An essay on the "Affordable Health Care" initiatives now on the ballot in Texas and other states.

A friend of mine has asked me to publish this. The topic of health
care is a frequent area of discourse in this forum. To that end, I
will copy her thoughts to the group for open discussion.

Essentially, Texas (and other states) are considering proposals to
limit the insurers' liability in medical malpractice.

On one hand, it is claimed that this would cause medical malpractice
insurance rates to drop because the payers of the premiums would not
subsidize lawyers. (Charlie White, you shyster, where are you?)

I will allow my friend, Corinne, to make her alternative case as
follows my comments.

Personally, I have yet to form a hard opinion. I'd be most interested
in hearing your own opinions in this matter as the day of decision is
quickly approaching and the choices we make herein are just reasonably
important ones.

My friend, Corinne, writes:

< QUOTE >

August 30, 2003

Dear Friends and Family,

As many of you know, I have struggled with health problems for the
past 13 years because of exposure to toxic chemicals and heavy metals
at my former place of employment. What you may not know is that the
institution where I used to work had a $250,000 cap on damages
associated with job-related injuries.

My personal story has absolutely nothing to do with doctors, nurses,
or hospitals harming me, but it has a lot to do with $250,000 caps for
damages. In case you don't know, personal injury lawsuits are very
expensive to try. Also, the attorneys will typically get 30% to 40%
of the winnings for their time and efforts. In 1990, my out-of-pocket
medical expenses were less than $700 for the year. Since 1991 to the
present, I have accrued close to $200,000 in out-of-pocket medical
expenses. If I had ever gotten to have my day in court and had won my
case, the most I would have received would have been 60% to 70% of
$250,000, which amounts to $150,000-$175,000 total. Obviously you
can see for yourself that even if I had won a personal injury lawsuit,
my medical bills have already exceeded the maximum winnings possible
in the world of $250,000 caps for personal injury damages.

I am writing you because Texas voters are getting a chance now to vote
on whether a $250,000 cap will be instituted in the state of Texas for
medical malpractice cases in Proposition 12. Early voting has already
begun. Election Day is September 13, 2003, which is only 14 days
away. I am asking you to join me in voting "no" on Proposition 12.

Many of you have supported me in my journey. Some of you who are
really close know that it is a miracle by any doctor's standards that
I am still alive today. I am still here only by the grace of God.
That grace includes the care of some wonderful doctors, good friends,
and the support of my family. I have learned many things in the past
twelve years including gratitude, acceptance for the things that
cannot be changed, and courage to change the things that I can.

I have an opportunity and also the courage to change something
extremely important by writing you this letter. I can share with you
two things about $250,000 caps in Proposition 12 from my own personal
experience. The first is that if you or your loved one dies because
of someone else's negligence, your portion of $250,000 will not take
away one second of yours and your family's grief. Secondly, if you or
your loved one is horribly harmed and lives, your portion of $250,000
may not even come close to paying for your medical bills or your
beloved's medical bills for the rest of your life or your beloved's
life. If you doubt the truth in that statement, just remember me, and
please vote "no" on proposition 12 between now and September 13. You
will be helping Texans who have been harmed by someone else's
negligence have their fair day in court.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Thank you most of
all for voting in the election!


Sincerely,
Corinne [ Last Name Deleted]

< /QUOTE >

Jones

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:vqv6lv8e39d9vgqhmoph8rmtcgtj1bc1qm@4ax.com...
> A friend of mine has asked me to publish this. The topic of health
> care is a frequent area of discourse in this forum. To that end, I
> will copy her thoughts to the group for open discussion.
>
> Essentially, Texas (and other states) are considering proposals to
> limit the insurers' liability in medical malpractice.
>
> On one hand, it is claimed that this would cause medical malpractice
> insurance rates to drop because the payers of the premiums would not
> subsidize lawyers. (Charlie White, you shyster, where are you?)
>
> I will allow my friend, Corinne, to make her alternative case as
> follows my comments.
>
> Personally, I have yet to form a hard opinion. I'd be most interested
> in hearing your own opinions in this matter as the day of decision is
> quickly approaching and the choices we make herein are just reasonably
> important ones.
>

I will be generous and posit that Connie is confused about Medical
Malpractice Caps, both in Texas and other states.

From The Houston Chronicle at
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2065939.

"Proposition 12 is one of 22 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution
to be voted on Sept. 13, and its passage would remove a probable court
challenge of the caps on medical malpractice awards the Legislature passed
last session. The new law limits only noneconomic damages, such as pain and
suffering, to a total of $750,000. The caps would not affect awards for
medical expenses, lost wages or punitive damages."

It appears Texas is following the same model used in other states. Medical
costs and economic damages are fully recoverable. The only cap is on 'Pain
and Suffering". Outrageous awards by sympathetic juries are always in the
'pain and suffering' area.

I will agree the loss of a loved one has no price. However, persons and
their lawyers should not win at the crap table of the legal bar.

--
Dave
(The Other)

Medical malpractice suits and settlements have never amounted to more than
about 1% of the total health care bill in any given year. Real savings
would come if drug costs were lower, unnecessary and inappropriate tests for
conditions not associated with the diagnosis were not done and if
unnecessary procedures were not demanded (and done) by physicians and
patients.

Malpractice "reform" is a buzzword for "take the mind off the real problem
because we, the medical profession, can make more money stealing your money
up front without giving you real quality care at affordable prices".
--
If you get what you want, what's to stop you
from asking for more?

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:vqv6lv8e39d9vgqhmoph8rmtcgtj1bc1qm@4ax.com...
> A friend of mine has asked me to publish this. The topic of health
> care is a frequent area of discourse in this forum. To that end, I
> will copy her thoughts to the group for open discussion.
>
> Essentially, Texas (and other states) are considering proposals to
> limit the insurers' liability in medical malpractice.
>
> On one hand, it is claimed that this would cause medical malpractice
> insurance rates to drop because the payers of the premiums would not
> subsidize lawyers. (Charlie White, you shyster, where are you?)
>
> I will allow my friend, Corinne, to make her alternative case as
> follows my comments.
>
> Personally, I have yet to form a hard opinion. I'd be most interested
> in hearing your own opinions in this matter as the day of decision is
> quickly approaching and the choices we make herein are just reasonably
> important ones.
>
> My friend, Corinne, writes:
>
> < QUOTE >
>
> August 30, 2003
>
> Dear Friends and Family,
>
> As many of you know, I have struggled with health problems for the
> past 13 years because of exposure to toxic chemicals and heavy metals
> at my former place of employment. What you may not know is that the
> institution where I used to work had a $250,000 cap on damages
> associated with job-related injuries.
>
> My personal story has absolutely nothing to do with doctors, nurses,
> or hospitals harming me, but it has a lot to do with $250,000 caps for
> damages. In case you don't know, personal injury lawsuits are very
> expensive to try. Also, the attorneys will typically get 30% to 40%
> of the winnings for their time and efforts. In 1990, my out-of-pocket
> medical expenses were less than $700 for the year. Since 1991 to the
> present, I have accrued close to $200,000 in out-of-pocket medical
> expenses. If I had ever gotten to have my day in court and had won my
> case, the most I would have received would have been 60% to 70% of
> $250,000, which amounts to $150,000-$175,000 total. Obviously you
> can see for yourself that even if I had won a personal injury lawsuit,
> my medical bills have already exceeded the maximum winnings possible
> in the world of $250,000 caps for personal injury damages.
>
> I am writing you because Texas voters are getting a chance now to vote
> on whether a $250,000 cap will be instituted in the state of Texas for
> medical malpractice cases in Proposition 12. Early voting has already
> begun. Election Day is September 13, 2003, which is only 14 days
> away. I am asking you to join me in voting "no" on Proposition 12.
>
> Many of you have supported me in my journey. Some of you who are
> really close know that it is a miracle by any doctor's standards that
> I am still alive today. I am still here only by the grace of God.
> That grace includes the care of some wonderful doctors, good friends,
> and the support of my family. I have learned many things in the past
> twelve years including gratitude, acceptance for the things that
> cannot be changed, and courage to change the things that I can.
>
> I have an opportunity and also the courage to change something
> extremely important by writing you this letter. I can share with you
> two things about $250,000 caps in Proposition 12 from my own personal
> experience. The first is that if you or your loved one dies because
> of someone else's negligence, your portion of $250,000 will not take
> away one second of yours and your family's grief. Secondly, if you or
> your loved one is horribly harmed and lives, your portion of $250,000
> may not even come close to paying for your medical bills or your
> beloved's medical bills for the rest of your life or your beloved's
> life. If you doubt the truth in that statement, just remember me, and
> please vote "no" on proposition 12 between now and September 13. You
> will be helping Texans who have been harmed by someone else's
> negligence have their fair day in court.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Thank you most of
> all for voting in the election!
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Corinne [ Last Name Deleted]
>
> < /QUOTE >
>
> Jones

References: <5LM4b.38450$nf3.2355@fed1read07>
Posted by: "Dave Thompson"

>
>"!Jones" wrote in message
>news:vqv6lv8e39d9vgqhmoph8rmtcgtj1bc1qm@4ax.com...
>> A friend of mine has asked me to publish this. The topic of health
>> care is a frequent area of discourse in this forum. To that end, I
>> will copy her thoughts to the group for open discussion.
>>
>> Essentially, Texas (and other states) are considering proposals to
>> limit the insurers' liability in medical malpractice.
>>
>> On one hand, it is claimed that this would cause medical malpractice
>> insurance rates to drop because the payers of the premiums would not
>> subsidize lawyers. (Charlie White, you shyster, where are you?)
>>
>> I will allow my friend, Corinne, to make her alternative case as
>> follows my comments.
>>
>> Personally, I have yet to form a hard opinion. I'd be most interested
>> in hearing your own opinions in this matter as the day of decision is
>> quickly approaching and the choices we make herein are just reasonably
>> important ones.
>>
>
>I will be generous and posit that Connie is confused about Medical
>Malpractice Caps, both in Texas and other states.

I'll be generous and posit that you could have gotten the writer's
name right had you really tried to do so.

>From The Houston Chronicle at
>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2065939.
>
>"Proposition 12 is one of 22 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution
>to be voted on Sept. 13, and its passage would remove a probable court
>challenge of the caps on medical malpractice awards the Legislature passed
>last session. The new law limits only noneconomic damages, such as pain and
>suffering, to a total of $750,000. The caps would not affect awards for
>medical expenses, lost wages or punitive damages."

Dave, please tell me that the Chronicle's editorial staff didn't let
that blatant comma splice get past them!

>It appears Texas is following the same model used in other states. Medical
>costs and economic damages are fully recoverable. The only cap is on 'Pain
>and Suffering". Outrageous awards by sympathetic juries are always in the
>'pain and suffering' area.
>
>I will agree the loss of a loved one has no price. However, persons and
>their lawyers should not win at the crap table of the legal bar.

Well, IMHO, pain and suffering kind of suck. Would that be similar to
punitive damages?

Based on what you write, I'd say that you favor this type of
legislation. The counterpoint is that it would keep some people from
bringing their case to court. Do you think that this type of
legislation would have a net positive effect? If so, why?

My question is: will this ultimately give us better health care... I
really don't give a rat's ass about the lawyers.

Jones

References:
Posted by: !Jones

>As many of you know, I have struggled with health problems for the
>past 13 years because of exposure to toxic chemicals and heavy metals
>at my former place of employment. What you may not know is that the
>institution where I used to work had a $250,000 cap on damages
>associated with job-related injuries.

In that case (assuming you are from Texas,) you were working for a
body of the state or local government. This is done to protect the
taxpayers, not the employee. Many of us here suffer long-term injury
from highly toxic chemicals used during the Vietnam war so we are
familiar with your plight.

When we try to say that it's possible we were poisoned, the VA will
say, "Prove it," and then deliberately alter the evidence that might
prove it. (Yes, Corinne, they _will_ do that!)

But, to your essay. Would more than $250,000 restore your health?
I'm guessing that there's simply no top end to your damage. You
probably feel betrayed that your government would take your services
and simply toss you aside, but that's how it goes. I'd bet that, more
than wanting money, you want them to have to acknowledge you, right?
(Where nothing makes a government office acknowledge someone like
writing a huge check.)

I don't think that the cap is a good idea because the possibility of a
large settlement will tend to cause the institution to settle where
they might otherwise fight. The VA has similar caps and, of course,
we have just WONDERFUL health care, right gang?

Bob

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:f5c7lvs0coej8pn5nrume220dq928q9j0p@4ax.com...
>
> I'll be generous and posit that you could have gotten the writer's
> name right had you really tried to do so.
>
(Snip)
>
> Dave, please tell me that the Chronicle's editorial staff didn't let
> that blatant comma splice get past them!
>

The name slip was unintentional. I can only plead bifocals. I am not
responsible for the Houston Chronicle and its editorial policy.

I thought you wanted a serious discussion as opposed to your childish
trolling.

I was wrong.

--
Dave Thompson

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:04:53 GMT, "meport"
wrote:
>Medical malpractice suits and settlements have never amounted to more than
>about 1% of the total health care bill in any given year. Real savings
>would come if drug costs were lower, unnecessary and inappropriate tests for
>conditions not associated with the diagnosis were not done and if
>unnecessary procedures were not demanded (and done) by physicians and
>patients.
************* *******
You might consider that many of those tests to which you address
this complaint are often demanded in a manner seeking protection.
Not for being "reasonable".
After all, months, if not years later, some attorney, taking
his/her full leisure can then come back and ask why such and such
a test was not done --- never mind that such a test might not
normally be associated with the problem with which the patient
presented...
As is, perhaps while Hilary Clinton demands Health Care Reform
she will, AT THE SAME, demand Attorny Reform and set a Board of
Physicians and average Citizens to review how attorneys have
represented clients and decide how much to award the client for
the pain and suffering of having an incompetent attorney who was
guilty of malpractice, as evidenced by losing the case???
Let's reform the legal practice.
---Mac

References:
Posted by: "Dave Thompson"

>
>"!Jones" wrote in message
>news:f5c7lvs0coej8pn5nrume220dq928q9j0p@4ax.com...
>>
>> I'll be generous and posit that you could have gotten the writer's
>> name right had you really tried to do so.
>>
>(Snip)
>>
>> Dave, please tell me that the Chronicle's editorial staff didn't let
>> that blatant comma splice get past them!
>>
>
>The name slip was unintentional. I can only plead bifocals. I am not
>responsible for the Houston Chronicle and its editorial policy.
>
>I thought you wanted a serious discussion as opposed to your childish
>trolling.
>
>I was wrong.

How many years have we known each other, Dave? In that period of
years, how many verbal food fights have we had around here? Since the
answer to both is quite a few, why are you suddenly developing such
sensitive feelings, and it *was* a comma splice, and I did ask a
serious question, and you snipped it... so there.

I asked you if you believed that this type of legislation would have a
net positive effect on health care.

Why, next thing you know, it'll be plonksville for me, I wager.

Jones

References: <48m7lvk4ldfjgblht66u3qcoqou2ir8fgv@4ax.com>
Posted by: Mac

>On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:04:53 GMT, "meport"
> wrote:
>>Medical malpractice suits and settlements have never amounted to more than
>>about 1% of the total health care bill in any given year. Real savings
>>would come if drug costs were lower, unnecessary and inappropriate tests for
>>conditions not associated with the diagnosis were not done and if
>>unnecessary procedures were not demanded (and done) by physicians and
>>patients.
>************* *******
>You might consider that many of those tests to which you address
>this complaint are often demanded in a manner seeking protection.
>Not for being "reasonable".
>After all, months, if not years later, some attorney, taking
>his/her full leisure can then come back and ask why such and such
>a test was not done --- never mind that such a test might not
>normally be associated with the problem with which the patient
>presented...
>As is, perhaps while Hilary Clinton demands Health Care Reform
>she will, AT THE SAME, demand Attorny Reform and set a Board of
>Physicians and average Citizens to review how attorneys have
>represented clients and decide how much to award the client for
>the pain and suffering of having an incompetent attorney who was
>guilty of malpractice, as evidenced by losing the case???
>Let's reform the legal practice.
>---Mac

Maybe you plan to sue them?

The cost of a trial can be huge. Quite often, when a person is
injured by malpractice, they are out of work for a significant period.
This lets the insurance companies play by "Las Vegas" rules.

What this means is that you might win 250 K, but it'll drain your life
savings even to get started. Yeah, your odds might be good over a
series of cases, but you lose one and you're bust.

The possibility of larger settlements makes it attractive for an
attorney with greater resources to take the case. You can knock
lawyers all you want to, but the insurance company has lots of them on
staff. If you ever go up against them, you'll need to get one.

Bob

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:f5c7lvs0coej8pn5nrume220dq928q9j0p@4ax.com...
> References: <5LM4b.38450$nf3.2355@fed1read07>
> Posted by: "Dave Thompson"
>
> >
> >"!Jones" wrote in message
> >news:vqv6lv8e39d9vgqhmoph8rmtcgtj1bc1qm@4ax.com...
> Well, IMHO, pain and suffering kind of suck. Would that be similar to
> punitive damages?
>
> Based on what you write, I'd say that you favor this type of
> legislation. The counterpoint is that it would keep some people from
> bringing their case to court. Do you think that this type of
> legislation would have a net positive effect? If so, why?
>

Let say you're out in a field and someone decides to take a shot at
you. Would you be concerned if the rules said the person
shooting could only use a .22 and you were 150 yards away? The way it is now
he can use a 155 howitzer. To be honest, this type of legislation is only
being enacted to reduce the malpractice premiums for doctors and reduce
the load on the courts. It does nothing to improve the quality of
healthcare.
All it does do is penalize a patient that has been the victim of substandard
medical care.

To achieve the effect that these laws are addressing, serious penalties
should
be administered against the lawyers that bring frivolous lawsuits that
insurance
companies settle rather than bother fighting. Substantial penalties should
also
be levied for suits that involve fraud.

Doctors that demonstrate incompetence should lose their license to practice.
As it stands in our area, the doctors are overseen by the local AMA. Since
it is a good ole boy network, the loss of a license is a rare occurrence. I
would
much rather see a competency review board that is not involved with or
controlled
by the local medical society.

Insurance companies should also come under scrutiny. They should have to
demonstrate that the rate increases being charged doctors are reasonable
and consistent with the losses incurred. Trying to put these guys under a
microscope to justify increases will bring an outpouring of accounting
babble that would put anyone to sleep but something has to be done to
reign these companies in. Whatever regulations that are in effect now
certainly isn't helping.

Caps imposed by an employer should be outlawed. They should be held
fully accountable for the safety of their employees.

> My question is: will this ultimately give us better health care... I
> really don't give a rat's ass about the lawyers.
>
> Jones