"John Edwards, Esq" by Joshua Green, Oct 2001 (Washington Monthly)

[Catchawave]

I thought this article was fascinating. I try to post debunks to Edwards Senate history on DU, BUT NOBODY CLICKS ON MY LINKS :silly:

Enjoy, I'll start you out, but please read the whole article....

John Edwards, Esq.
Republicans believe that Americans will never elect a trial lawyer president. They're wrong.

By Joshua Green
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On August 5th, NBC's Meet the Press featured someone and something we're likely to see much more of in years to come: Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) squaring off against a nervous representative of the Bush administration.
The issue in this case was the so-called patients' bill of rights, and Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-G.A.) the Bush surrogate. Days earlier, the president had sweet-talked Norwood into a midnight deal that sharply restricted patients' right to sue their HMOs. Norwood, who for many years had advocated a much tougher bill, had essentially been suckered, and appeared acutely aware of this as he sat alongside Edwards, glumly resigned to defending a bad deal.

Tim Russert was on the attack, pressing Norwood about his recent yielding on patients' rights to sue in state courts: "Why did you abandon those views?" Norwood hemmed and hawed and finally was reduced to parroting the administration's line: "It is potentially possible that could ruin the employer-based health-care system in the country." Russert pressed him harder. "Do you believe that?" It turned out Norwood did not.

Russert then turned to Edwards, a trial lawyer by profession, who neatly summarized the deal's shortcomings. "Number one, this deal---which was written in the middle of the night, by the way---takes away rights that patients already have across the country," he explained. "Number two, it maintains the privileged special status that HMOs enjoy today. And, number three, it stacks the deck against patients when they're trying to hold HMOs accountable for what they do." Edwards also pointed out that a seemingly minor change in the bill's language had shifted accountability away from HMOs---something Norwood had failed to recognize and meekly agreed was "a mistake."

The discussion turned to caps on the amount of damages that negligent HMOs would face. Norwood had previously fought such caps and again stumbled in rationalizing his reversal. Edwards, who flat-out opposes capping damages, summed up his case in one line: "A right that's not enforceable doesn't mean anything." By the time Russert broke for commercial, Norwood had pretty much thrown in the towel.

The fight over precisely how patients should be allowed to sue their HMOs may seem relatively minor, considering that 44 million Americans don't even have health insurance. But the debate that morning had a deeper symbolic meaning. As every political junkie knows, John Edwards almost became Al Gore's running mate in 2000 (several sources say he was next after Joe Lieberman). Among a handful of undeclared candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004, he's lately been basking in media attention. With Gore's recent inability to reignite support, a case could be made that Edwards is the current frontrunner.


....cont'd...http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

[smokey nj]

1. Thanks for the link, it's a great article

[waiting for hope]

2. I click your links all the time!

But, I just like reading good Edwards stuff....:) :hi:

[Catchawave]

5. Thanks....I know the JRE supporters do

...it's just when I'm debunking *crapola* I know they're not reading the *facts*

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

3. This is great stuff!

And I promis to always read and kick your posts. We have to stick together.

[Plucketeer]

4. Love it!

Thanks!