Texas residents.......Prop 12.......

[vorticon]

simple as this...if your in it for the money then you shouldent be in it at all

[slimm50]

I'm voting yes.

[rpm]

I am against Prop. 12 and this is why.
[RANT] A Doctor makes a SERIOUS mistake during pregnancy/ delivery and the child is born only to survive a few agonizing years filled with DOZENS of horrible surgeries. The legs are so constricted that they must be cut open and the muscles sliced like a steak just so they may straighten from their constant cramped bending. 6 months later similar surgery on the arms. Another few weeks then back surgery. The child cries out in pain every waking moment only sleeping after being druged. The brain is so damaged it can not understand words or speak, but it does understand pain and how to cry from it.  The child would have lived a normal life if not for the mistake that was clearly the Doctor's fault. You are saying that the agonizing suffering that child was tortured with every day of it's life is only worth $250,000. The insurance does pay you back (and you better have meticulous recordkeeping) for the medical treatment. The parents have been put thru an emotional Hurricane and have been scared for life. If the punitive damages are not set to a point where this Doctor has to pay thru the nose for future malpractice coverage, if he can obtain it, there is no deterent. These people are not looking for a payday, they are not taking a shot for the lottery, they simply want JUSTICE and they way our society is set up that justice is in the form of money. That doctor will never know how that child and it's family suffered, but you will get his attention when you take his money away. A Judge and Jury must decide what is fair compensation, not some politician lining his pockets with money from an Insurance company trying to limit it's losses. There are those who file frivilous suits and occassionally one slips thru the cracks in the system and makes headlines. 12 of your peers in most cases see those frivilous suits for what they are and they lose their case, but that does not make the headlines. [/RANT]

[Fatty]

What you should be asking for, if indeed it is a case of criminal negligence, should be criminal prosecution.

If not criminally negligent, then why should there be punitive damages.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Fatty
What you should be asking for, if indeed it is a case of criminal negligence, should be criminal prosecution.

If not criminally negligent, then why should there be punitive damages.

Fine by me. Let's make malpractice suits criminal. Substitute the cash penalty for some jail time. I don't think the Doctors will be campaigning for that one.

[Fatty]

That exists already, you just don't get money for it.

[rpm]

Fatty, you are not correct. For it to be criminal, as the law is now, there has to be premeditation and malice. That does not mean that the Medical Examiner's board can not take action, such as revoking a practicioners license. This is a matter between patient and provider. Not every lawsuit is frivilous, not every Practicioner a quack, but every insurance company is there to make money. If they can limit the potential payout, they can maximize their profit, and PROFIT is what this is all about. Wouldn't profit reform be more appropriate to lowering Malpractice Insurance rates? Why not make those huge Executive bonuses and severence packages limited by law?  This is a move by huge mega-corporations to make more money at your expense, and it won't stop with Medical malpractice.

Let's take a look at the language of Prop 12:

"A constitutional amendment concerning civil lawsuits against doctors and healthcare providers, and other actions, authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic damages."

A constitutional amendment...( The Texas Constitution gives JURIES the power to decide damages on a CASE BY CASE basis. This radical amendment would cripple trial by jury and let polititions decide, instead of judges and juries.)

...and other actions...(This clause allows the Legislature to restrict what Judges and Juries can do to hold ANY wrongdoer responsable for their actions: drunk drivers, polluters, manufacturers of dangerous drugs or negligent makers of unsafe or defective products.)

...authorizing the legislature to determine...(considering the circus we have seen in Austin during this session, elected polititions in the Texas Legislature are the LAST people the citizens of Texas should authorize to take the place of Judges, Juries and the Courts.

...non-economic damages." (This allows the Legislature to set ANY low amount on a human life killed, maimed or injured by negligence or wrongdoing. A child, stay at home mom oe senior citizen could be worth $250,000 or $50,000 or 50 cents because they don't have "economic value".

Politicians are there to manipulate the public. Remember how Texas schools were going to get this great windfall from the Lottery? Turns out the money goes to the General Fund, but they didn't tell you that when they wanted you to vote in favor of a Lottery, did they?

Don't be sucked into beliving this will save Texas from losing Doctors. According to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners the number of Doctors practicing in the state has RISEN from 31,459 in 1998 to 37,188 in 2003.

Vote AGAINST Prop 12.

[Fatty]

What does an insurance agency being there to make money have to do with it?

Hell I'm here to make money too, and I pay them as little as possible trying to maximize my profit.  Why am I not the evil behind the system?

This is a move by huge mega-corporations to make more money at your expense, and it won't stop with Medical malpractice.

Man you're losing it.  Put down the flyer for a second.  They're going to make money either way, most of us are not even concerned about that.  We're tired of endless lawsuits.  Even you last post suggested criminal time for a civil suit(?)



Sorry, but every item you list as a problem I see as a step in the right direction.

[Fatty]

And this whole 'Insurance companies' behind it all thing?

Trial lawyers' lobby had to try to find a spectre as shady, dishonest, and universally hated as they are.

Insurance companies are up there pretty high, but they're no trial lawyer.

[Krusher]

I am voting yes.

Its not a cure all, but it is a starting point. The next step should be to limit the amount of money (percent wise) a trial lawyer can charge. Turning lawyers into milionairs or even billionairs (like the tobacco suit lawyers) is insane. The cost is passed down to the consumer.

[rpm]

Fatty, you are the one losing it. The whole this revolves around the Insurance Companies. According to the backers of Prop 12, Doctors are leaving or quitting practice because they can't afford to pay the Malpractice Insurance Premiums. It has been shown that the number of Doctors in the state has steadily risen, so that arguement does not wash. The Insurance Companies pay the claim when a Doctor is sued (at least the amount his policy covers). When they pay they lose PROFIT. They are not going broke, they still make money, just not as much. I know like everyone else you go into buisness to make money, I have no problem with buisnesses making money. I do have a problem when their making money starts to infringe on my rights.

For those thinking this amendment will drive all the shysters from Texas, think again. Lawyers will always be practicing in Texas and yes there will be crooked ones as well, assuming there is such a thing as an honest one. I agree let's cap lawyer percentages, altho most reputable firms already use a pretty common scale suggested by the State Bar Assn for contengency cases. This amendment will have no effect on that, it's not in the language. This amendment is NOT ABOUT LAWYERS.

This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue either, this is a bi-partisan issue that will effect every citizen of the state. Former State Supreme Court Justice Deborah Hankinson, a Republican, appointed by George W. Bush and served for 5 years has come out against Prop 12. So has Former State Supreme Court Justice James A. Baker, also a Republican appointed by Bush, who served for 7 years. HERE is an article written by Hankinson outlining her opposition to Prop 12. It is a very interesting read.

A similar law was enacted in California in 1975 limiting damages to $250,000 for pain and suffering, all in the name of helping Doctors lower their insurance premiums. The exact opposite happened and Doctors premiums rose 450% in 13 years. The problem was so out of hand that ANOTHER LAW (Prop 103)had to be passed in 1988 to force insurance companies to justify rate increases. Only after Proposition 103 passed did medical malpractice insurance premiums go down 20.2 percent, according to the insurance industry's own data. Insurance companies were forced to refund more than $75 million directly to physicians. Just a few weeks ago, using Prop. 103's protections, 9,000 California doctors saved $2,555 a year by successfully challenging an unjustified rate increase by the state's second largest malpractice insurance company. (The company also does business in Texas, as American Healthcare Indemnity, where it is backing Prop. 12).

What does an insurance agency being there to make money have to do with it?

And this whole 'Insurance companies' behind it all thing?

[Fatty]

How do you think the Insurance Companies got in a position where malpractice insurance was an inelastic demand product?  Of course they're in taking advantage of that.  Isn't it strange that none of the articles even address that?




I agree this is not enough to make a real difference, but I'll take it as a start.

[Udie]

yes on 12!!!


 let see,  are you going to side with trial lawyers or doctors?  I know that's an oversimplification, but it holds true.

[miko2d]

eddiek:  Corporate involvement in healthcare.  
You take a chain of hospitals all tied together and answering to a main office 500 or a 1000 miles away (or more), and the bottom line is not quality of care..........it is the almighty dollar, and the "make a profit" mentality.

 Actually, it's the relsult of excessive government intervention into healthcare/insurance that only makes it possible for huge corporations to survive. The overhead of billing/collecting and having layers and people responcible for compliance with government regulations is too much for a small clinic/office.

I am not into the idea of the government getting involved in the day in and day out operations of healthcare, but at some point, something needs to be done.  More and more, especially at larger hospitals, I see dangerous understaffing.......like 20-30 patients for each nurse.

 What would you do? Draft people into medical profession? Sentence criminals to serve as nurses? How about punishing people for getting sick and becoming patients? Killing off the weak? Reinstating eugenic laws under which 50,000 were involuntarily sterilised in the US?
 That would certainly improve your patient/provider ratio...


 Of course the free market has solution to all those problems - quality and quantity of healthcare, lawsuits, etc. Not the ideal solution, as long as scarcity of goods/services remains with us but the optimal solution where the available resources are used with the greatest effect to satisfy the most urgent needs.

 Government restricts the number of health providers by licensing and exessive regulation laws, mandates the fees, restricts the freedom of contract where a doctor can be released from responcibility while at the same time forbidding a doctor to refuse a patient that is too risky. Mix in mandated insurance that is for the most part not insurance but hidden redistributive tax scheme. Of course we have all the problems we have now.

 P.S. About licensing - I know it is done so that the poor would only get the best doctors. That's why teh supply is restricted. By the same token, only allowing only the best and safest cars to be sold - no less than Rolls-Royce - would benefit the poor. Right? Better none of good than some of the passable that the people could actually get and afford.


 About malpractice. Why not let the patients select the doctors they trust and allow them to sign an optional liability waiver (or go to another doctor). Then a patient would buy an insurance just for this particular risky procedure.
 The doctors would not be saddled with huge expences and overheads (layer's fees and premiuls that are paid even if one is never sued). The care gets cheaper which helps patient pay for his insurance.
 The victim is compensated by insurance without expensive lawsuits. If a doctor is criminally negligent, fine - ge gets sued in a criminal court. If he is just prone to error, insurance companies will refuse to sell inurance to his/her patients and he will get out of business.
 After all, insurance company with dedicated staff of experts would have more knowlege about a doctor's record than a patient can have.

 miko

[rpm]

Originally posted by Fatty
How do you think the Insurance Companies got in a position where malpractice insurance was an inelastic demand product?  Of course they're in taking advantage of that.  Isn't it strange that none of the articles even address that?

Did you read the last paragraph at all? Even after Tort Reform was passed in Califronia the rates continued to skyrocket. It had ZERO effect on helping Doctors.

[ i]Originally posted by Fatty [/i]I agree this is not enough to make a real difference, but I'll take it as a start.

It will be a starting point alright.

written by Former Justice Hankinson
I urge every Texan to vote against Proposition 12 and reject this ill-conceived and radical attempt to rewrite our constitution.

The language of Proposition 12 reads: "A constitutional amendment concerning civil lawsuits against doctors and health care providers, and other actions, authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic damages."

What this language fails to convey is that by the three words "and other actions," the Legislature has written the Open Courts provision out of our constitution.

The Open Courts provision is rooted in the Magna Carta and is one of the most widespread and important state constitutional provisions that is not duplicated in the federal Constitution.

Our Open Courts provision guarantees "all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law."

Bottom line, it's a BAD amendment with loopholes a mile wide. It can be applied to EVERY Civil case from drunk drivers to wrongful death. And it won't just be a law, it will be in our Constitution.