[Rhodes22-list] Politiical- Answers to Herb's Questions @ Lawyers
Ben Cittadino
bcittadino at dcs-law.com
Fri Oct 31 09:49:33 EDT 2008
Herb;
It IS my assertion that a defense lawyer must "try to get his client off",
and by doing so within the paradigm I outlined (competent prosecutor, fair
judge, impartial jury, etc.) the result is a "fair trial" and justice for
all of us. Prosecutors do already have an independent duty to only bring
cases in good faith.
As for the tort system, think of it this way: Using your example, we have an
event that injures someone.
Responsibility for the event breaks down as follows, Rich Guy 10%, Poor Guy
90%, Victim 0%. There are going to be financial consequesences to this event
for the victim. The tort system's function is to decide who should pay the
financial consequences. Understand that the consequence are real and they
must be paid by somebody, the victim, the taxpayers, the victem's family,
Rich guy, Poor guy, some combination of people ARE GOING TO PAY. What is the
fairest breakdown of who should pay? You tell me?
Is it fair for the victim who was hurt through NO fault of his own to bear
the consequences alone? Should the taxpayers pay (through medicare,
medicaid, social security disability, welfare?)? The Poor guy can't pay. Who
does that leave? That's why the Rich guy must pay. That's the fairest
outcome. He can be reimbursed by the Poor guy if the Poor guy ever gets any
money, but Rich guy's the one who must make the victim whole in the
meantime.
Ben C.
PS- Picture yourself as victim and not Rich guy and it makes even more
sense.
hparsons wrote:
>
> Is it your assertion that the lawyer who is completely representing his
> client is looking for his client to receive a fair trial, or that he is
> looking to get his client off by any means possible (that's legal).
>
> I don't believe for a second that "fair trial" and "fair" are the same
> thing.
>
> I believe that our system is heavily weighted in favor of the accused
> (in the criminal arena), and that's how it should be. Defense attorneys
> should be jobbed with defending their client. Prosecutors should be
> jobbed with seeing that justice is done. Prosecutors that know the
> accused are innocent should let them go free, even if they know (or
> believe) they can win the case. Defense attorneys should defend their
> client, guilty or not.
>
> That's not justice for all, but it's the best I can see that can be done.
>
> However, the tort system is another story.
>
> The system is heavily weighted against those with money, or deep
> pockets. You cannot tell me that the system is "fair" or "just", when an
> individual that has no money is found 90% at fault for something, and a
> big company is found 10% at fault, but because the big company has deep
> pockets, they are ordered to pay 100% of the judgment.
>
> Of course, the attorneys like that system, because they don't have to
> worry about whether their 33% contingency is 33% of nothing (which won't
> pay them much). All they have to do is convince a jury that the big bad
> company is at fault for only a tiny percentage, and the bars all line up
> on the slot machine.
>
> I think, like many things that you probably don't realize or
> acknowledge, we agree on some things, and disagree on others.
>
> So, maybe those pigs aren't flying, they're just jumping very high.
>
>
>
> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>> Herb;
>>
>> I don't think I said what you think I said.
>>
>> If the client gets a fair trial, WE ALL have gotten justice regardless of
>> whether the result of the trial is a conviction or acquittal. The client
>> may
>> or may not get the result he wants but if he has gotten a fair trial
>> including zealous representation by counsel HE and WE have gotten
>> justice.
>> If YOU want a conviction and the man is acquitted you may not feel like
>> you
>> have gotten justice but you have.
>>
>> If lawyers don't represent people who "did it" then the system breaks
>> down.
>> Guilt or innocence is for the Jury to decide, not the lawyer.
>>
>> Lawyers should do a reasonable amount of free or " pro bono publico"
>> work,
>> but they are entitled to make a living and the courts will accomodate
>> that.
>>
>> If that is what you mean, then I guess we agree (check to see if there
>> are
>> pigs flying outside your window).
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>>
>>
>> hparsons wrote:
>>
>>> You make my points for me, and I'm assuming we're in agreement.
>>>
>>> Justice for the client does not mean justice for all, or even justice in
>>> general
>>>
>>> And these are my additional points:
>>>
>>> A lawyer can be request and be allowed to withdraw for non-payment, but
>>> not because his client is guilty.
>>> Many lawyers WILL withdraw if they're not paid, probably most.
>>> Many lawyers will NOT withdraw (or even refuse to accept a case) if
>>> their client is guilty.
>>>
>>> Please note, while I think this is a BAD system, I think it's the best
>>> there is.
>>>
>>> Sort of the way I feel about health care in the US.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>
>>>> Herb;
>>>>
>>>> In the criminal law context, effective, aggressive, competent,
>>>> thorough,
>>>> "advocacy" IS justice for the client, along with a fair and impartial
>>>> Judge
>>>> and jury of the defendant's peers.
>>>>
>>>> Again, in the criminal system, justice for the client IS a fair trial,
>>>> including effective counsel, fair judge, and jury. If the client is
>>>> acquitted or if he is convicted WE ALL get justice if the defendant
>>>> gets
>>>> a
>>>> fair trial.
>>>>
>>>> In the criminal system, if there is effective counsel available, and
>>>> the
>>>> client is not deprived of a fair trial through the use of a public
>>>> defender,
>>>> there is little point in holding a lawyer in a case that would cause an
>>>> unreasonable financial hardship.
>>>>
>>>> I have a friend who is an outstanding criminal defense attorney. He
>>>> once
>>>> was
>>>> retained by a defendant whose case was then scheduled for trial. The
>>>> client
>>>> didn't pay as promised. On the trial date the Judge asked the lawyer
>>>> if
>>>> he
>>>> was ready to proceed. The lawyer said he wished to be relieved as
>>>> counsel
>>>> because the client had paid nothing despite his promises. The Judge
>>>> said,
>>>> Counsel can you give me any legal authority for the proposition that
>>>> you
>>>> should be relieved as counsel just because you haven't been paid?
>>>> My friend (who happens to be black) said, "Yes your honor, The
>>>> Emancipation
>>>> Proclamation!"
>>>>
>>>> I think he had a point.
>>>>
>>>> Ben C.
>>>>
>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Would you not agree that a lawyer's duty (not a prosecution lawyer,
>>>>> but
>>>>> a defense lawyer) has more to do with advocacy than it does "justice
>>>>> for
>>>>> the client"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you also not agree that in our advocacy system, "justice for the
>>>>> client" can, and often is, different than just plain justice for all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, would you not agree that there is something hypocritical with
>>>>> a
>>>>> system that allows an attorney to withdraw because he's not getting
>>>>> paid, but does not allow one to withdraw because his client is guilty?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to make a leap of faith here and assume you asked serious
>>>>>> questions for reasons other than playing "gotcha", and that you want
>>>>>> serious
>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To understand the trial lawyer's ethical obligations you need to
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> that our system is based upon the old English idea of "trial by
>>>>>> ordeal'
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> evolved into "trial by combat" that evolved into "trial by champion"
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> further evolved into the "clash of advocates" as a method to search
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> truth. The "modern trial" is only effective as a search for truth
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> both advocates (in a two party case-in your example the Government
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> defendant) are competent and totally dedicated to the cause of their
>>>>>> "client". Neither lawyer is permitted to consider anything but using
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> means within the rules (ethics, evidence, pre-trial disclosure,etc.)
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> advocate for their side of the case. It is not their function in the
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> to become Judge or Jury and reach a conclusion as to the "correct" or
>>>>>> "just"
>>>>>> outcome for society as a whole. If one lawyer does that, the system
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> thrown off balance and the search for truth is thwarted. The Judge
>>>>>> (in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> bench trial) or the Jury (in a jury trial) are the only ones charged
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> reaching a "just" or "correct" verdict, but only after consideration
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> facts as brought before them by the advocates for each side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you phrased your question to "me" and I must tell you that while
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> served as a prosecutor many years ago (as a young lawyer) I have
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> defended a serious criminal case. My trial practice involves the
>>>>>> representation mostly of civil plaintiffs in medical negligence cases
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> other serious personal injury cases.
>>>>>> They are major cases that often involve weeks of trial and lots of
>>>>>> money
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> stake but I have never defended someone on trial for their life. I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> some defense work also for physicians and others but that's it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyhow, lawyers have no problem representing "guilty" people because
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> system does not expect them to anything but competently put the
>>>>>> Government
>>>>>> to their burden of proof, and it is the jury's function to decide
>>>>>> guilt
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> innocence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the fee issue, once in the case the lawyer is obligated to see
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> through unless excused by the Judge for a very good reason. I have
>>>>>> personally known many fine lawyers who have stuck with a client and
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> asked to be relieved or substituted with a public defender at great
>>>>>> fiscal
>>>>>> sacrifice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way my three favorite "lawyer movies", which I highly
>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> anyone, and which peaked my interest in becoming a trial lawyer are,
>>>>>> "Witness for the Prosecution", "Anatomy of a Murder", and absolutely
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> best movie of all time in any genre , "To Kill A Mocking Bird". The
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> Newman movie "The Verdict" which is about a medical mealpactice
>>>>>> lawyer
>>>>>> gives
>>>>>> me a stomach ache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope these remarks answer your questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS-aren't there any lawyers out there (or are you all to smart and
>>>>>> laying
>>>>>> low as I should have).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have three questions for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) If you take a man's case, and he looks you straight in the eye
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> says "I did it. I killed my wife, and I'd do it again, I won't
>>>>>>> testify,
>>>>>>> so you won't have to worry about perjury, but I want you to do
>>>>>>> everything in your power to get me acquitted. If you can't do that,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> want you to do everything in your power to get me off as lightly as
>>>>>>> possible. I don't mind you insisting I'm crazy, I just want to have
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> pay the price for what I did", and he continues to pay your fee, are
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> going to continue to represent him? If not, what excuse are you
>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> give the judge for wanting to withdraw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Different case. The man tells you honestly "I did not do this
>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>> I'm totally innocent, but I know I can't prove it. Unfortunately, I
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> longer have any money." Will you continue to represent him?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Finally, will you define "justice for my client" in both issues,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> relate how "justice" for one might be a totally different thing that
>>>>>>> "justice for all".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very good Mike. I got it on the first go-round this time. Three
>>>>>>>> gold
>>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>> By the way I don't refer to myself as a litigation lawyer. I'm just
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>> country lawyer looking for justice for my clients.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it up. Your sharp eye must be valuable on the water.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> R22MikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gee, I wonder exactly what a ligation lawyer does. Interesting
>>>>>>>>> thought,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> objective of a ligation practice must be to tie the involved
>>>>>>>>> parties
>>>>>>>>> together. Yeah, that might work. Then again, there's always the
>>>>>>>>> libation
>>>>>>>>> practices ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>> s/v Shanghaid'd Summer ('81)
>>>>>>>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Hank" <hnw555 at gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
>>>>>>>>> 12:59
>>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You being a ligation lawyer, how much of the cost of our
>>>>>>>>>> healthcare
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> attributed to the current system of tort law in the US. I know
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> father passed away from a massive heart attack, we were told by
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> hospital
>>>>>>>>>> that they could not have saved him if he had been in the
>>>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>>>> room
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> the time of the heart attack. However, that didn't prevent the
>>>>>>>>>> emergency
>>>>>>>>>> room from performing about 5K worth of work on him that they
>>>>>>>>>> ended
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> eating
>>>>>>>>>> as he had no estate or health insurance. I'm sure a good bit of
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> did was to avoid any potential law suits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hank
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/08, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brad;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland, France, Finland,
>>>>>>>>>>> Anguilla,
>>>>>>>>>>> Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Germany, Andorra, Switzerland,
>>>>>>>>>>> Spain,
>>>>>>>>>>> Israel,
>>>>>>>>>>> Macau, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Australia,
>>>>>>>>>>> Lichtenstein,
>>>>>>>>>>> Guernsey, Luxunbourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Gibraltar, United
>>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom,
>>>>>>>>>>> New
>>>>>>>>>>> Zealand, Jersey,Canada,Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino,
>>>>>>>>>>> Taiwan,
>>>>>>>>>>> Italy,
>>>>>>>>>>> Isle of Man, Cuba, and South Korea ALL HAVE A LOWER INFANT
>>>>>>>>>>> MORTALITY
>>>>>>>>>>> RATE
>>>>>>>>>>> THAN THE USA. (Source, CIA World Factbook, Jan 1, 2008.)
>>>>>>>>>>> (Tootle, How about THAT source.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think there is any more objective measure of the delivery
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> quality
>>>>>>>>>>> health care than the infant mortality rate? We can do some
>>>>>>>>>>> spectacular
>>>>>>>>>>> things in our specialty hospitals (I should know, I had my
>>>>>>>>>>> quadruple
>>>>>>>>>>> by-pass
>>>>>>>>>>> surgery at Cleveland Clinic, a wonderful major center, but my
>>>>>>>>>>> surgeon
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> Swede, Gosta Pettersson, MD, who I highly recommend).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The major difference I think you and I have on this subject is
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand WE ARE ALREADY PAYING for health care for the poor.
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> taxpayers are picking up the tab for a very inefficient and
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>> sub-standard system. If we include a lot more folks the
>>>>>>>>>>> economies
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> scale
>>>>>>>>>>> will cost us less.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe the poor and unemployed are in that condition by
>>>>>>>>>>> choice,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> that the only way to get them to work is to set up the system so
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> starve
>>>>>>>>>>> to death if they don't get their fannies out of bed in the
>>>>>>>>>>> morning,
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> probably can't get to common ground on this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do agree about one thing. We do spend way too much on heroic
>>>>>>>>>>> "end-of-life"
>>>>>>>>>>> care. I read somewhere that fully 80% of all medicare money is
>>>>>>>>>>> spent
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> patients in the last three months of their lives. I sure hope if
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> like poor Terry Schiavo in Florida a few years ago someone has
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>> grace to give me the old .45 caliber craniotomy. (Herb, I think
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> where you come in--I mean the pro-life argument, not the
>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> perform the craniotomy).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As Ed pointed out, the New York Times, especially the editorial
>>>>>>>>>>>> page,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is hardly an unbiased source for anything. The AP is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Take
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Iraq war for example - the AP coverage was so slanted and
>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading I quit paying attention to it other than out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> curiosity
>>>>>>>>>>>> to see where others were getting their information. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> independent reporters such as Michael Yon, both good and bad,
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, let's tackle the "health care" crisis. First, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>>>>>>> lesson. The whole idea of employer provided health insurance
>>>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>>>> during WW2 because wages were frozen and providing company
>>>>>>>>>>>> sponsored
>>>>>>>>>>>> health insurance was a way to attract workers at the same wage
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> companies were paying. That still holds true but the costs of
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage has risen dramatically. The old adage of "you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>> something for nothing" still applies. Any employee only has x
>>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of economic value to any entity, and if you force companies to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> health insurance, that economic benefit will flow to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> employee
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> lieu of cash wages. That is certainly true in my own personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> situation as a collectively bargained employee. Near the end
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiation cycle as both sides start sharpening knives, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>>>>> throws down a final "this is the size of the pie" last proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then we have to determine how we want it sliced, health care or
>>>>>>>>>>>> cash?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing in either of these candidates proposals will escape
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What gets lost in all this election cycle marketing bullshit
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama is much better at marketing bullshit than McCain) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of health insurance versus health care and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-relationships of economic and social policies. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>> of us get out of bed in the morning and go to work is because
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> to enjoy nice things, ie, housing, food, toys, etc. When
>>>>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>>>>> intervenes in the marketplace and provides those basic things,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially housing and food, a large segment of the population
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to stay in bed. This is fact and President Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>>>>>>>> this basic social principle and "reformed welfare" as a result.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>>>>> add "free" health insurance to the mix without personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> only adds to the problem, so one needs to tread lightly when
>>>>>>>>>>>> government imposes itself in any fashion into the issue. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> should know) that we don't want nationalized health care. Find
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> country that has better health care than the United States
>>>>>>>>>>>> (provided
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can afford access) and I'll consider changing my
>>>>>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Health insurance is no different than any other insurance, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide for losses that you cannot afford. Part of the 45
>>>>>>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans without health care we hear so much about are young
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> who have the opportunity to purchase health insurance but don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>> to, some are temporarily un-employed or self employed, and some
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are never going to get to work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any government sponsored health care scheme is going to "break
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bank" if you don't solve the two ends of the tails of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>> cost curve. The individual must be responsible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> initial,
>>>>>>>>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>>>>> costs of "going to the doctor" or you get the kind of abuses
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> TennCare discovered (Tennessee's attempt at health care). The
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the tail is the vast sums of money spent on incredibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive medical treatments that are often offered to extend
>>>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few weeks or months. I know this sounds harsh but it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> economic
>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Both the Obama and McCain plans pose the risk of some employers
>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping health care because the government may provide lower
>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>> options. The Obama campaign is lying (I know that's hard for
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine) when it says their plan doesn't have the same inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>> risks
>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with it. I like the McCain plan better because it
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>>> more options and responsibility to the individual. The $2500
>>>>>>>>>>>> rebate
>>>>>>>>>>>> ($5000 for families) applies to everyone regardless of income
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> employment. It will in fact probably cost me money in higher
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>> (but then what doesn't?). Of the two, I see it as the most
>>>>>>>>>>>> socially
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible. Which plan will be the most expensive? I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> neither do they but I do know who is going to pay for it - the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> people who pay for everything else in this country, the "rich".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of this applies to me (except for the paying part) because
>>>>>>>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance is covered by my collective bargaining agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to give career advice to anyone looking for flying
>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> you want in on this "gravy train".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This campaign has boiled down to "who is the better Santa
>>>>>>>>>>>> Claus"
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the closing days. Both McCain and Obama are being
>>>>>>>>>>>> irresponsible
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> some degree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ERs are being used for this, but you're overlooking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's involved. You have to go and wait, typically for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3-8 hours for "minor" issues. This discourages the "I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> good,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me go see the dr" stuff that Brad and Ed are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'm not happy with that either. My guess is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear up about 70% of the backlog at ER's by having an INS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> office
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brad and Ed;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brad- you're forgetting something. We are already paying for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the uninsured. It's illegal for ER's to turn people away,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just paying more, getting lousy care (because ER's are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary care providers), more expensively (because ER's are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overkill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (pardon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pun) in most situations, and we taxpayers are footing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed- the second post is from the AP, not NYTimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Philadelphia Lawyer, The New York Times has been taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Communists. Your source material is too biased. Find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider an alternative local newspaper such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.asp?brd=2737
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is your retirement funded? Or how was it funded? See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philadelphia newspaper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20179546&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or since you like Times in the heading, consider the:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or just go to church on sunday and get their bulletin. Read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than that Communists Rag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20218848/Philadelphia%2BBulletin.gif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philadelphia+Bulletin.gif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20229674.html
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20266325.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list