Author Topic: Texas residents.......Prop 12....... (Read 1526 times)

Fatty · « **Reply #30 on:** September 11, 2003, 01:33:44 PM »

You quoted the answer to your question.

Quote

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.

I hope you are right.

rpm · « **Reply #31 on:** September 11, 2003, 01:48:59 PM »

And I hope your child never gets hit by a drunk driver or poisoned by a careless Chemical factory. You would get $0 because it was a child and had no wage earning capacity. Politicians will determine how much you suffered by losing your child. When it happens to you, you will understand.

firbal · « **Reply #32 on:** September 11, 2003, 01:49:49 PM »

The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.

Udie · « **Reply #33 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:04:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
And I hope your child never gets hit by a drunk driver or poisoned by a careless Chemical factory. You would get $0 because it was a child and had no wage earning capacity. Politicians will determine how much you suffered by losing your child. When it happens to you, you will understand.

why should you make money if your child dies? I know I wouldn't want to profit off the death of anybody. Much less would i want some GD lawyer to profit off of it too.

miko2d · « **Reply #34 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:23:01 PM »

firbal: The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.

The medical guild and insurance special ineterest lobbies are for it. You will be screwed no matetr what.

You can try to remedy the result of one government intervention by creating another government intervention.
But the economic theory predicts that you get less desirable outcome than if you left things alone.
Of course the best would be to remove the original government intervention.

miko

rpm · « **Reply #35 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:31:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by firbal
The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.

Lawyers are against it. So are the Galveston Municipal Police Association, the Dallas Police Association, and the McAllen Police Officer’s Association, MADD, AARP, the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault and Texas Council on Family Violence along with the two former State Supreme Court Justices that were appointed by George W. Bush that I previously mentioned.

Speaking of PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, Udie:

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371

These people are not looking for a payday, they are not taking a shot for the lottery, they simply want JUSTICE and the 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.

miko2d · « **Reply #36 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:41:49 PM »

rpm371: 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.

Many are. Obstetritians are run out of business in many states through exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums because they are mostly sued for birth defects that are not the result of the malpractice.

A poor mother that did not care about her nutrition, lifestyle, choice of partner, etc. or were just unlucky in a biological lottery (25% of pregnancies spontaneously abort due to natural random chromosomal and other abnormalities - mostly even before pregnancy is detected, many births are inherently risky, etc.) gives birth to a sick baby and the ignorant jury thinks "it may be his fault or not, but we fill sorry for her. Let's give her money. It's not like anyone get's hurt or goes to jail, It's not even money out of his pocket - insurance will pay for it!".

miko

Krusher · « **Reply #37 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:54:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
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.

I guess it depends on your point of view. If we are gaining doctors at a slower rate than we are gaining popultaion, the ones that are retireing and leaving the state is only going to add to the problem.

A quote from the Texas public policy foundation

"Texas has one of the most severe doctor shortages in the nation. Thirty years ago, the state enjoyed the same coverage of medical care as the rest of the nation. But by 2002, there were only 64 general practitioners to care for every 100,000 Texans. In most other states, there are 120 to 135 doctors for every 100,000 people. Only Missouri and Oklahoma have fewer doctors for their citizens. "

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #38 on:** September 11, 2003, 05:18:07 PM »

Most people base their opinion of lawyers and our legal system on a parade of horribles (which, addmittedly, are really horrible). I posit that that is both unfair and inaccurate and further suggest that favoring any legislation or amendment that will tip the balance of power in the direction of insurance companies is seriously misguided.

This amendment will certainly accomplish one thing: many folks that have been harmed and who would have been able to get legal representation before this amendment will not be able to if it passes. Say what you will about legal fees, but that is not a good development.

Further, if you or a loved one has ever been seriously injured due to another's negligence and you have received compensation for your "pain and suffering," you know that the money is never sufficient compensation. Imagine that you're a worker that doesn't require use of his legs to perform his job (e.g., telephone operator). Would you trade your left leg for $750k? I think not.

Fatty · « **Reply #39 on:** September 11, 2003, 05:55:50 PM »

Does less than a million settlement qualify as pro bono?

Sorry if I can't be moved by that.

Slash27 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 11, 2003, 06:58:34 PM »

I work as firefighter/paramedic in the D/FW metroplex. We practice medicine under the direction of doctor. He is the medical director of several fire depts in the area. This man was the Medical director of the year here in Texas. In my 12 years of service I have never seen a medical director as dedicated, innovative, or as personally involved with our training and our performance. He has untied our hands and allowed us save peoples lives at critical times instead of just trying to unsuccessfully sustain them till we get them to the ER. My crew and I have worked on dozens of people in the in the past 2 years that would have died if it were not for him allowing us to do our jobs. Thats just 1 crew, 1 shift, at 1 station, for 1 dept. If Prop 12 does not pass, we will lose him due to the price of malpractice insurance. It is highly doubtful that we would be able to find someone to replace him. This will happen through out our state. Just something to think about.

Lance · « **Reply #41 on:** September 11, 2003, 07:45:47 PM »

Wonderful. We get to decide whether we line the pockets of insurance companies/doctors or the lawyers.

Someone hand me a ****ing air sick bag.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #42 on:** September 12, 2003, 12:27:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
Does less than a million settlement qualify as pro bono?

Sorry if I can't be moved by that.

That was a clever retort, but if you're trying to make a serious point, you obviously have no idea how much it costs to try a lawsuit. An attorney or law firm that takes on a contingency case gets $0 if they lose, no matter how much (in the millions of dollars for reasonably complicated cases) he or they have invested. They prospect of a maximum contingency fee of $250k that will not even approach covering that investment, let alone counterbalance the risk of losing, is not going to entice many (any) lawyers or law firms.

rpm · « **Reply #43 on:** September 12, 2003, 01:58:55 AM »

If Gov. Perry was REALLY concerned about protecting Texas Doctors and not Insurance companies, why did he veto HB 1862 in 2001? The "Prompt Pay" bill would have forced insurance companies to pay claims submitted by Doctors in a timely manner. This is the major problem facing Texas Docs, not malpractice suits.

Here is a statement from the President of The Texas Medical Assn.

Quote

Governor Perry’s veto of HB 1862, the Texas “Fair Pay” reforms, gives the profit-driven managed care industry in our state a license to steal. While we appreciate the governor’s giving our views a fair hearing the past few days, the basis of this veto is fatally flawed. It will make a bad situation worse.

For more than four years now, the nation’s largest commercial HMOs and their intermediaries have methodically delayed for months at a time – or simply stolen – reimbursement for claims properly submitted by and owed to physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals. This has driven many small group and solo medical practices to the brink of insolvency, dangerously eroding our ability to properly care for our patients.

Current state law governing this behavior is riddled with loopholes, which the plans routinely exploit. That’s why the Texas Legislature – with overwhelming, bipartisan support – sent Governor Perry a comprehensive rewrite of those statutes that closes the loopholes and compels all managed care payers to stop a statewide pattern of predatory and deceptive business practices. It would have dramatically reduced the probability of lawsuits against the plans. It also would have greatly strengthened the plans’ hand in detecting improperly – or even fraudulently – submitted claims.

This untenable situation simply cannot be remedied by dumping the problem back in the lap of the Commissioner of Insurance. Doctors’ files are stuffed with letters from the Texas Department of Insurance over the past two years stating they have no authority over their prompt pay complaints.

The chaos this veto will produce can only drive more physicians into financial distress or bankruptcy and backs us into a corner where our only remedy is the courthouse.

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

Texas Medical Association is a professional organization of more than 37,000 physician and medical student members. It is located in Austin and has 118 component county medical societies around the state. The Association represents 85 percent of the doctors of medicine licensed and residing in Texas. TMA’s key objective is to improve the health of all Texans.

Please don't let some slick 30 second TV ad sway you into beliving Prop 12 is a good thing. Please, take the time to look at who's behind this (Joe Nixon for one) and look at what happened in California after they passed similar legislation. I am not making this stuff up.

Fatty · « **Reply #44 on:** September 12, 2003, 06:08:57 AM »

I do understand Buckeye, but the difference is I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing.