Vote NO on Prop. 12....The 'Bend over and take it' proposition!

[All_Seeing_Eye]

Proposition 12: NO, NO, NO: "The constitutional amendment concerning civil
lawsuits against doctors and health care providers, and other actions,
authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic
damages."

This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits (that's
the meaning of the bland "and other actions"). Does anybody really believe
the lobby's greed has been slaked or that given the opportunity the Lege
won't continue to feed the beast? This is bad policy and bad law, legally
and constitutionally suicidal.

http://www.texansagainstprop12.com/

http://www.tpj.org/press_releases/prop12_interests.html

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/454745.html

[Neal Atkins]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

[Texan]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

The reason I will vote NO is because I have more faith in 12 regular
citizens than I do in cash hungry politicians. Think about it when you
read about this "lawsuit abuse". 12 regular, normal people were
convinced that the injured person deserved the settlement.
So who do you trust> the politicians needing campaign contributions?
or 12 of your fellow citizens on a jury?
You decide, then vote accordingly.

[Neal Atkins]

Post by Texan

Post by Neal Atkins
And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

The reason I will vote NO is because I have more faith in 12 regular
citizens than I do in cash hungry politicians. Think about it when you
read about this "lawsuit abuse". 12 regular, normal people were
convinced that the injured person deserved the settlement.
So who do you trust> the politicians needing campaign contributions?
or 12 of your fellow citizens on a jury?
You decide, then vote accordingly.

Are you aware that only about 2% of lawsuits result in a trial and
jury finding?

[Dusty Rhodes]

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Texan

Post by Neal Atkins
And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

The reason I will vote NO is because I have more faith in 12 regular
citizens than I do in cash hungry politicians. Think about it when
you read about this "lawsuit abuse". 12 regular, normal people were
convinced that the injured person deserved the settlement.
So who do you trust> the politicians needing campaign contributions?
or 12 of your fellow citizens on a jury?
You decide, then vote accordingly.

Are you aware that only about 2% of lawsuits result in a trial and
jury finding?

Are you aware of the term, "So fucking what?" Or are you stupidly asserting
that parties in civil conflict shouldn't have the right to settle their
disputes without being forced to go to trial?

Cheers,

Dusty

[All_Seeing_Eye]

Once again we have lost focus here, FORGET the doctors and layers and
insurance providers and their agenda for a moment... and consider this VERY
IMPORTANT phrase in the prososal:
"AND OTHER ACTIONS"
It would not simply cap noneconomic damages (e.g. pain & suffering) in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in ALL CIVIL LAWSUITS!!!!
Including Environmental damages, toxic spills, PCB sites, dangerous and
defective products, See (Ford Explorer & Crown Victoria), drunk running over
your kids...etc...etc.., The law would allow them an open door to further
define what "other Actions" would be..
As well as any suit you could bring against a corporation or person.
The new caps would not even cover the legal fees accrued by most modern
protracted civil suits..
This bill was not really intended to serve those poor doctors, or about
medical lawsuit issues, thats the Trojan Horse, it is all about protecting
spineless Corporations from liability and the vaunted proposition of being
good corporate citizens.
Clean off that Third Eye!

[Jim Riley]

Post by Texan

Post by Neal Atkins
And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

The reason I will vote NO is because I have more faith in 12 regular
citizens than I do in cash hungry politicians. Think about it when you
read about this "lawsuit abuse". 12 regular, normal people were
convinced that the injured person deserved the settlement.

Convinced by a lawyer who is getting a cut of the action, which he
will use for campaign contributions.

[animaux]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not a lawyer, nor physician. However, there have been at least three known
cases last year where a surgeon removed the wrong leg, the wrong breast, the
wrong hand, etc.

I wonder if you were the person who had their "other" leg cut off, which would
leave you with both legs removed, would feel if there was a maximum cap placed
on such malpractice.

Simply put, there are many millions of other frivolous lawsuits outside of
patient/physician driven cases of malpractice.

I vote no on Prop 12. I vote yes on human ability to learn where to draw the
line on frivolous lawsuits concerning physicians.

I'll give an example. I had a hysterectomy two years ago. The surgeon
perforated both my lower bowel and bladder. He called in a specialist
immediately to the O.R. and had them repaired. I woke up with a nasal/gastric
tube, but in a week I was urinating and eliminating. No, not normally. Never
fully back to before surgery. However, I slowly healed and have no real
problems. I easily could have sued. I doubt I'd have won with all the
adhesions I had to dig through, but I'd tie up the courts.

That is what greedy Americans have to discontinue doing. Frivolously suing as
if it were some form of winning the lottery.

[All_Seeing_Eye]

Thank you animaux,
Once again Mike Smith demonstrates 'compassionate' Neo-Conservatism, rather
than debating the argument in an intelligent manner, chooses to insult
people here by using pejorative little stabs and statements, and juvenile
over-simplification of a complex issue.
A man made from Limbaugh's Rib, and the blackest heart.

Post by animaux

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not a lawyer, nor physician. However, there have been at least three known
cases last year where a surgeon removed the wrong leg, the wrong breast, the
wrong hand, etc.
I wonder if you were the person who had their "other" leg cut off, which would
leave you with both legs removed, would feel if there was a maximum cap placed
on such malpractice.
Simply put, there are many millions of other frivolous lawsuits outside of
patient/physician driven cases of malpractice.
I vote no on Prop 12. I vote yes on human ability to learn where to draw the
line on frivolous lawsuits concerning physicians.
I'll give an example. I had a hysterectomy two years ago. The surgeon
perforated both my lower bowel and bladder. He called in a specialist
immediately to the O.R. and had them repaired. I woke up with a nasal/gastric
tube, but in a week I was urinating and eliminating. No, not normally.

Never

Post by animaux
fully back to before surgery. However, I slowly healed and have no real
problems. I easily could have sued. I doubt I'd have won with all the
adhesions I had to dig through, but I'd tie up the courts.
That is what greedy Americans have to discontinue doing. Frivolously suing as
if it were some form of winning the lottery.

[animaux]

I don't know about this person, but it sure is a simplified view of reality.
There is a lot we can do in society to help the medical field be more efficient.
People are lazy, trust people to make decisions for them, and don't or are not
willing to do a minute worth of research before having procedures.

If I were having my leg amputated, I would mark it with a big THIS LEG or I
would discuss it AGAIN right before the bye bye gas came on. Thus, prevention.
I have no idea how many people just wait for a doctor to do something, causing a
frivolous lawsuit.

So silly, really.

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
Thank you animaux,
Once again Mike Smith demonstrates 'compassionate' Neo-Conservatism, rather
than debating the argument in an intelligent manner, chooses to insult
people here by using pejorative little stabs and statements, and juvenile
over-simplification of a complex issue.
A man made from Limbaugh's Rib, and the blackest heart.

Post by animaux

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not a lawyer, nor physician. However, there have been at least three

known

Post by animaux
cases last year where a surgeon removed the wrong leg, the wrong breast,

the

Post by animaux
wrong hand, etc.
I wonder if you were the person who had their "other" leg cut off, which

would

Post by animaux
leave you with both legs removed, would feel if there was a maximum cap

placed

Post by animaux
on such malpractice.
Simply put, there are many millions of other frivolous lawsuits outside of
patient/physician driven cases of malpractice.
I vote no on Prop 12. I vote yes on human ability to learn where to draw

the

Post by animaux
line on frivolous lawsuits concerning physicians.
I'll give an example. I had a hysterectomy two years ago. The surgeon
perforated both my lower bowel and bladder. He called in a specialist
immediately to the O.R. and had them repaired. I woke up with a

nasal/gastric

Post by animaux
tube, but in a week I was urinating and eliminating. No, not normally.

Never

Post by animaux
fully back to before surgery. However, I slowly healed and have no real
problems. I easily could have sued. I doubt I'd have won with all the
adhesions I had to dig through, but I'd tie up the courts.
That is what greedy Americans have to discontinue doing. Frivolously

suing as

Post by animaux
if it were some form of winning the lottery.

[Mike Smith]

Post by animaux

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not a lawyer, nor physician. However, there have been at least three known
cases last year where a surgeon removed the wrong leg, the wrong breast, the
wrong hand, etc.
I wonder if you were the person who had their "other" leg cut off, which would
leave you with both legs removed, would feel if there was a maximum cap placed
on such malpractice.

Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

Post by animaux
Simply put, there are many millions of other frivolous lawsuits outside of
patient/physician driven cases of malpractice.

Right. Prop 12 is a start. That's why there is so much whining and
crying about it from the lawyers. They know it's just a start at
stopping their cash cow.

Post by animaux
I vote no on Prop 12. I vote yes on human ability to learn where to draw the
line on frivolous lawsuits concerning physicians.
I'll give an example. I had a hysterectomy two years ago. The surgeon
perforated both my lower bowel and bladder. He called in a specialist
immediately to the O.R. and had them repaired. I woke up with a nasal/gastric
tube, but in a week I was urinating and eliminating. No, not normally. Never
fully back to before surgery. However, I slowly healed and have no real
problems. I easily could have sued. I doubt I'd have won with all the
adhesions I had to dig through, but I'd tie up the courts.
That is what greedy Americans have to discontinue doing. Frivolously suing as
if it were some form of winning the lottery.

This is a start at slowing down the frivolous suits.

It's the next step in lawsuit reform. It does include a means to
correct itself through our duly elected representative, provided they
don't run away to another State.

Vote yes.

Mike Smith

[Chris Wiley]

Post by Mike Smith

Post by animaux

Post by Neal Atkins
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:03:43 GMT, "All_Seeing_Eye"

Post by All_Seeing_Eye
This is the worst item on the list (not for just this year, but for many
years to come), and it would not simply cap noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits, but potentially in all civil lawsuits

And that effects you how? Are you a trial lawyer? Or are you
planning on hitting the lottery with some frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not a lawyer, nor physician. However, there have been at least three known
cases last year where a surgeon removed the wrong leg, the wrong breast, the
wrong hand, etc.
I wonder if you were the person who had their "other" leg cut off, which would
leave you with both legs removed, would feel if there was a maximum cap placed
on such malpractice.

Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

Post by animaux
Simply put, there are many millions of other frivolous lawsuits outside of
patient/physician driven cases of malpractice.

Right. Prop 12 is a start. That's why there is so much whining and
crying about it from the lawyers. They know it's just a start at
stopping their cash cow.

Post by animaux
I vote no on Prop 12. I vote yes on human ability to learn where to draw the
line on frivolous lawsuits concerning physicians.
I'll give an example. I had a hysterectomy two years ago. The surgeon
perforated both my lower bowel and bladder. He called in a specialist
immediately to the O.R. and had them repaired. I woke up with a nasal/gastric
tube, but in a week I was urinating and eliminating. No, not normally. Never
fully back to before surgery. However, I slowly healed and have no real
problems. I easily could have sued. I doubt I'd have won with all the
adhesions I had to dig through, but I'd tie up the courts.
That is what greedy Americans have to discontinue doing. Frivolously suing as
if it were some form of winning the lottery.

This is a start at slowing down the frivolous suits.
It's the next step in lawsuit reform. It does include a means to
correct itself through our duly elected representative, provided they
don't run away to another State.
Vote yes.
Mike Smith

I will most definitely be voting YES as well as our entire family and
friends. I plan to put some flyers together and distribute them to the
residents in our neighborhood. We've needed something like this for
quite a while now!

Chris

[Dusty Rhodes]

Post by Chris Wiley
I will most definitely be voting YES as well as our entire family and
friends. I plan to put some flyers together and distribute them to the
residents in our neighborhood. We've needed something like this for
quite a while now!

Oh, well, hey! If *you're* voting yes, that's good enough for all of us,
yesiree. Screw well reasoned arguments based on independently verifiable
facts.

Sheesh, what a maroon.

Cheers,

Dusty

[Larry Kessler]

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

[Phillipe]

Post by Larry Kessler
"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Or if a retired person is put in horrible pain for the last 20 years of
their life? $250,000 + free aspirin? Doesn't wuite cover it.

Its all based on the flawed premise that jury awards are causing
insurance premiums to rise. The stock market collapse of 2001 is what
caused the insurance companies to lose money.

Colorado passed this kind of law, and it has not worked the way Prop 12
advocates would have you expect it will in Texas.

[Mike Smith]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......

BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Mike Smith

[The Elusive One]

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.
Mike Smith

Smith, it doesn't suprise anyone that you value the lives of your
children and grandchildren so little.

[Mike Smith]

On 4 Sep 2003 10:08:01 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (The
Elusive One) wrote:
<snipped... who cares>

Anyone know who this imbecile morphed from?

Mike Smith

[Texan]

Post by The Elusive One

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.
Mike Smith

Smith, it doesn't suprise anyone that you value the lives of your
children and grandchildren so little.

Actually it is the insurance company that puts zero value on children
and stay at home mothers. But of coarse there are those that do
believe that insurance companies are generous and righteous in their
settlements. Insurance companies surely are not in the business to
maximize their profits are they? Of coarse not. (ROFL)

[Bill Walker]

Post by Texan

Post by The Elusive One

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.
Mike Smith

Smith, it doesn't suprise anyone that you value the lives of your
children and grandchildren so little.

Actually it is the insurance company that puts zero value on children
and stay at home mothers. But of coarse there are those that do
believe that insurance companies are generous and righteous in their
settlements. Insurance companies surely are not in the business to
maximize their profits are they? Of coarse not. (ROFL)

You fail to see the point Mikey is making.. Perry endorses the insurance
proposition and Mikey thinks that makes it a done deal.. Mike Smith is silly
as a tree full of "hoot owls"... LMAO

[Neal Atkins]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:24:17 GMT, "Bill Walker"

Post by Bill Walker
You fail to see the point Mikey is making.. Perry endorses the insurance
proposition and Mikey thinks that makes it a done deal.. Mike Smith is silly
as a tree full of "hoot owls"... LMAO

Yah, STFU "walker", it IS a done deal. And thanks mostly to the
Hispanics in the valley and Corpus.

Guess you'll have to file the wrongful birth suit in Alabama if you
want to win that "lawsuit lottery".

[Bill Walker]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:24:17 GMT, "Bill Walker"

Post by Bill Walker
You fail to see the point Mikey is making.. Perry endorses the insurance
proposition and Mikey thinks that makes it a done deal.. Mike Smith is silly
as a tree full of "hoot owls"... LMAO

Yah, STFU "walker", it IS a done deal. And thanks mostly to the
Hispanics in the valley and Corpus.
Guess you'll have to file the wrongful birth suit in Alabama if you
want to win that "lawsuit lottery".

Damn.. asshole.. I see you finally got your phone bill paid again.. Don't
forget.. it comes due once a month.. Yep.. it is a "done deal", this week..
Ah well..

[Neal Atkins]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:54:04 GMT, "Bill Walker"

Post by Bill Walker

Post by Neal Atkins
Yah, STFU "walker", it IS a done deal. And thanks mostly to the
Hispanics in the valley and Corpus.
Guess you'll have to file the wrongful birth suit in Alabama if you
want to win that "lawsuit lottery".

Yep.. it is a "done deal", this week..
Ah well..

OH? Is there going to be another Constitutional Amendment election
next week that only the dumbocrats know about????

That would be the only way you could win a state wide election.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[Bill Walker]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:54:04 GMT, "Bill Walker"

Post by Bill Walker

Post by Neal Atkins
Yah, STFU "walker", it IS a done deal. And thanks mostly to the
Hispanics in the valley and Corpus.
Guess you'll have to file the wrongful birth suit in Alabama if you
want to win that "lawsuit lottery".

Yep.. it is a "done deal", this week..
Ah well..

OH? Is there going to be another Constitutional Amendment election
next week that only the dumbocrats know about????
That would be the only way you could win a state wide election.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yeah.. right on Neal.. Don't go getting too thrilled... Haven't noticed you
out in public for a long time. Guess that imaginary motorcycle isn't working
out too well for you... Didn't I see you in the gallery, today ?? Nah.. I
don't suppose you are ready for that quite yet..

[Neal Atkins]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:26:43 GMT, "Bill Walker"

Post by Bill Walker

Post by Neal Atkins
OH? Is there going to be another Constitutional Amendment election
next week that only the dumbocrats know about????
That would be the only way you could win a state wide election.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yeah.. right on Neal.. Don't go getting too thrilled... Haven't noticed you
out in public for a long time. Guess that imaginary motorcycle isn't working
out too well for you... Didn't I see you in the gallery, today ?? Nah.. I
don't suppose you are ready for that quite yet..

Oh, were you in Austin today, STFU? Well, I don't go to democRAT
rallys. I'll be there later in the week when the REDISTRICTING PLAN
is passed.

Enjoy.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.

Cheers,

Dusty

[Mike Smith]

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.
Cheers,
Dusty

From
http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/23/1061696313.00100.9044.2532.html?urac=n&urvf=10627185579480.2968633339762282
"The proposed amendment does not authorize the Legislature to limit
direct or indirect economic costs. The proposed amendment would only
limit noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to a maximum
$750,000 for noneconomic damages if three or more parties are
involved. "

Mike Smith

[Dusty Rhodes]

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.

From

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/23/1061696313.00100.9044.2532.html?urac=n&urvf=10627185579480.2968633339762282

Post by Mike Smith
"The proposed amendment does not authorize the Legislature to limit
direct or indirect economic costs. The proposed amendment would only
limit noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to a maximum
$750,000 for noneconomic damages if three or more parties are
involved. "

Three or more harmed parties, you fucking idiot, not 3 or more claims
oregarding 1 harmed party by other people. Sheesh.

Not to mention, how about quoting the actual text, not some analysis of the
text you don't begin to understand.

Cheers,

Dusty

[Mike Smith]

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.

From

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/23/1061696313.00100.9044.2532.html?urac=n&urvf=10627185579480.2968633339762282

Post by Mike Smith
"The proposed amendment does not authorize the Legislature to limit
direct or indirect economic costs. The proposed amendment would only
limit noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to a maximum
$750,000 for noneconomic damages if three or more parties are
involved. "

Three or more harmed parties, you fucking idiot, not 3 or more claims
oregarding 1 harmed party by other people. Sheesh.
Not to mention, how about quoting the actual text, not some analysis of the
text you don't begin to understand.
Cheers,
Dusty

And, once again, the 3 fingered IQ of the dumb one is exhibited...

He's absolutely sure that an injured man would not have a wife or
children that would not be economically injured by the husband's
injury.

What a dumbass.

Mike Smith

[Bill Walker]

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.

From

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/23/10616963

13.00100.9044.2532.html?urac=n&urvf=10627185579480.2968633339762282

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
"The proposed amendment does not authorize the Legislature to limit
direct or indirect economic costs. The proposed amendment would only
limit noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to a maximum
$750,000 for noneconomic damages if three or more parties are
involved. "

Three or more harmed parties, you fucking idiot, not 3 or more claims
oregarding 1 harmed party by other people. Sheesh.
Not to mention, how about quoting the actual text, not some analysis of the
text you don't begin to understand.
Cheers,
Dusty

And, once again, the 3 fingered IQ of the dumb one is exhibited...
He's absolutely sure that an injured man would not have a wife or
children that would not be economically injured by the husband's
injury.
What a dumbass.
Mike Smith

True to form... Mike Smith has just disputed his own argument in support of
proposition 12.. Limits set on recovery for malpractice cannot be restricted
to medical and hospital bill, not on lost wages.. This bill is designed to
decimate the poor excuse of a Patient's Bill of Rights .. The legislation
will also affect every aspect of insurance coverages in areas of vehicle
insurance .. The design is to enhance bottom line profits for the companies
and the power of the corrupt legislators who are financed by those
companies.. VOTE NO on Proposition 12

[Dusty Rhodes]

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:57:19 GMT, Larry Kessler

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum
cap on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and
pain-and-suffering.
If malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not
yet established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose
earnings are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic
damages.

Well..... that's why we tolerate lawyers.......
BTW, the $250,000 "non-economic" cap is per person. If a doctor kills
a kid, up to 3 people can sue for $250,000 each.

Say WHAT? WTF are you babbling about, now? WHAT "3 people?" Cite, please.

From

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/08/23/1061696313.00100.9044.2532.html?urac=n&urvf=10627185579480.2968633339762282

Post by Mike Smith

Post by Dusty Rhodes

Post by Mike Smith
"The proposed amendment does not authorize the Legislature to limit
direct or indirect economic costs. The proposed amendment would only
limit noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to a maximum
$750,000 for noneconomic damages if three or more parties are
involved. "

Three or more harmed parties, you fucking idiot, not 3 or more claims
oregarding 1 harmed party by other people. Sheesh.
Not to mention, how about quoting the actual text, not some analysis of the
text you don't begin to understand.
Cheers,
Dusty

And, once again, the 3 fingered IQ of the dumb one is exhibited...
He's absolutely sure that an injured man would not have a wife or
children that would not be economically injured by the husband's
injury.
What a dumbass.

Speaking of dumbasses, you think the wife and each kid constitutes a
separate case or even inury? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew.
Stick to toilets, shitscrubber.

Cheers,

Dusty

[Adam Weiss]

Post by Larry Kessler

Post by Mike Smith
Prop 12 does not establish a maximum cap. It establishes a maximum cap
on punitive damages, only, not actual damages.

"Non-economic" damages, including punitive and pain-and-suffering. If
malpractice kills or disables a child (whose earning power is not yet
established) or a stay-at-home mom or a retired person (whose earnings
are zero) it's very difficult to assess economic damages.

Precisely what I was saying.

If the damage is mostly psychological, such as the case in which a
doctor mistakenly amputated a man's genitals, economic damages would be
minimal. The cap would be $250,000, even though the guy's life was
drastically changed and he is no longer a 'whole' man.



The other issue with Prop 12, as I have pointed out, is that it does
nothing to address the issue of negligent or incompetant doctors. In an
effort to prevent a professional's first lawsuit from rising into the
hundreds of millions of dollars, Prop 12 will mean that a professional's
15th or 20th lawsuit is capped as well.