser” role. Like Collamore, Frechhette was said to have chafed under the heavy influence of Thompson’s wife, Jeri.Note that Oliver links to an article at the hacktacular, GOP-fluffing, failing Politico–which means that the Beltway establishment is spinning this story to make it look as mild as possible.
Meanwhile, I’m in the favorable position of being a New Yorker close enough to one of the many people behind the making of the 28 flavors of Law & Order that I can say that there is the perception that Jeri is, shall we say, a tad know-it-allish, unpleasant when she cannot get her way, and not a terribly good listener.
And I agree with Oliver. I doubt that you’ll ever see anyone in the established news media — you know, the ones who were willing to cast Hillary Clinton as a shrew without using the word — put any negative spin on Frederic of Hollywood’s trophy wife — but it would be interesting to hear someone (maybe a caller) on talk radio point out that nobody jumped ship on Bill Clinton’s campaigns on Hillary, then point out that the wave of resignations from Team Freddie might lead one to think that comparing Hillary to Jeri is like “comparing a churchmouse to a shrew.”
Sexist and un-PC, I know. But imagine the sound coming from the Beltway when DC pundits — who consistently operate in a “reality” where these very same sexual clichés are taken as an element of the “real world” — as their heads simultaneously explode when they hear someone dare say it — and shove their own sexism right back in their face.