I didn't know much about this except for the overly dramatic commercials I heard on the radio. My first impression was that this is Trial lawyers voting No on 12 to keep big awards vs. Insurance companies trying to cap awards. The Houston Chronicle on Aug. 30, 2003 stated that: Proposition 12, which goes before voters Sept. 13, is a controversial attempt to address the issue of insurance costs by changing the Texas Constitution to allow lawmakers to put limits on certain lawsuit damages, such as those for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. According to the federal government's National Practitioner Data Bank, 5 percent of physicians listed are responsible for nearly 33 percent of the total dollars paid for physicians in malpractice judgments or settlements from September 1990 to March 2003. Patient advocates and plaintiffs' attorneys argue that limiting jury awards will weaken the judicial system's ability to punish negligent doctors, deter others and obtain compensation for injured patients. Proponents of the amendment say laws already are in place to protect people against negligent physicians. This and other statements point to the fact that a minority off bad doctors make up the majority of malpractice cases. Pulling the liscense of repeat offenders would cut the costs more than anything it seems. The yes on 12 group, backed by insurance companies, lists the following reasosn to vote yes: Proposition 12 would help keep medical care affordable and accessible for all Texans by giving doctors, hospitals and nursing homes much-needed insurance rate relief. In Texas and other states without non-economic damage caps, doctors pay higher rates for medical liability insurance, which is passed along to patients in the form of higher medical bills._ Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs also have forced some doctors to close or cut back their practices, reducing available healthcare in many areas of Texas. Proposition 12 will help reverse a trend of decreasing healthcare services. A recent statewide survey of physicians found the current liability climate has caused nearly two-thirds to deny or refer high-risk cases and about half to stop providing certain services to their patients. The No on 12 group, backed by patients rights groups, academics familiar with Texas Government, and of course personal injury firms, states that: Proposition 12 would shift power that currently lies in the hands of juries and citizens to the control of Texas politicians and lobbyists. We fear that this will result in powerful interests gaining special legal protections at the expense of Texas families, doctors, seniors, workers and businesses. Proposition 12 does nothing to guarantee lower insurance rates for doctors, but instead will radically alter the Texas constitution to shield negligent corporations from their responsibility when they cause harm. The legislature already passed caps on noneconomic damages that [went] into place on September 1,2003. Questions about whether that bill is constitutional willbe considered by long established and expedited courtprocedures. Three key words in the proposed constitutional amendment -“and other actions”- makes it apply to many other types of cases, including pollution, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, auto insurance, AND OTHER CASES. There is nothing in Proposition 12 that guarantees lower insurance rates for Texas doctors. We’ve seen this type of crisis with homeowners and car insurance. The medical malpractice issue is just another example of insurance companies jacking up their rates to protect their profits. Insurance costs have proven time and time again that the best “tort reform” would change Texas laws to force HMOs, hospitals, health care providers and insurance companies to be more accountable for their actions. So after looking at the facts as presented, I have decided to vote "NO" on Prop 12. I urge you to look at the facts for yourself by visiting the websites below and exercising your right to vote on Saturday. Prop 12 Texans against Prop 12 Yes on 12
I'm voting against it, as I've mentioned in one or two threads. Maybe I'll cut and paste one of those posts here after awhile.
Sorry, I didn't see the other post. But now that i have, I hope the tone on this will remain a little more civil.
BIG FAT NO--Why should I help Insurance companies recooup losses due to their investment choices by giving away my rights to special interest lobbies?
I, along with all of those concerned with the state of our healthcare system, will be voting YES on Proposition 12.
No here, I just think that control of verdicts should remain in judge's hands rather than the legislature (lobbyists).
I will be voting YES. I am tired of the trial lawyers making a mockery of the justice system. By the way, the law capping punitive damages has already passed. This proposition is just in case the courts frown upon the law.
You're against discount bus fares for war widows? sorry, coudn't help myself... It's a really tough issue. I haven't seen or heard any ads against prop 12. (Though that one on the radio about the kid that fell off the ladder is stupid...Yeah, a 911 dispatcher is really going to know if somebody needs a neurosurgeon or not) I'm thinking that it should be limited to physicians that practice in areas where malpractice rates are really high, like Ob/Gyn
Believe it or not I knew that... there was a hint of sarcasm there. I was wondering that myself... could it be that corporations are footing the bill for the Yes ads? mmmm could be...
I heard one for the first time this morning on 740 and you would be surprised how many groups have come out against it. MADD is one, which stuck out in my head because I work with someone who is very involved with that group. Some group within HPD also came out against it. Honestly, I have no idea what interests MADD is trying to protect, but they seem to be one of the major groups in support of the opposing side.
i've received a ton of ads through the mail asking people to vote against...funded by trial lawyers, of course.
another bigmouth bass takes the lure, hook, line and sinker the justice system is controlled by business, not the trial lawyers, who have very little power.
they're saying that this opens the door for the legislature to control damages in ALL cases...not just med-mal cases. and there's a lot of concern over that. the language is very broad...and could certainly be interpreted that way.
That is extremely dumb at BEST. Trial lawyers make an incredible amount of money leaching of businesses through the legal system. I wonder how much all this crap ends up really costing us as consumers. If businesses were really in control, we wouldn't have people on the verge of taking out McDonald's because food is fattening.
It is a classic deception and manipulation of the democratic process. First, they have the election this weekend instead of in two months, when ten times as many voters will go to the polls. If you set the election in September, it means you really don't want voters to participate. It means you are hoping for that small, conservative turnout. You're not looking for the will of the people, but for the best way to win a law change not favored by most Texans. So it's undemocratic by design. It is also the classic lie. It's not just about med mal. That is the Boogeyman issue. Spend a million or so on TV, get your message out in a small election, and get a blank check to start limiting damages the next regular session. This is a huge power grab by the insurance and doctors lobbies, and it is made possible by Republican control of State Government. Foxes guarding the hen house.
