W* would rather bash trial lawyers than secure nukes!

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

This sickens me that our glorious leader is so blind in his hatred of trial attorneys and lawsuits that he would leave us vulnerable to loose nuclear weapons. This is the guy people trust to keep us safe from terrorism?!?
:scared:


"The big gorilla in the basement is the material from Russia and Pakistan," said Robert L. Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a classified consultant to the CIA and Energy Department laboratories. "This is the principal, major national security threat to the United States in the next decade or more. I don't know what's in second place."

Securing the materials is laborious, expensive and dangerous work. Bush decided to let two of the major programs lapse because Russia declined to accept a change in the agreement that would shield U.S. firms from liability for worker safety.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 15, noted Bush's emphasis on the "immense threat" of nuclear terrorism and said acidly, "I wonder if he has been advised that liability -- that the liability issue is preventing destruction of enough plutonium for about 10,000 weapons?"

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

1. From the Washington Post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/

[JBB555]

2. Both are important

Trial lawyers are the scourge of American Health Care. The costs of health care in this country are several times what they should be because EVERY pharmaceutical company, every medical device manufacturer, every health care provider raise their prices to cover the costs of POTENTIAL litigation. It is the gosepel truth. I have been employed at a very high level in the health care field for 30 years. Trial lawyers rightly litigate cases of malpractice and medical device failure...but they also litigate cases that are total crap, just to end up settling the cases without going to trial and putting dollars into their pockets. Ask any OB/gyn provider why he does the majority of his c-sections, why he doesn't delive twin pregnancys vaginally, and why they don't even see patients with a history of high risk pregnancy. Nukes, thats for another post.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Welcome to DU, JBB555. Small-town lawyer responding.

In general, I agree with your premises.

However, I took medical malpractice in law school and I do hold value for the cases that compelled pharmaceutical companies to inform both doctors and the public about potential and definite side effects from the use of their products. Before these cases, it was another situation of caveat emptor, i.e., let the buyer beware.

I can't blanket condemn any case dealing with pharmaceutical companies as frivolous, because (you'll hate me for this, but) it depends. Sick and vulnerable people are dependent upon getting a product that won't harm them or outright kill them. My feeling is that this type of product manufactured makes it potentially harmful on its face and thus, the company has assumed the risk by deciding to manufacture, market, and sell it.

But otherwise, you made several good arguments.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi JBB555!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: