Circle C Neighbors

Hey ANONYMOUS246, have you actually READ proposition 12??? Did you notice that it not only applies to health care but OTHER ACTIONS???? Do you know what an Offer of Judgment is and how it works? Have you ever read Article 4590i of the Texas Civil Statutes which already makes a plaintiff jump through a million hurdles just to file suit against a health care provider in the first place? I plan on doing a point by point rebuttal of your corporate tripe when I get a moment but I thought this might be a good place to start.....

Continued

Here's why you should vote NO on Proposition 12:

FIRST AND FOREMOST, PROPOSITION 12 IS NOT LIMITED TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES!!!!!

Does anyone not see the irony in the fact that we entrust juries to impose the death penalty but not to impose damage awards. Essentially, they are qualified to kill someone but not fine them?!?!?!?!?!?

1. It will place limits on ''hard-to-quantify'' non-economic damages. These account for more than 65% of jury verdicts in healthcare liability cases

Why do we need a limit on damages that are hard to quantify? Isn't that what juries are for? Seeing that 98% of civil cases settle before a jury renders a verdict, isn't this statistic pretty much useless? And since medical malpractice cases only make up about 1/10th of all tort trials, why does proposition 12 include ''other actions?''

2. It does not impact economic damages, which cover medical expenses and lost income.

Translation: if you're a stay at home mom or dad, retired or a child, you're screwed. Not only if the doctor accidentally saws your leg off, but also if a drunk driver kills your spouse or an unsafe product takes away your eyesight.

3. It will keep medical care affordable and accessible for ALL TEXANS.

No it won't. In fact, between 1991 and 2002, malpractice insurance premiums in states with caps increased at a greater rate than states without caps. (http://www.weissratings.com/MedicalMalpractice.pdf) Morever, we heard this one back when tort reform was passed in the mid 1990's. Is your insurance any lower? Do consumer goods cost less? Is there ANYTHING in Austin that costs less now than it did in 1994? And of course, what does this have to do with ''OTHER ACTIONS?''

4. In states without non-economic damage caps, doctors pay higher rates for medical liability insurance, which is passed on to the patient in the form of higher medical bills.

No they don't. The lowest rates in the country are in states without caps. Minnesota's median premium in 2002 was $10,142. No caps there. Not only that, only 28% of your premium actually goes toward patient expenses. The other 72% goes toward administrative and related costs. And of course, this has nothing to do with caps in ''OTHER ACTIONS.''

5. Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs have forced some doctors to close or cut back their practices, reducing available healthcare in MANY areas of Texas.

Oh yeah, it is just impossible to find a doctor in Texas. I pass dozens of them on the way to work every morning. And of course, this has nothing to do with caps in ''OTHER ACTIONS.''

6. In other states, non-economic damage caps are proven to keep healthcare costs under control for both healthcare providers and for consumers (you and me).

No they don't....see above....

Continued 2

7. The personal injury trial lawyers and various organizations that front for them already have begun their fundraising, advertising, and (MIS)information campaigns. It?’s estimated they will spend as much as $15 million before it?’s all over.

Which is about 1/100th of what insurance companies and corporations will be spending to get this tripe passed. And lets not forget that many of ''various organizations'' are consumer organizations. (remember? ''you and me'')

8. If you?’re FOR affordable and accessible health care, vote for Proposition 12 in September.

Don't forget children. Anyone who doesn't vote for this drivel must hate children. Puppies too.

9. Opponents of Proposition 12 have obscured the picture and confused the public. It is a FICTION that only incompetent doctors are sued. If this were true, the Texas Valley must attract primarily incompetent physicians because the highest percentage of sued doctors practice in this area. The reality is that juries in this area have historically given large awards to patients. Many of these doctors are sued not because of incompetence, but because they happen to practice in a favorable location for large jury awards.

Then why not make it harder to file a frivolous lawsuit? Article 4590i of the Texas Civil Statutes provides that you can't sue a doctor for malpractice unless you first find another doctor to identify the proper standard of care, state how the other doctor's malpractice violated that standard and also state that such violation caused the Plaintiff damage. Moreover, Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Chapters 9 and 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allow a judge to summary dismiss a frivolous lawsuit and punish the Plaintiff, and his or her lawyer, for filing it. And of course, what does this have to do with ''OTHER ACTIONS?'' This law throws the baby out with the bathwater and lumps meritorious suits with frivolous ones.

10. It is also a FICTION that medical liability suits drive bad doctors out of the profession. In fact, most lawsuits where there is significant malpractice rarely come to trial, but are usually settled out of court.

In fact, 98% of ALL CIVIL CASES are settled out of court. MOOT POINT.

11. Another FICTION is that restricting non-economic rewards will prevent any significant monetary award to a patient in a medical liability lawsuit. Actually, pain and suffering losses cannot be measured quantitatively, so an unlimited and enormous compensation can be demanded at trial. These demands are often used to strong arm physicians into settlements.

Translation: If you are not a wage earner, your life is worth nothing. And lest we forget, the same people who are being asked to vote on this law are the ones who impose damage awards. Are we afraid of ourselves?

12. The potential for enormous monetary awards presents a tempting opportunity for poorly based claims against a physician. More than 80 % of medical liability suits result in no award against physicians, but they must be defended by the insurance company, often costing up to $100,000, along with the emotional impact on the physician and his/her family.

This is totally misleading. The reason more than 80% of medmals lawsuit result in no award against physicians is because they settle out of court. Moreover, why the concern about the emotional impact on the physician and his/her family while restricting the patient's ability to recover for that same emotional impact?

Continued 3

13. Proposition 12 is about placing reasonable limitations on unmeasurable areas and holding malpractice insurance premiums and frivolous lawsuits in check. Proposition 12 is not about holding physicians less accountable or denying patients awards when malpractice may be proven.

No its not. Proposition 12 is about restricting an injured parties' right to recover anything other than out of pocket damages and medical expenses. This includes not only pain and suffering, but also disfigurement, impairment, mental anguish, loss of consortium, loss of affection, etc.......And of course, proposition 12 is NOT RESTRICTED TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT BUT ENCOMPASSES VIRTUALLY ANY LAWSUIT.