Remember Bill, you don’t denigrate the warrior, only the war.
Oh really? So we don't worry about warriors who don't follow the Geneva convention? So we don't denigrate high-ranking officers in support of The Third Reich? So we don't denigrate those nice fellows who hijacked civilian airplanes and flew them into buildings with innocent civilians?
It all depends, Norm.
This reminds me of a conversation I was having with my lawyer brother who formerly worked in a job where they actually produce a tangible product. He came to the legal profession after retiring from doing what I call "real work."
At least in the state of Virginia, the pit bulls go after the pit bulls. The bar association and the trial lawyer organizations are notorious for their narrow political agendas. So the attorneys here in Virginia sue when it comes time for this nonsense to be foisted upon them and on our state.
The civil litigation system is broken, Norm. Innocent people are harmed, and all we hear from those involved in this scumbaggery is that it is legal. Never mind that science on occasion proves their causes to be wrong, and society finds their behavior unethical. It's legal. So I must hush up because I don't want to hurt someone's feelings?
There are two main types of trials, criminal and civil...
I don't need the education, Norm.
And those involved in criminal law are equally at fault if they support legal organizations that lobby for unethical laws and practices. In my mind, they are equally guilty.
That’s not just the legal business, that’s capitalism.
What goes on in this country with the legal system is strictly an American creation. It's what happens when too many lawyers make it into political office.
Are you going to tell me that the Brits don't understand capitalism? In that country the loser in civil litigation pays all fees. I rather like that. It seems like fair capitalism to me!
I don’t know what personal experience you have had in this area...
You obviously haven't read my posts, Norm. I'm hurt...
Have you never heard me cite Sutton's law? Do you know what it is?
Here are a few cases I can offer.
1) Fresh from soaking the tobacco industry, a group of well-known trial attorneys file suits in search of class action status against as many health insurance industries as they can. And why? Basically Sutton's law. It has nothing to do with justice.
None of these suits have panned out. Meanwhile, your health insurance bill goes up partially because the cost of defending against these merit-less suits must be covered.
2) In more than a few states (West Virginia and Pennsylvania are good examples) there is a shortage of obstetricians in rural areas. The poor need to drive long distances to receive obstetric care. And why? Because the OBs can't afford the roughly $200K a year it costs for their malpractice insurance. And why? Because any slimebag ambulance chaser in these states knows that they can get a judgment against an OB - and a big award - as long as they parade a deformed baby in front of a jury.
In the state of PA, Arlan Spector's son runs one of the largest such ambulance-chasing organizations in the state. It's so bad in that state that many OBs now run without malpractice insurance.
3) In reference to number 2 above, more than a few trial attorneys made millions suing OBs for delivering cerebral palsy babies. Meanwhile, the science has shown that there is no correlation between what the OB does and whether or not a baby gets CP. They use lies and a deformed baby to steal money from an innocent physician serving the public. They destroy economies, ruin careers, ruin lives, and make OB care less accessible to the poor.
And one of these A-holes recently ran for VP of the United States. I was less than kind about my remarks concerning the presidential candidate who made such a poor decision.
And isn't it interesting that this VP couldn't even win his own home state? The truth shall set you free!
But the law didn't.
4) Concerning 2 and 3 above, there is now far more fetal monitoring because lack thereof was "cause" to win judgments against OBs in the past. For this and other reasons, the Cesarean section rate is obscenely high in this country. This is an invasive procedure, and the excessive monitoring and litigation has caused more of it.
The science is now showing just how much damage has been done both to our pocketbooks (our health insurance) and patterns of medical care.
And please don't feed me crapola about evidence-based care. I just finished writing a white paper on a product that measures it. I don't need to be lectured on it. If anything, the fear of litigation is causing a lack of adherence to evidence-based care. And I don't blame our physicians; I blame the system that causes it.
5) Perhaps you are familiar with the fact that silicone implants can't be gotten today except for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The reason for that is because a bunch of enterprising ambulance chasers filed class action suits against Dow because their breast implants allegedly caused connective tissue disease.
Never mind the facts - we have sick women who used to be beautiful!
Meanwhile, Dow was brought almost to bankruptcy. For a while, breast cancer survivors couldn't get silicone implants to repair the damage from mastectomies.
And then the science came in. There was no (none, zero, zilch) correlation between silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease.
Did the trial attorneys give the money back? Heeeelllll no! Did Dow get compensated for damages? Heeellll no! Was there an apology given to the medical profession for all the financial losses, pain, and suffering? Heeellll no!
Will you find a trial attorney to sue these bastards? Go ahead, and good luck. There's money in it, after all...
Honor amongst thieves. The system perpetuates its bad behavior.
I could go on and on and on, Norm. I have been in many facets of the healthcare industry from biomedical design to basic research to third party reimbursement to measurement of the quality and efficiency of care. I've seen way too much, and it reeks.
The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. But don't expect the trial attorneys to change anything. What they have created is too lucrative for them to want to go back.
And that is why I am completely justified in attacking the profession at large. A reputable professional group would never perpetuate such unethical behavior.
P.S. These discussions invariably and inevitably end up in long battles with individuals (who will remain unnamed) who want to defend the unethical behavior I speak of. It doesn't change the facts. It doesn't change what I know to be true from direct business experience and scientific evidence.
And it certainly will not stop me from attacking a profession that perpetuates a broken and harmful system. On the contrary, it just gives the arguments more publicity. What's not to like about that?