Really it caps it at $750,000, when you take into consideration the fact that the hospital can be sued for damages as well. Good post, all good points. Vote YES on Prop 12
So that explains why that bastion of liberal thought johnheath is voting NO. Wait, ummm ya. I stated in the very first post I didn't know about the issue, so I read the two sides. I made an INFORMED choice. I have not done any name calling, and I even responded to TJ's signature with facts. I can only defend myself, and yes, I am a Democrat. Sorry for breaking the stereotype of a reactionary, dope smoking, hippy idiot.
What are you talking about pgabriel? Lower insurance costs is EXACTLY the point. A group of doctors in South Texas staged a walkout in South Texas staged a walkout in protest of the ridiculous insurance costs. This law is for ALL of Texas, not just for the premier medical center. The poor areas are hit the hardest.
I think you feel this is the main root for every problem in America. You have a really demeaning view of the American public in general, as you post this conservative rhetoric on just about every topic on this board.
Prop 12 is another example of this out of control Texas Legislature... the worst in my memory. Here are a few of the organizations against it: AARP... what's their agenda?? Mothers Against Drunk Driving or MADD... who's tool are they?? Texas Federation of Teachers... a bunch of trail lawyers?? Why do these organizations oppose it if it's such great legislation? If people are too busy or lazy to look into Prop 12, think about the fact that these 3 groups oppose it. Why? Because it's bad for Texans.
There were no facts in your 'analysis' of my signature. There was nothing but misguided opinion statements which were unsubstantiated. If you truly think that a cap on non-economic damages will do nothing to lower doctors insurance premiums, then I would like to introduce you to an *entire medical community* who disagrees. You also responded to my claim that "frivolous lawsuits are causing irreparable damage to our healthcare system" by stating your opinion on the number of lawsuits being filed. While we all appreciate this non-sequitor, please provide relevant analysis. It is not the number, but the lottery jackpot-style awards that are being granted by runaway juries. Your post did nothing to dispute my signature.
I was talking about liberals, who define their positions according to whater the "evil" Republicans support.
This is a hugely important issue, and conservatives really need to consider if our Legislative branch should be allowed to grab power from the judicial branch. We need to have faith in our fellow citizens to make proper decisions, and then we need to hold judges accountable for not striking down bad jury decisions. The apparatus to stop frivilous lawsuits is already in place- our society just needs to learn how to take advantage of the present rules. The idea that our peers vote on an issue, and then a representative of the people (the Judge) appends that view in a suitable fashion is a very Republican concept.
Khan, How many people do you know who have gotten rich in a lawsuit? This is the stuff of urban legend. Any time any case has a result which seems excessive (at least once a month), the insurance and business lobbies give it wide distribution through press agents. They push it as a story line and try to make the plaintiff look greedy and unjustly enriched. The McDonald's coffee burning case was one such classic. She never GOT the 2 million, a detail always left on the cutting room floor when it is trotted out for the 10,000th time. Doctors get sued for malpractice because they commit malpractice. It takes the following to get a judgment for malpractice, at a minimum: 1. an injury which a qualified doctor opines directly resulted from the failure of another doctor to take a needed action 2. supporting testimony by at least one qualified doctor that the failure of the accused failed to meet the standard DOCTORS hold other DOCTORS to. 3. a jury who finds at least 10-2 for the plaintiff 4. a judge who enters a judgment based upon the verdict and his knowledge of what is reasonable and fair under the law 5. an interim appellate court, and 6. a state supreme court Find a case with a 12 million dollar verdict for personal or med mal injury, and I'll show you a guy who can't go to the bathroom by himself or feed himself. Do you really want to protect the 5% of doctors who commit 33% of the malpractice? Doesn't it make more sense to price the bad ones out of the market, and reward those with no claims?
I saw johnheath's quote, MadMax, and I have to say that this is more in line with the Republicans I know. It is a minority which has grabbed the leadership of the Republican Party. They are far to the right of the typical Republicans I am friends with. I'm glad to see knee-jerking responses aren't the order of the day. Reasonable Republicans should be appalled at much that is currently going on in Austin and in Washington. Of course, that is the opinion of this Democrat, so take it for what it's worth.
has anyone seen any polling data on this?? has the chronicle or the morning news done a statewide poll yet to see how voters are leaning?
in today's Texas, most of the district judges are Republicans who were either appointed by the Governor or ran with his blessing. And those judges hear the motions for new trial and the motions for judgment that take place following trials. The judge has broad discretion in remitting (lowering) damages from the jury verdict, or ignoring or not including certain damages, or just ordering a new trial. If you can't convince a judge you deserve a break on the damages, you probably don't. And if you can't get the judge to go along, there are two appellate levels. what is happening is a power grab, as the lobby moves to get the decision in the hands of the biggest whores in the State of Texas, the legislature. The lege is OWNED by lobbyists.
This is the part that sticks in my craw. This looks to me like a way for the legislature to have control over damages that can be awarded. With that kind of control, the legislature could pass new limits every time power shifted. The judge has discretion on what the jury awards in most cases and if the judgement is too high, it get set down by either the trial judge or the appelate court. The judge is the one who should decide whether a verdict is fair or a lawsuit is frivolous. Politicians will use the power for politics and people will suffer for it. EDIT: I agree that the amount of money trial lawyers are allowed to pillage needs to be limited, but this is not the right way to do it.
I told ya, here's another teary conservative using the world evil. It's just part of their whole schtick. Can I get an "evil doers" anyone? Bueller!?!
