John Edwards is right on HealthCare

How can you argue with someone whose entire post consists mostly of quotes from a WSJ op-ed and Wikipedia?

Dr Charles seems to feel that attorneys who argue for their clients are doing something wrong or unethical. But that's the job of an attorney; in fact, the attorney is legally essentially the person he represents, so he must act in that person's interest, not in the interest of doctors, medicine, society or anyone or anything else. Does he think the attorneys for the doctors or insurance companies do any less?

Quite frankly, Bora, I felt like barfing when I read the part in the article you cited about Edwards' malpractice litigation career supposedly somehow showing that he was for "personal responsibility." Give me a friggin' break. All Edwards' career shows is that he was very good at functioning within our tort system to sue doctors for bad outcomes and make a lot of money doing it. Your comment about physicians' "financial interests at stake" is also particularly risible. Do you honestly believe that trial lawyers oppose malpractice reform out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course they don't. The financial interests of the trial lawyers are the very reason that meaningful malpractice reform has been so difficult to accomplish. Compared to the trial lawyers lobby, physicians are rank amateurs at influencing legislatures. They usually don't stand a chance.

I'll agree, however, that laying the problems of our tort system probably shouldn't be laid at Edwards' door and that he simply functioned as the system required. It is the system that is screwed up and needs fixing, and, given his background, Edwards is clearly not the guy to do it. Indeed, John Edwards represents much of what I detest about trial lawyer and truly hope that he is not the Democratic nominee in 2008. I would argue that a specialized health court would almost certainly decrease the number of frivolous malpractice suits. For one thing, as it stands now, physicians are very reluctant to admit even minor mistakes because of their fear of being sued, in marked contrast to, for example, the airlines industry. They might also feel less obligated to practice defensive (and expensive) medicine.

As for Charles not allowing comments on his post, that is is right. If you've ever read Kevin, MD, you'd know that when Kevin posts anything about malpractice, not infrequently a horde of trolls descend upon his blog. Unlike you, PZ, me, or others around here, not every blogger wants to deal with such annoyances.

His target were insurance companies and his clients were helpless poor individuals with no other recourse. He fought for the little guy against big business interests and won over and over again. That makes him a hero, not veillain.

With a healthcare reform he proposes, there would be no more need for such lawsuits and huge fines. Read his proposal and I bet you'd like it. I sure hope he is the next President, because he would fix he system as it is the system that is broke and he knows better than most how broke it is and what can be done to fix it, instead of buying into corporate talking points about trial lawyers - the atticus Finches of the society.

Edwards wouldn't be my first choice, but not because he sued a few quacks and won. If anything, that's a positive.

Your comment about physicians' "financial interests at stake" is also particularly risible.

You seriously expect anyone to believe this? I hope you treat your patients with more respect than your readers.

Wait-- So whats the problem here? Edwards made money doing his job? Those evil trial lawyers taking money from good doctors and insurance companies?

Lets see, malpractice insurance goes up, malpractice lawsuit payouts go down, and *GASP!* insurance profits go up! Yes, clearly its the trial lawyers fault.
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors…

Hey Ive got an idea to lower malpractice costs-- instead of giving incompetent physicians glorious letters of recommendation to get them out of your hospital, how about firing their asses publicly, admitting that you hired an incompetent, dangerous boob (much to hospital investors dismay), and moving on?

Maybe get rid of the insurance industry entirely, or cutting it back severely? I cant help but notice that a very small and politely humored subset of AMSA, the HuMed group, got a LOT of attention on ScienceBlogs recently, but AMSA-wide efforts to improve health care and health insurance have gone totally ignored. I simply dont feel sorry at all for physicians who have dug their own holes are unwilling to figure out a way above ground.

I have been blase about Edwards thus far (I was a Dean girl in 2004), but I do not see how he has done anything 'wrong'.

Also, I was not implying that Dr.Charles is a coward for not allowing comments on this particular post and I do not think that Kossians should delink scienceblogs over that one post. Dr.Charles and I disagree on this one point, that's all. I understand that not everyone is used to years on usenet and political blogs where debate is heated and language harsh, but closed comments are looked down upon by most people in the blogosphere. How can people give him links to the stuff that can change his or his readers minds without ability to comment? Blogging is conversation, not declaration - a two-way conversation. Opinions that do not welcome feedback are the provenance of the old media and are frowned upon by the new media.

And it is the financial interests of the insurance companies and corporate medical centers that are at stake and that Edwards was forced to defend his clients from, not doctors. Doctors should be on his side against the insurance companies. If Edwards gets his way, it will be doctors who make decisions, not insurance companies. Isn's that what doctors want?

"The financial interests of the trial lawyers are the very reason that meaningful malpractice reform has been so difficult to accomplish."

Is it possible that the interests of harmed patients coincide with the interests of malpractice lawyers?

Lots of patients suffer unnecessary harm at the hands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers. I know a man who lost his foot because of a staph infection contracted in a hospital with poor sanitation. The proximate cause of my father's death was neglect by hospital staff. In neither case were there suits against the hospitals. How many other cases of negligence or true malpractice result in no legal action? I'm sure there are baseless malpractice suits, but there are plenty with a sound basis. I'm not sure "tort reform" is the best way to help reduce medical malpractice, but I am sure it's a good way to help insurance companies make more money.

i wrote an addendum, hope that explains why no comments.

Thank you for that addendum. I found myself in an unenviable situation of having to defend you while at the same time attacking that one post of yours with which I disagree very much. And certainly this has nothing to do with SEED which has no control over our content.

I think Dr. Charles was within his rights to disable comments. If a blogger chooses to make a statement rather than start a conversation, isn't that within their right considering it's their blog to begin with? I think this idea of rules for blogging is a bit presumptuous—actually, it's quite presumptuous, but it also seems to be prevalent.

And I agree with Dr. Charles on Edwards, just not for the reasons he lists. From his past voting and statement record, I as a gay man have every reason to dislike John and to not want him in the White House. But it's quite early to make definitive statements since the landscape will change dramatically before it's time to vote.

100% rating by NARAL and having Elizabeth and Cate at home - he is still better on equality issues than all the other candidates.

In all this discussion, conspicuous by its absence is any link to something Edwards has actually said on the subject of health-care courts -- the nominal subject of Dr. C's post.
Bora - you are more knowledgeable than most on matters Edwardsian. Can you point us to a position statement somewhere?
I myself hold no brief for or against Edwards, though I do admire his choice of initials.

I don't see it, coturnix, not on equality, but remember I'm on the target end of that discussion, not outside safely looking in. And his recent comments to George Stephanopoulos on the subject are all that I needed to hear. When asked about marriage equality, his response: "I'm just not there yet." So when it comes to supporting Edwards, I'm just not there yet.

But again I'll say this: It's too early for definitive statements. Lots of things will change between now and then, so I won't cross him off the list of possibilities--but I likewise won't say anything nice about him until he sees me as an equal member of American society. Besides, isn't it always the lesser of evils when it comes time to vote?

And let me apologize--I'm not trying to derail your thread.