(OT) Lawyers -- Why Do People Hate Them?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:18:11 GMT, Ken Smith > wrote:

> Never mind that many Medicare recipients go to Canada for their
>drugs. Why couldn't we Wal-Mart the big drug companies? Because they
>paid the requisite bribes. Socialism for me, brutal capitalism for you.
> That is what drives our increasingly fascist system.

No, stupidity from people like you is what is driving costs up.

OK, we mandate that drug companies MUST SELL drugs to Africa at below
cost. Then companies in Africa sell the same drugs back to us at huge
mark ups. Then you bitch that you can get cheaper drugs off shore, so
the companies must be ripping you off.

You aren't intelligent enough to look at the cost/benefit analysis.
If a company invests half a million dollars on a drug, you ignore it.
You just want to look at cost of manufacture, packaging and shipping.
You also ignore the cost of quality control, and the payoffs to the
lawyers, I mean lawsuits.

The companies want to average the cost of all drugs investigated
across all drugs sold, with a little profit so they can continue to
research new drugs. You don't want that.

A recent post here explained how we spend something like 10 times as
much money on lawyers than we do research and development. You think
that is fine.

*************************
Dave

DTJ wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:18:11 GMT, Ken Smith > wrote:
>
>
>> Never mind that many Medicare recipients go to Canada for their
>>drugs. Why couldn't we Wal-Mart the big drug companies? Because they
>>paid the requisite bribes. Socialism for me, brutal capitalism for you.
>> That is what drives our increasingly fascist system.
>
> No, stupidity from people like you is what is driving costs up.
>
> OK, we mandate that drug companies MUST SELL drugs to Africa at below
> cost. Then companies in Africa sell the same drugs back to us at huge
> mark ups. Then you bitch that you can get cheaper drugs off shore, so
> the companies must be ripping you off.

Reality was always a difficult concept for you FAUX News crackheads.
The price of scripts is considerably less in Canada, which has a
roughly equivalent standard of living. Why? Because they have the good
sense to 'Wal-Mart' the drug companies (buying in bulk, and insisting on
bulk discounts). If our country did the same thing, the drug companies
would no longer have the opportunity to engage in price-gouging here,
and the Canadians would pay a fair price for prescription drugs. Why
should we subsidize Canadian health care costs?!?

I'd help things along by imposing an anti-price-gouging statute that
imposed an excise tax on profits from drugs sold at a higher price here
than in other developed countries at the wholesale level.

You did survive Econ 201, didn't you?

"Lowell" > in
ups.com:

> John David Galt wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>> > No, that's not what these cases are about. An analogy is the
>> > tobacco cases - the cigarette companies said cigarettes were safe
>> > and non-addictive. The whole time, they knew they were not safe
>> > and highly addictive, and even increased the amount of nicotine, in
>> > order to hook more users.
>>
>> Everybody else knew they were not safe, too, including everyone who
>> has started smoking after 1958 (at least).

i suspect many 11 and 12 year olds in 1958, didn't know about tobacco smoking hazards.

>>The tobacco execs weren't
>> trying to fool anybody, only to cover their anatomy because they knew
>> that some sanctimonious bunch of nannies would try to blame them for
>> the results of personal risk/reward decisions made by millions of
>> adults. Which is what happened.
>>
>> If anyone in the whole tobacco controversy are cheats and liars, it
>> is the judges who, for political reasons, didn't allow evidence
>> showing that tobacco has saved both federal and state governments
>> MUCH more in saved pensions and old-age care than it has cost them in
>> medical bills.

according to commonly printed info, the highest % of medical bills accumulate near the
end of life. so i'd expect that except for people who die rapidly due to violent causes,
everyone's medical costs increase before they die. and AFAIK, the usual smoking-cauesd
deaths are slow deaths.

>> In that case as in traffic laws, the safety-nazis usually win both
>> the court battles and the PR battles, but that doesn't make them
>> right.

true. "winners" are frequently sinners. but, as (possibly) true with your example, most
societies are ruled by "winners".

> Could you please educate us on how cigarettes have "saved both federal
> and state governments MUCH more in saved pensions and old-age care
> than it has cost them in medical bills"?
>

Ken Smith > in :

> Nice to see that you're the "kept" man.

might be due to good chemistry
:-)

law, judges, law enforcement: "foxes guarding the chickenhouse". lawyers should recuse
themselves from creating and voting on legislation (which should eliminate about 99% of
the us congress from voting)

"Motorhead Lawyer" > in
oups.com:

> It is when it costs you $40/hour to have the office door open 9-5 five
> days a week - and that's on a shoestring budget. The cynical line,
>"There's no justice under $5000." is essentially accurate. For
> anything under that (the Small Claims limit in WI), you can't afford to
> hire an attorney. It isn't worth your time or mine.

and the laws won't make it possible until the government of u.s. geography is
thoroughly transformed into new government(s).

all other intervening attempts to freshen the legal system will retain too much
deadwood/legacy.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > in
oups.com:

> IMHO, the healthcare system is one of the most overlooked seriously
> *broken* systems we have.

IMUHO it's not overlooked; it's (politically) deadlocked.

DTJ wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2006 15:41:58 -0800, "Motorhead Lawyer" >
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe you'd like to hear about my client who, while being transported
> >for a heart attack (a 'genetic surprise' in his middle forties), timed
> >his stay at a hospital in one ambulance before being transported to
> >another hospital in another ambulance at thirteen minutes. They did
> >*nothing else* while he was there. The bill was $11,635. When he got
> >that one, he told me, he no longer felt badly about discharging it (and
> >a bunch of others) in bankruptcy.
> >
> >IMHO, the healthcare system is one of the most overlooked seriously
> >*broken* systems we have.
>
> Yes, because of lawyers.

Bull****, yourself. As soon as you can come up with a rational
explanation of *that* charge, and how any exposure to legal liability
caused it, we'll talk. Until then, you're plonked.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)

On 27 Jan 2006 12:41:39 -0800, "Motorhead Lawyer" >
wrote:

>DTJ wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2006 15:41:58 -0800, "Motorhead Lawyer" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe you'd like to hear about my client who, while being transported
>> >for a heart attack (a 'genetic surprise' in his middle forties), timed
>> >his stay at a hospital in one ambulance before being transported to
>> >another hospital in another ambulance at thirteen minutes. They did
>> >*nothing else* while he was there. The bill was $11,635. When he got
>> >that one, he told me, he no longer felt badly about discharging it (and
>> >a bunch of others) in bankruptcy.
>> >
>> >IMHO, the healthcare system is one of the most overlooked seriously
>> >*broken* systems we have.
>>
>> Yes, because of lawyers.
>
>Bull****, yourself. As soon as you can come up with a rational
>explanation of *that* charge, and how any exposure to legal liability
>caused it, we'll talk. Until then, you're plonked.

Interesting, as if I am plonked you would not know if I replied.

Betting that someone here will reply and force you to read this, why
is it that you are so enamored with the idiots in your profession that
you refuse to acknowledge that they have any faults?

You may be the best lawyer in the world, and the most honest person
around, yet you espouse theories that make everyone feel you are an
idiot.

I am a computer professional. I recognize that the majority of other
computer professionals are mindless idiots. Why can't you recognize
that not everyone adheres to the standards you claim you adhere to.

*************************
Dave

In article >,
> wrote:
>"Motorhead Lawyer" > in
roups.com:
>
>> IMHO, the healthcare system is one of the most overlooked seriously
>> *broken* systems we have.
>
>IMUHO it's not overlooked; it's (politically) deadlocked.

The goals demanded for it by all sides -- good, fast, and cheap --
aren't possible.