The Wall Street Journal chronicles John Edward’s attempt to tug at New Hampshire’s heart strings by telling a misleading version of the story of the death of a 17-year old leukemia patient and Cigna Corp., the insurance company that delayed coverage on her liver transplant.
Edwards, a former trial attorney, is the most extreme of capitalists, earning tens of millions suing deep pockets, including doctors. This is not a categorical knock against plaintiff’s lawyers or even Edwards himself, a percentage of their lawsuits do a genuine public service. What the actual percentage may be is another story. However I would like to point out the hypocricy in Edward’s rhetoric. Edwards stands for moving towards a government-payer health care system AND for capping insurance profits…a very socialistic platform for a man who has earned this type of living. Ironically, many of the expenses he points to in the current American system are a direct result of skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates and risk-management costs…specifically to address the many frivolous lawsuits filed by people like John Edwards.
I’m not going to cover the article, or even the WSJ Blog responses…which for the most part, are fantastic. My understanding was that Nataline was so far gone that a liver wouldn’t have given her but a few months, if that…and that Cigna approved the procedure based upon public outrage rather than a change in Ms. Sarkisyan’s clinical diagnosis. But I want to ask the question, why? Why is Edwards doing this? Even if Cigna did deny a valid claim in this case, what does this have to do with his health care platform? Are we to believe if Nataline Sarkisyan had been covered by Medicaid, her claim would have been promptly approved, paid for, and her life would’ve been saved? How long does it take the government to process a passport application?
Edwards is doing what smart trial lawyers do, he is appealing to people’s emotions, at the complete disregard for rationality. Unfortunately, he’s not dealing with a jury of 12 people, and this stunt has already back-fired.
Edwards, a former trial attorney, is the most extreme of capitalists, earning tens of millions suing deep pockets, including doctors. This is not a categorical knock against plaintiff’s lawyers or even Edwards himself, a percentage of their lawsuits do a genuine public service. What the actual percentage may be is another story. However I would like to point out the hypocricy in Edward’s rhetoric. Edwards stands for moving towards a government-payer health care system AND for capping insurance profits…a very socialistic platform for a man who has earned this type of living. Ironically, many of the expenses he points to in the current American system are a direct result of skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates and risk-management costs…specifically to address the many frivolous lawsuits filed by people like John Edwards.
I’m not going to cover the article, or even the WSJ Blog responses…which for the most part, are fantastic. My understanding was that Nataline was so far gone that a liver wouldn’t have given her but a few months, if that…and that Cigna approved the procedure based upon public outrage rather than a change in Ms. Sarkisyan’s clinical diagnosis. But I want to ask the question, why? Why is Edwards doing this? Even if Cigna did deny a valid claim in this case, what does this have to do with his health care platform? Are we to believe if Nataline Sarkisyan had been covered by Medicaid, her claim would have been promptly approved, paid for, and her life would’ve been saved? How long does it take the government to process a passport application?
Edwards is doing what smart trial lawyers do, he is appealing to people’s emotions, at the complete disregard for rationality. Unfortunately, he’s not dealing with a jury of 12 people, and this stunt has already back-fired.
No comments:
Post a Comment