St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - Republican

Government Contractor's Rape Case Exposes Senators

Mike Bryant — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:19:00 GMT

It was nice to see recently elected and finally seated Minnesota Senator Al Franken get his first amendment passed last month. Unfortunately, it was about a very weighty topic. The amendment to the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting the government from contracting with companies who require their employees to agree to resolve certain claims, such as sexual assault, through arbitration. The amendment arises from the testimony of Jamie Leigh Jones that she was drugged and gang raped by her co-workers while working for a contractor in Iraq. When she reported the rape to her supervisor, she was locked in a metal shipping crate. She only got out of Iraq by calling her father, who got in touch with their local Congressman in Texas. When she attempted to sue her employer KBR, Inc., a subsidiary of Haliburton, she was told that she had to resolve her claim through arbitration in accordance with her employment contract. Mr. Franken's amendment was to ensure that the government does not do business with a company who would force its employees to arbitrate such a case as rape.

The bill passed but it was voted against by 30 Republican Senators. The Daily show did a good job of calling the 30 out and pointing out their hypocrisy.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

After watching this, spend a little time thinking about why these 30 voted as they did. Who are they protecting and who's side are they on? This week, this same group has been leading the floor fight against the Health Care Bill. They have been calling lawyers names, they have been calling for damage caps, and they have claimed that the change isn't for the best. Ask again who's side they are on? It's never been the consumer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Attacks On The Health Care Plan: Looks Like They Were Planned Out

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:58 GMT

Are you torn with all of the health care debates? What is being talked about and what isn't? Who is behind what and what do the leaders of our country really want to do? Who has bought off who and why is anyone saying that they would rather keep things the way they are?

I've talked to enough people about this issue to know that many people are confused about why this is such a battle. Why the plan isn't just to sit down and to work something out and get a plan put together. It's been interesting to discuss with people the role that trial lawyers are playing in the issue and also the roles of the insurance companies. I, like many of the people here at the Injuryboard, have been out front talking about the issues every chance we get.

What was illuminating was to run across the game plan of the opposition to any change. Rolling Stone recently uncovered this interesting memo:

The 10 Rules For The Stopping Of The "WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” Of Health care

(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “health care system.” From now on, health care is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford health care, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a health care crisis.”

(3) “Time” is the government health care killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of health care than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the health care you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ health care plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of health care. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government health care because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.

(5) The health care denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run health care system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run health care, politicians make YOUR health care decisions.THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”

(6) Health care quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the health care they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government health care system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”

(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of health care is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle health care better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford health care. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this health care plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in health care that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading this list, it seems clear that there are a group of people who don't want to get anything done. The people who ran the country for eight years and put profits in front of people and drove many parts of the economy into the dirt. It is made up of people who scream capitalism all the way to the bailout window. People who need to either come to the table and talk sense or get out of the way and let those who care about the consumer put together something that will truly make a difference.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Guess What: The U S Chamber TV Ad Attack Really Did Need A Closer Look

Mike Bryant — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:27:00 GMT

Yesterday, I wrote about the U S Chamber's hypocritical attack on TV ads. What I didn't cover was a closer look at what was underlying the press release which went out to all of their conservative outlets. The numbers show that the US Chamber of Commerce study tracked spending on ads and actually shows that the spending has remained almost unchanged since 2006. There was a jump earlier in the decade. But get this, the number of spots have actually dropped since 2006.

So google these stories and you will find the implications that :

Oh my god lawyers are adding to the claims
Look lawyers know the gravy train is ending and are going all out
Look see this is the problem.

It's kind of funny how many of the "comments" actually say the exact same thing. But, the underlying support just isn't there. Yes, the study says the numbers are going down. So when do we hear that apology or maybe the turning of their growth theories on their head? Are the lower numbers actual proof that there is no problem?

The American Association for Justice, also pointed out that no matter the ad numbers the the National Center for State Courts shows an 8 percent decrease from 1997 to 2006 in states' civil caseload related to medical malpractice. "As usual, the Chamber is willing to bargain away injured patients' legal rights to protect the profits of their insurance and drug company financiers," Ray De Lorenzi, a spokesman for the association, said in a statement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Let's Talk Tort Deform

Mike Bryant — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:02:00 GMT

It's been interesting to read story after story where the tort deformers keep claiming that no one wants to talk about tort reform. Funny, seems like it's a topic everywhere. The next sentence is usually from the attack book of Bush/Rove to blame the greedy trial lawyers. Sometimes it is couched in an anonymous frivolous battering of the injured claimants, but either way it's vicious attacks on what is a constitutional right. A replacement for a punitive eye-for-an-eye system.

But, let's talk about tort deform. They want damage caps. The cost benefit analysis on human lives that allows the wrongdoer to know what their risk is. Should they do the right thing or just take the chance and at most it will cost them $250,000? There's been a series of past product liability cases where it was proven that the cost of how many people would be killed was factored in as a cost of doing business. Yep, there is greed involved in the equation alright.

I was asked today at church what tort reform I thought would be acceptable to get the health care bill passed. The question came from a well meaning person who just wants to see the right thing happen in health care and who hears all the claims that the trial lawyers are standing in the way of it getting done. The thing is, we aren't.

I'm quite convinced that there isn't a single vote to be gained from any tort reform. the Republicans don't want to pass a bill, never have and never will. The elimination of the tort system probably wouldn't bring them over. So this may really be a wasted debate. But, for the public , we do need to have the discussion, because there are real people who care and see this as something other than a political football.

I offer up the Minnesota system. It has no caps. It has an expert affidavit system. I can sue almost anyone for anything, if I have a good faith reason to do it, but for a doctor, I need another medical professional in the same field to OK it first. Not just with a report, but with a sworn affidavit. Minnesota has got some of the lowest premiums in the country, a low number of claims and best of all, a great health care system. So if we are going to look at a state , let's look at something that works. A system that protects the consumers.

It's a system that would be a change for much of the country. It would show that we are serious about getting this bill passed and I predict it will still not get any votes from the other side. Why? Well, because it's really only politics to many of them. They are bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and they will claim it didn't go far enough. My favorite response here will be : "You can get an expert doctor to say anything". I think that's true with just about any group, and would suggest that is what has been getting the opponents by so far.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Republicans Targeted In Health Care Bill??????

Mike Bryant — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:43:00 GMT

There are so many lies being spread about what is in each health care bill that I was sure I had heard them all. You figure that death panels and Hitler was really the height of preposterous claims. But, now we have the Republican American Health Survey:

"It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"

Hell yes that concerns me!

Now, the party is now saying that the question was "in artfully worded," , so they apparently are trying to now say it in a different way. But, shouldn't you have some support with at least a couple of the words first? This looks like the biggest lie so far.

Now it is odd. I can understand why they were scaring the elderly, and targeting the independents, but are they on such a shaky base that they now need to scare the party faithful? Maybe it's just further proof that the paid for town hall meetings of concerned citizens are in need of real people to help spread the misinformation.

It is time to get beyond the ridiculous rhetoric and get a real bill that does what Americans want. Hopefully, that is an artful enough opinion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Reality In The Health Care Debate

Mike Bryant — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:27:00 GMT

There are so many stories out there. We have some making this a partisan political battle, while others have their own interests to protect the status quo. The reality is that when getting down to the real questions, very few people will say the present system makes sense. There is a need to get something done.

I found the speech last week to be helpful in again focusing us on some of the issues that need to be addressed. There is no doubt that the people debating the the issues and actually voting have a nice comfortable coverage for themselves. It costs them 500 dollars a year. While at the same time ten's of thousands are losing their own coverage daily.

Then there is the Lewin group, which is being relied upon by some for numbers support, and which is owned by United Heath Care, one of the nation's largest insurers. They are a part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary which was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Seems like another questionable source.

We also have the US Chamber of Commerce and their multi million dollar campaign that is simply a just say no plan. It's devoid of ideas or other options. Makes you wonder what consumers they have ever talked to.

It's too important of an issue to allow naysayers and political gamesmanship to rule the day. Hopefully, the ideas of change will continue to include the consumer and the rights of the people who right now need the hope more than ever.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Stop The Election Lies About What Happened In Minnesota

Mike Bryant — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:48:52 GMT

Let's start with the needed congratulations to the new Minnesota Senator. It was a long election night and it has been a long road to get to this point. But all of the Minnesota parts of the election process have been duly served and pushed to their ultimate end. There is now a winner and thankfully no national appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The important issue now is to get to the national business and for Minnesota to be finally fully represented. It is also time to stop the lies that this election will undoubtedly spawn.

- The recount was mandatory. The margin was so close that the law required the totals be looked at, so there should be no claim that the democrats stole the election

- The people involved with the recount are good Minnesotans who did their best. Both candidates were fully represented , every step of the way, and just like election night, county election officials should be thanked for their efforts.

- Every step of the way, the election rules were followed. The certification panel and the jurists who all looked at the issue did so as the law required. There is never a point where partisanship controlled the process.

- Finally, the Supreme Court followed the law as the trial court did. The decisions were well reasoned and supported by all independent legal experts who reviewed them.

Now it's understandable that the losing side is troubled. I was after election night. But to attack the system is just plain wrong. From the state party we get:

Today’s ruling wrongly disenfranchised thousands of Minnesotans who deserve to have their votes counted. Alongside Senator Coleman, the Republican Party of Minnesota has fought to make sure every vote counts and all voters are treated fairly and uniformly. As we move forward, our deeply flawed election system must be dramatically improved to ensure our state’s elections are fair, accurate and reliable.

From the National party:

“I am deeply disappointed in the decision made by the state Supreme Court, and I share the frustration of Minnesota’s voters. At the core of our democracy lies two concrete principles: No valid vote should go uncounted and all votes should be treated equally. Sadly, those principles were not adhered to during this election. While I would have proudly stood behind Norm Coleman had he chosen to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, I know that his decision to withdraw from this race was not an easy one, but one that he felt was the best decision for the people of Minnesota. For the last six years, Norm represented the people of Minnesota with distinction, earning a much deserved reputation as one of the hardest-working members of Congress. I, on behalf of all Republicans, thank him for his service and will miss his leadership in Washington.”

This is patently false. Neither side was ever arguing that all votes should be counted. You can't find that argument at any level of the proceedings. Each side wanted to cheery pick and come up with a winning total. Fortunately the law doesn't allow that for anyone.

Keep this in mind as the future arguments revolve around the year the Democrats stole an election. It's garbage

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Palin Quits Guv Job Early - Will She Run for Prez?

Joe Crumley — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:01:00 GMT

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced today that she would leave her post as Alaska Governor at the end of July, fueling speculation that she plans to run for President in 2012. Palin was John McCain's vice presidential pick in the 2008 presidential election. The New York Times reports Palin as saying that she is leaving office a full year and a half before the end of her term because she didn't want to be a 'lame duck'.

"Many just accept that lame duck status, and they hit that road. They draw a paycheck. They kind of milk it. And I'm not going to put Alaskans through that," Palin said.

Republicans and Democrats joined in criticizing the move.

“Good point guards don’t quit and walk off the floor if the going gets tough,” said John Weaver, a former senior strategist for Mr. McCain. “Today’s move falls further into the weirdness category; people don’t like a quitter.”

In Alaska, state Senator Hollis S. French, a Democrat who filed a letter of intent on Wednesday to run for governor, said, “The idea that ‘The going got tough so I decided to quit’ is inexcusable. That is not an Alaskan value. We celebrate the mushers who drive on through the storm despite the hardship.”

The announcement was hastily scheduled on the eve of the July 4 holiday (on a Friday when many had already begun their holiday), apparently to avoid inevitable adverse publicity and criticism.

Political pundits speculate that Palin is leaving because of the difficulty of fundraising and campaigning in the lower 48 United States while maintaining the responsibilities of running the remote state.

Others say that there may be another scandal brewing at home for the governor, whose 16 year old daughter announced a pregnancy soon after Palin was Picked as John McCain's running mate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FcyGk1iBbg

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Crumley

U S Supreme Court decision In Massey Is A Win For Fairness In The Courts

Mike Bryant — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:42:00 GMT

A couple of months ago I blogged on the importance of the upcoming Massey decision and if justice could be purchased. The decision was a clear indicator that it could not be. As was explained in the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system say "states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."

Hopefully, the ruling with also give rise to higher standers in policing these contributions. As Bert Brandenburg, director of the National Organization For Justice at Stake, pointed out, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent refusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."

The Washington Post went further to conclude that because of the issues raised in the case "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics." I agree that retention elections should at least be looked at. Money should not buy justice. Thankfully the highest court agreed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Krazy Kongresswoman - Even Republicans Agree!

Joe Crumley — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:21:00 GMT

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has gotten criticism from every corner, but usually it's her political opponents leading the attack. Now her own party is taking her to task.

Last month, Bachmann said she'd refuse to complete her Census questionnaire, as discussed in my partner's blog.

Now even her fellow Republican housemembers are calling her boycott illogical and illegal. “Every elected representative in this country should feel a responsibility to encourage full participation in the census. To do otherwise is to advocate for a smaller share of federal funding for our constituents," Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and John Mica (R-Fla.) stated. They are all members of the House Census Oversight Subcommittee.

The Census is mandated by the U.S. Constitution, our most basic of laws. Never mind that it's illegal to boycott the census. Never mind that encouraging others to boycott the census is probably conspiracy to commit that crime. How about the simple fact that by encouraging her constituents to boycott, she's shooting herself and others in her state in the foot?

The whole reason for the census is proper allocation of seats in Congress. If her actions result in an undercount in her district, isn't she the most likely Representative to lose her seat??? Holy backfire, Batman!

Many think Bachmann says these things just to get publicity.... the Krazier the better! For more about our favorite Minnesota 6th District Congresswoman, visit this anti-Bachmann blog. Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post as well as other bloggers have also weighed in on this latest stunt.

Has our Krazy Kongresswoman gone too far this time? Tune in next week, same Bat Time, same Bat-channel!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Crumley