Example of why we need tort reform

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Here's another thought ... why don't you grow some ethical standards?

You constantly misrepresent what others have said to suit whatever point you wish to make. Your debating standards, were you in a court of law, would earn you nothing but distrust, ridicule, and possibly sanction. You have proven yourself one of the most unethical posters here from a debating standpoint.

Don't believe me? Here's a blatant lie, right here in this thread.



I guess you feel it's ok to lie if you are on God's side.

And you're always on God's side, right Rick?

LOL, I really can't come up with anything else in response to that...just LOL.

Keep it up Rodeo, you are making friends and influencing people...really!!

Edit: Wait, I DID think of something to say to the Rodeoclown:

KINGMAKER!!

[Nathans_Dad]

John I take your point and think it is well made. But unfortunately for the lawyers the guys who are chasing ambulances are all over the television. Not only that, but the lawyers all line up to squash tort reform whenever it comes up in legislation so that makes them appear to be supporting the ambulance chasers.

My profession polices itself too. The difference is that I see doctors losing their licenses all the time over serious infractions. Somehow Jim Adler has actually GROWN his business over the last 10 years by filing ambulance chasing lawsuits.

Case in point, a friend of mine was named in a malpractice lawsuit about 2 years ago. She was one of 14 physicians named. The entire suit was a surgical issue, basically the surgeons didn't take the patient to the OR soon enough. The whole thing took 2 years to get through and at the end of it all the plaintiffs lawyer dropped the case against everyone except for 2 doctors, both surgical staff. Meanwhile, the other 12 doctors who were innocent bystanders had to hire lawyers and go through quite a bit of mental anguish while this slimeball squeezed as much money out of the system as he could. Not only that but every single physican now has to fully explain the entire suit and why they were dropped on every application for hospital priviledges for the rest of their lifetime. It NEVER goes away.

And to top it all off the case settled for $200k. I think the family split about $90k when it was all over.

Yay for the lawyers.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
LOL, I really can't come up with anything else in response to that...just LOL.

Well I guess there are basically two things one can say when caught flat-footed in a lie.

1. I'm sorry, I erred. I didn't mean to unethically misrepresent your post to suit my agenda;

or you could say

2. LOL

You made the unethical choice, while criticizing the ethics of others. Unfortunately, no surprise there.

[Rodeo]

EDIT: I see you deleted your post with your second lie. Too bad I didn't quote it. Oh well, dealing with slippery characters like you, one has to be on top of things!

[artplumber]

So Rodehard, since you are so ethical and all knowing, why did you state the statistical half-truth that tort reform does not result in decreased malpractice insurance premiums? When taken as an absolute dollar number this is true, but in states with tort reform, the malpractice insurance rates for physicians have appreciated at much slower rates than in those states without tort reform. A prominent example is California, where some of the tightest limits on punitive/pain & suffering awards were enacted years ago. The cost for coverage is 75% less than (for instance) South Florida (which recently enacted reform), 50% of Texas (also recently enacting reform). Single digit year over year premium increases were present in CA while these states were seeing double or even triple digit increases.

[Nathans_Dad]

Tort reform DOES decrease malpractice premiums. I practice in Texas and my premiums have gone down. Heck, I even spoke with a malpractice defense attorney in Houston who said his practice has significantly dropped off since the tort reform was passed.

It doesn't prevent the slime from filing a frivolous suit, but since money seems to be the only thing that personal injury lawyers care about, the $200k cap on non-economic damages sure makes filing that frivolous suit less attractive.

And Rodeo, I deleted my post because I decided to not turn this thread into another he said/she said argument. I've done that before with you and it never comes to anything. I have relegated you to the Fastpaste scrap heap in my mind so it really wouldn't be worth my while to discuss it with you anyhow.

[Rodeo]

Caught again in a lie, and it "wouldn't be worth my while to discuss it."

I guess not. Then you'd have to own your lie, and you would never do that.

But just for fun, why don't you show everyone where I "defended this worthless lawsuit." I mean, you said it, the thread was only a few posts old when you said it, how hard can it be? Just cite my post where I "defended" this lawsuit.

To show everyone how ethical you are, unlike the lawyers.

[Rodeo]

The 14th post in this thread:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Count on Rodeo to come out of hiding to defend a worthless lawsuit...

Rick, look at the 13 posts above it and either admit you are a liar or show me where I came "out of hiding to defend a worthless lawsuit."

Com'on, show us how ethical you are ...

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Rodeo
After they disarmed the guy, the store clerks allegedly chased him into the parking lot and beat him. That's fine with me. But what if they then broke his arms and legs with a tire iron? What is they poked his eyes out with a stick? What if they set him on fire? The point is, it's a question of degree, and we are all assuming that they didn't torture the guy, just roughed him up a bit)

Ok, so you defended it AFTER I said you came out of hiding to defend it.

Call me Carnac.

[Moneyguy1]

Anyone else see the irony in this thread?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ok, so you defended it AFTER I said you came out of hiding to defend it.

Call me Carnac.

Is that your way of saying you lied?

You wouldn't last 6 months as a lawyer. Your ethical standards are too low.

Ok, return to bashing lawyer' ethics. I've proven my point.

[Nathans_Dad]

That would depend on what the definition of "is" is.

Wait, was he a lawyer too?

As I said above there really isn't a point in discussing much of anything with you, point proven.

[Rodeo]

And by the way, I NEVER "defended this lawsuit" either before or after your original lie stating that I did.

So you have now compounded the first lie with a second, and even more transparent, lie.

But you already knew that.