Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Houston's FINAL RALLY AGAINST PROP 12!

1 view
Skip to first unread message

In Your Dreams

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 5:37:11 AM9/9/03
to
FINAL RALLY AGAINST PROP 12!
by Luke Metzger o Sunday September 07, 2003 at 06:15 PM
lu...@texpirg.org (512) 479-7287 1604 1/2 San Antonio St., Austin,
Texas 78701

Rally Before Prop 12 Debate at UH Law Center

RALLY AGAINST PROPOSITION 12!

Wednesday, September 10, 5:30 PM
Outside Krost Hall Auditorium, University of Houston Law Center

Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston), author of Proposition 12, will speak in
support of the constitutional amendment in a debate Wednesday evening
at 6:30 at the UH Law center. Before he speaks, the people of Texas
will speak, in strong condemnation of this anti-environment,
anti-consumer constitutional amendment. Come join the growing movement
of Texans working to defeat this attempt by negligent special
interests to escape their responsibility when they cause harm.

The debate, which is called "Is Prop. 12 Good or Bad for Texas?" will
take place in Krost Hall Auditorium at the UH Law Center and is free
and open to the public. This debate is one of only two public debates
on Proposition 12 planned before the election.

Nixon was paid over $300,000 in questionable claims by big insurance
for being a 'friend' in the Legislature. Insurance company e-mails
call an additional payment 'very helpful to the cause'. Texas Monthly
ranked Nixon one of the ten worst legislators, a 'lobby lapdog'. The
Dallas Morning News called the payment 'smelly'.

Don't let big insurance companies take power away from courts and give
it to legislators like Joe Nixon. Vote No on Proposition 12 on
September 13!

For more information, call Luke Metzger at (512) 743-8257 or go to
http://www.texansagainstprop12.com.

www.texpirg.org

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 6:39:36 AM9/9/03
to
On 9 Sep 2003 02:37:11 -0700, anon...@nyx.net (In Your Dreams) wrote:

>FINAL RALLY AGAINST PROP 12!

<snipped the propaganda>

Folks, all you need to know is who is against this. Trial lawyers.
Then all you need to do is listen to the rhetoric and outright
deception being spewed by the opponents or prop 12.

Look for the lies and deception; it's all there......

Mike Smith

Adam Weiss

unread,
Sep 9, 2003, 11:15:20 PM9/9/03
to

When people raise questions about the ethics of Joe Nixon, author of
Prop 12, you immediately write it off as propaganda.


If, as I mentioned in a different thread, insurers pocket the savings
from Prop 12 rather than pass them on to doctors and other
professionals, the news of it could easily be written off as propaganda
as well.

Larry Kessler

unread,
Sep 10, 2003, 1:54:25 AM9/10/03
to
Mike Smith wrote:

> Folks, all you need to know is who is against this. Trial lawyers.
> Then all you need to do is listen to the rhetoric and outright
> deception being spewed by the opponents or prop 12.

The trial lawyers aren't the only group opposed to Prop.12. It's also
opposed by:

Houston Chronicle
The Galveston Daily News
The Dallas Morning News
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Waco Tribune Herald
Abilene Reporter News
Longview News-Journal
The Bryan Eagle
Brazosport Fact
Lufkin Daily News
Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel
AARP
American GI Forum (now THERE's a subversive group...)
Texans Against Sexual Assault
Houston Police Association President
Houston Firefighters President
Dallas Police Association President
Council on Family Violence
Texas Federation of Teachers
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Sierra Club
The Older Women's League
Advocates for Nursing Home Residents
Texas NAACP
President, Texas Eagle Forum
League of United Latin American Citizens

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 7:24:49 PM9/11/03
to

Poor ignorant Kessler....

Folks, liberals must lie and the trial lawyers are mostly liberals.
They are lying to you.

Kessler did a copy and paste and forgot to expect the lie, like I have
been posting for a week.

The lie is the AARP and MADD are NOT against prop 12. Kessler's list
states that they are against the prop. That is the lie.

We need to check all the other organizations on this list, except for
the Cronicle... I know they're in bed with the trial lawyers.

Mike Smith

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 11, 2003, 11:04:19 PM9/11/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:19:33 GMT, Matt Anderson <N...@SPAMPLEASE.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:24:49 -0500, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>The lie is the AARP and MADD are NOT against prop 12. Kessler's list
>>states that they are against the prop. That is the lie.
>

>Actually, if you go to the AARP website at
><http://community.aarp.org/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=rp-tx&msg=1.1&ctx=128>
>you'll see that AARP is strongly AGAINST Proposition 12.
>
>I'll assume that Mike is also lying about MADD's position, since he's
>clearly lying above.
>
>Vote AGAINST proposition 12.

Yea, except that's a lie..... AARP is not against prop 12, One person
in AARPTX is against it and posting on AARPTX in their "announcement"
section.

This liar expects everyone to believe that AARP, nationwide, is
against a Texas amendment. That's why he states
"Historically, AARP has not taken positions on proposed constitutional
amendments that are passed by the state legislature and placed on a
ballot before voters for final approval. The upcoming September 13th
ballot will be no different, with one exception. AARP believes that
Proposition 12 is bad for Texas. "

Here's some opposing AARP views:
http://community.aarp.org/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=rp-legislative&msg=1257.1&ctx=1

Don't believe the lies.

Mike Smith

Larry Kessler

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 12:05:38 AM9/12/03
to
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:

People are catching on to your schtick, Mikey. When you can't argue
the issues (which is nearly all the time) you call those who disagree
with you ignorant, stupid, untruthful, mentally ill or treasonous.

I expected you to take issue with some of these organizations, and to
dismiss all the newspapers, but you don't seem to have much to say
about the conservative groups on the list.

>Folks, liberals must lie and the trial lawyers are mostly liberals.
>They are lying to you.

Hint: "Doesn't agree with Mike Smith" does not equate to lying.

>Kessler did a copy and paste and forgot to expect the lie, like I have
>been posting for a week.

I didn't do any copy-and-paste. I typed them in myself from a mailer
from the anti-Prop12 group "Save Texas Courts." The mailers I'm
getting from the PRO-Prop12 groups list nobody who's endorsing it. To
be fair, www.yeson12.org lists these groups:

Texas Medical Association
Texas Alliance for Patient Access
National Federation of Independent Business
Texas Hospital Association
Texans for Lawsuit Reform
Texas Civil Justice League

NONE of whom, of course, could possibly have any vested interest in
the bill, could they? </sarcasm>

Larry Kessler

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 12:15:10 AM9/12/03
to
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:

>Yea, except that's a lie..... AARP is not against prop 12, One person
>in AARPTX is against it and posting on AARPTX in their "announcement"
>section.

AARP national has no dog in this hunt. Unlike AARP Texas, they have
no standing to take a position.

>This liar expects everyone to believe that AARP, nationwide, is
>against a Texas amendment.

I simply quoted from a flyer. Perhaps the anti-Prop12 group which
sent it to me should have been more specific.

>That's why he states
>"Historically, AARP has not taken positions on proposed constitutional
>amendments that are passed by the state legislature and placed on a
>ballot before voters for final approval. The upcoming September 13th
>ballot will be no different, with one exception. AARP believes that
>Proposition 12 is bad for Texas. "

That was straight from AARP Texas. Where's the lie?

I take the position of the Texas AARP organization more seriously than
the opinion of one doctor.

Stu Gotts

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 5:09:42 AM9/12/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:19:33 GMT, Matt Anderson <N...@SPAMPLEASE.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:24:49 -0500, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>

>>The lie is the AARP and MADD are NOT against prop 12. Kessler's list
>>states that they are against the prop. That is the lie.
>

>Actually, if you go to the AARP website at
><http://community.aarp.org/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=rp-tx&msg=1.1&ctx=128>
>you'll see that AARP is strongly AGAINST Proposition 12.
>
>I'll assume that Mike is also lying about MADD's position, since he's
>clearly lying above.
>
>Vote AGAINST proposition 12.

Mike needs to lie about it. The whole friggin thing is a lie.

Voted Against - And Am Happy!

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 6:03:09 AM9/12/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:05:38 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:

Is my statement an accurate statement? Yes it is, in the same line as
Ma Richards, when she described "Poor Bush".

>
>I expected you to take issue with some of these organizations, and to
>dismiss all the newspapers, but you don't seem to have much to say
>about the conservative groups on the list.

I didn't research all of the groups. All I need to do is find the lie.
That makes all the other organizations suspect.

Of course, in your deluded liberal world, someone can lie their ass
off about almost everything, except that one item that you and they
agree on.

>>Folks, liberals must lie and the trial lawyers are mostly liberals.
>>They are lying to you.
>
>Hint: "Doesn't agree with Mike Smith" does not equate to lying.

Does AARP or MADD endorse a NO position on Prop 12? Or is that a lie?

>>Kessler did a copy and paste and forgot to expect the lie, like I have
>>been posting for a week.
>
>I didn't do any copy-and-paste. I typed them in myself from a mailer
>from the anti-Prop12 group "Save Texas Courts." The mailers I'm
>getting from the PRO-Prop12 groups list nobody who's endorsing it. To
>be fair, www.yeson12.org lists these groups:
>
> Texas Medical Association
> Texas Alliance for Patient Access
> National Federation of Independent Business
> Texas Hospital Association
> Texans for Lawsuit Reform
> Texas Civil Justice League
>
>NONE of whom, of course, could possibly have any vested interest in
>the bill, could they? </sarcasm>

Of course they do. They are up front and honest about their
endorsement. On the other side, the trial lawyers are hiding their
asses, while funding the opposition, to the tune of about $8 million.

Deceptive? Hell yes.

Of course, you are used to voting for deceptive liars, so I understand
why you are against the prop.

Mike Smith

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 7:29:39 AM9/12/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:15:10 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:

>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>Yea, except that's a lie..... AARP is not against prop 12, One person
>>in AARPTX is against it and posting on AARPTX in their "announcement"
>>section.
>
>AARP national has no dog in this hunt. Unlike AARP Texas, they have
>no standing to take a position.

Exactly. And yet, they are listed as being opposed to prop 12.

>
>>This liar expects everyone to believe that AARP, nationwide, is
>>against a Texas amendment.
>
>I simply quoted from a flyer. Perhaps the anti-Prop12 group which
>sent it to me should have been more specific.

Or are they being intentionally deceptive?

>
>>That's why he states
>>"Historically, AARP has not taken positions on proposed constitutional
>>amendments that are passed by the state legislature and placed on a
>>ballot before voters for final approval. The upcoming September 13th
>>ballot will be no different, with one exception. AARP believes that
>>Proposition 12 is bad for Texas. "
>
>That was straight from AARP Texas. Where's the lie?

AARP is a national organization that has NOT taken a stand on prop 12.
The same thing has occurred with MADD.

Mike Smith

noneya

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 10:32:34 AM9/12/03
to
<Snip>

> Deceptive? Hell yes.
>
> Of course, you are used to voting for deceptive liars, so I understand
> why you are against the prop.
>
> Mike Smith

This is ridiculous. I usually just lurk and listen and consider myself a
moderate (registered and active voting) Republican, but c'mon Mike Smith;
"you are used to voting for deceptive liars"?? What kind of statement is
that? If they are politicians, Democrat or Republican, they are liars.
Even if they don't start off with deceptive intentions, its they only way
they can actively function within the political process. Please don't
delude yourself (and insult the rest of the Republicans) by insinuating that
Democrats or liberals are the only ones that lie. You are painting yourself
to be a far-right wing conservative extremist by dismissing anything that
comes across as even remotely liberal and truly discrediting your arguments
and your position because of it. It is widely known and accepted that the
majority electorate looks for a moderate position on issues and responds to
that, while the fringe (on either side) are the more vocal, yet less
representative of most Americans. Quit throwing "lying Liberal" or some
such around with statement you make and it will make your argument (and you)
seem much more rational..

Just my $.02
T-

Bill Walker

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 1:07:32 PM9/12/03
to

"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:nbb3mvgct8cn0ueva...@4ax.com...

How would you know all that, Mikey.. I am a member of AARP.. Been one for
five years..


Bill Walker

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 1:09:19 PM9/12/03
to

"noneya austin.rr.com>" <smellon@<nospam> wrote in message
news:6Ok8b.11655$834....@twister.austin.rr.com...

Mike Smith has no concept of "rational"..
>
>
>


P Reality

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 4:11:45 PM9/12/03
to
Does this conflict with the Kucinch rally that I'm also not going to?

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 5:58:24 PM9/12/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:32:34 GMT, "noneya"
<smellon@<nospam>austin.rr.com> wrote:

><Snip>
>> Deceptive? Hell yes.
>>
>> Of course, you are used to voting for deceptive liars, so I understand
>> why you are against the prop.
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
>This is ridiculous. I usually just lurk and listen and consider myself a
>moderate (registered and active voting) Republican, but c'mon Mike Smith;
>"you are used to voting for deceptive liars"?? What kind of statement is
>that?

Have you actually listened to the clintons, Liebermann, Kerry, Dean,
and the chief DNC buffoon, McAuliffe? Exactly how would you describe
those people?

> If they are politicians, Democrat or Republican, they are liars.

Pessimist....

>Even if they don't start off with deceptive intentions, its they only way
>they can actively function within the political process. Please don't
>delude yourself (and insult the rest of the Republicans) by insinuating that
>Democrats or liberals are the only ones that lie.

What makes you think liberals are the only liars out there? They are
just consistent with their lying.

>You are painting yourself
>to be a far-right wing conservative extremist by dismissing anything that
>comes across as even remotely liberal and truly discrediting your arguments
>and your position because of it.

Well.... good.... I don't do that, so I don't have to worry....

>It is widely known and accepted that the
>majority electorate looks for a moderate position on issues and responds to
>that, while the fringe (on either side) are the more vocal, yet less
>representative of most Americans. Quit throwing "lying Liberal" or some
>such around with statement you make and it will make your argument (and you)
>seem much more rational..
>
>Just my $.02
>T-

So, you are attempting to restrict my accurate descriptions of the
people I respond to? If they are a lying liberal, I will call them a
lying liberal (yes, it's redundant, but what the hell....). It's their
choice... lie... or don't lie.

Mike Smith

n/a

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 7:23:19 PM9/12/03
to
You people sure give Mike Smith a lot of power. Just put him in your
killfile and be done with him.


"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:35n8b.1230$pd5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

Stu Gotts

unread,
Sep 12, 2003, 7:48:33 PM9/12/03
to
DONE!

Larry Kessler

unread,
Sep 13, 2003, 5:19:28 AM9/13/03
to
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:

>If they are a lying liberal, I will call them a lying liberal

When will you start calling out all the lying conservatives? And
don't even try to tell me there aren't any.

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 13, 2003, 10:12:28 AM9/13/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:48:33 -0500, Stu Gotts <Xs...@americanwop.com>
wrote:

>DONE!
>
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:23:19 GMT, "n/a"
><NoEmailBec...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>You people sure give Mike Smith a lot of power. Just put him in your
>>killfile and be done with him.
>>


Folks, this is classic liberalism. These folks cannot refute the
truth, nor do they want to be confronted with the truth, so they do
the equivalent of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it
doesn't exist.

Typical dumbassed liberal wannabees.....

Mike Smith

Xeno Chauvin

unread,
Sep 13, 2003, 12:27:28 PM9/13/03
to

"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:ep02mvgtpketlrlbj...@4ax.com...

Who really gives a damn what GROUPS support
or don't support Prop 12?
Make up your own damn minds....THAT is what
VOTING is for!
Xeno


Adam Weiss

unread,
Sep 13, 2003, 9:26:42 PM9/13/03
to

Halelujah!

I'm glad someone said what you just did. And I just voted myself.

Against Prop 12.

As I see it, there are much better ways to reduce the number of lawsuits
and the values sought in those lawsuits than to artificially limit them
by law.


How about limiting medical residents and interns to 18 hours on duty at
one time and 80 hour work weeks? As an intern architect I've
experienced sleep deprivation first hand, and I shudder to think that
the person administering vital drugs or suturing my wound in a hospital
could be suffering from it.


How about more responsability on the part of hospitals when it comes to
opening and dealing with records of malpractice, so that they don't
happen again? Don't cover up mistakes for fear of bad press - FIX those
mistakes instead.


And how about limiting the fee that lawyers can collect on medical
malpractice suits without limiting the actual amounts that can be sought
in those suits. In essence make it less attractive to trial lawyers to
sue doctors and hospitals and thereby prevent their abuse of the system.

I'm by no means an expert in medicine or medical law. But these three
things came to mind. There are better ways to fix the problems of high
insurance rates and hefty settlements than to give insurance companies a
huge Christmas gift 3 months early.

Stu Gotts

unread,
Sep 13, 2003, 10:40:53 PM9/13/03
to
How about limiting the dollar amount of what a lawyer can charge, to
say $100K. That should stop the frivolous suits. See, there IS a
better way than to let crooked legislators and big business have their
way with you.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:26:42 GMT, Adam Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org>
wrote:

Adam Weiss

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 10:37:50 AM9/14/03
to
Stu Gotts wrote:
> How about limiting the dollar amount of what a lawyer can charge, to
> say $100K. That should stop the frivolous suits. See, there IS a
> better way than to let crooked legislators and big business have their
> way with you.


I agree, and I was saying so in the last paragraph of my post below.

Sadly, however, it's a moot point now. Prop 12 has passed 51% to 49%
with only 12% voter turnout - e.g. only 6.12% of Texans actually voted
for it.

Now we just have to wait and see if big insurance companies are going to
be honest and pass savings on to doctors.

Stu Gotts

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 11:40:49 AM9/14/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:37:50 GMT, Adam Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org>
wrote:

>Stu Gotts wrote:

No way! The "intelligent" part of the community will soon see that
it's just another way the legislatures and big business are feeding us
shit and telling us it's ice cream. Once again, I'm disgusted at
these Texas voters. The most stupid I've ever encountered.

Stu Gotts

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 11:41:59 AM9/14/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:37:50 GMT, Adam Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org>
wrote:

>Stu Gotts wrote:

The only consolation is that the lawyers are smart enough to think of
other ways to justify their actions.

Lars Eighner

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 11:53:37 AM9/14/03
to
In our last episode,
<sr29mvcoojfn324qr...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Stu Gotts
broadcast on austin.general:

Won't your face be red when medical cost start falling and insurance
gets cheap. I can hardly wait for all the rollbacks!

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Jerry Falwell has more armed operatives in Texas than bin Laden

ChairMan

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 1:50:20 PM9/14/03
to
In news:slrnbm93kd....@pearl.io.com,

Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> spewed forth and said:
> In our last episode,
> <sr29mvcoojfn324qr...@4ax.com>,
> the lovely and talented Stu Gotts
> broadcast on austin.general:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:37:50 GMT, Adam Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Stu Gotts wrote:
>>>> How about limiting the dollar amount of what a lawyer can charge,
>>>> to say $100K. That should stop the frivolous suits. See, there
>>>> IS a better way than to let crooked legislators and big business
>>>> have their way with you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, and I was saying so in the last paragraph of my post below.
>>>
>>> Sadly, however, it's a moot point now. Prop 12 has passed 51% to
>>> 49% with only 12% voter turnout - e.g. only 6.12% of Texans
>>> actually voted for it.
>>>
>>> Now we just have to wait and see if big insurance companies are
>>> going to be honest and pass savings on to doctors.
>>>
>>>
>> No way! The "intelligent" part of the community will soon see that
>> it's just another way the legislatures and big business are feeding
>> us shit and telling us it's ice cream. Once again, I'm disgusted at
>> these Texas voters. The most stupid I've ever encountered.
>
> Won't your face be red when medical cost start falling and insurance
> gets cheap. I can hardly wait for all the rollbacks!

Umm Lars, when in your lifetime have you "ever" seen medical costs and
insurance rates drop? It's the same thing they tolds us when mandatory
liability was passed. I don't know about you, but my rates have continued to
go up.
Best advice I can give is just don't hold your breath.


techie

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 2:49:43 PM9/14/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:50:20 GMT, "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:

>Umm Lars, when in your lifetime have you "ever" seen medical costs and
>insurance rates drop? It's the same thing they tolds us when mandatory
>liability was passed. I don't know about you, but my rates have continued to
>go up.

I just moved down here from Colorado where, for many years, the
insurance-industry excuse for astronomical auto-insurance rates was
that we didn't have no-fault. So no-fault laws were passed, and auto
insurance continued to get even more expensive. About a year ago the
insurance companies started blaming the rising rates on no-fault. So,
Colorado got rid of no-fault. But the rates are still going up.

I give it about 5 years before Colorado implements no-fault again "to
keep insurance rates from rising".

As for prop. 12, I got here too late to vote (you have to be
registered for 30 days prior to the election) but I was still paying
attention to the issues. According to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times:

- Punitive damages in medical malpractice suits have remained at about
$60 million a year for the past 10 years, except for an unexplained
dip to $40 million in 2000.

- They said that according to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners,
the number of physicians in the state is increasing rather than
decreasing.

I went looking for some statistics and found them here:

http://www.tsbme.state.tx.us/demo/docs/d2000/0100/0100stats.htm

Clicking on each year and then going to "Physicians in-and-out of
state" and looking only at in-state physicians, I get this:

Jan 2000: 33,622
Jan 2001: 34,697
Jan 2002: 35,618
Jan 2003: 37,188
May 2003: 38,035 (the latest date for which data is available)

OK, so it is indeed a lie that Texas is losing doctors.

I couldn't find a link to verify the $60 million figure for medical
malpractice suits so I'll just have to trust the Caller-Times on that.
Remember now, we're talking about $60 million for punitive damages.
This doesn't include actual damages (medical expenses and loss of
income). We're only talking about the issue of punitive damages, which
is what prop. 12 was ostensibly about.

Dividing $60 million by 38,000 physicians, yields just $1577 per
highly-paid physician to cover punitive damages in all the malpractice
suits for one year. Please, cry me a river.

Of course, doctors will pass this expense on to their patients. Let's
say that every Texan goes to a doctor at least once a year. There
are, I believe, about 20 million people in Texas. Divide $60 million
by that and you get a whopping $3 of each person's annual medical
bills going to cover punitive damages. So much for blaming the drastic
rise in medical costs on punitive damages.

Proposition 12 was, very clearly, a scam based on plain out-and-out
lies.

Lars Eighner

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 3:50:13 PM9/14/03
to
In our last episode,
<wT19b.441692$YN5.298023@sccrnsc01>,
the lovely and talented ChairMan
broadcast on austin.general:


The Brits are right. Americans can't deal with irony.

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/

If you think you're too small to have an impact,
try going to bed with a mosquito in the room.
- Anita Koddick

William R. Cowan

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 11:41:09 PM9/14/03
to
I take it that you live in Corpus Christi since you read the Caller
Times. I would suggest that you take what the Caller Times has to say
with a large grain of salt. It has bee know to have loks of errors and
is often a several days later and a dollar short in reporting news
events. One example is when the A&M Board of Regents Chairman was
indicted it ran the article on it a few days later as a news blurb, just
about 4 sentences. This is releveant news for the city since it has an
a&M campus and there is another A&M campus down the road in Kingsville.
WE refer to the paper as the Corpus Christi Caca times. With that
said, on to prop 12.

I am in favor of prop 12. I leaned towards it before the election. So
what I did was to research it based upon those who were against it to
see their point of view to see if my position was wrong (I did this
before looking at info from groups infavor of prop 12). I found very
little information that was fact oriented or even based upon case history.

From my experience living in the Rio Grande Valley, people there think
that the courts is a giant casino to play. They file huge lawsuits and
get huge awards out of proportion to the actual injury or damages.

With that siad, I have spoken to doctors and read about the cost of
insurance. It is sky high. In Houston, it may be state wide also, we
have gone from 11 insurance porviders to just 3. Also a doctor the
other day said that he does charity work in town by providing free
medical care. He has tried to get other older and experienced doctors
he knows that do mission work in central ameria to help here. They
would like to but the cost to their insurcance is prohibitive due to the
fear of baseless lawsuit. I have seen data from the AMA that showed
that the number of doctors had decreased. I am curious what the
difference in the data collection vs data presentation of both the AMA
and Texas board of medical examiners.

I beleive their is a fallicy in you cost analysis. Dividing the cost of
insurance equally across the board or even the cost of the jury award
across the board does not reflect reality. Not every doctor in every
speciality is hit by the costs the same. Secondly the cost burden is
unequally divided up base upon region, risk and costs. The next factor
that has been left out of the equation if the cost of layers fighting
the claim appealing the claim and dealing with the claim at any
particulat junction in the legal fight.

Now that there is cap that is set, the preceptions of filing a medical
lawsuit will be a lottery windfall is removed. Cases perhaps will be
more likely be settled instead of going to court. According to a doctor
I know, they are (the insurers are willing to settle a legitimate claim
and come through onthe economic claims but it is the high non-ecomonic
claims that are the sticking point.

I do hope that now that prop 12 has passed and we do not need to wait
years for the courts to settle the issue that insurance rates will
decrease. Claifornia instituted a simliar law and it took almost 10
years for it to be resolved. Once it was, rates did decrease. Now if
rates doe not decrease, the legislature will then revisit the issue and
go after the insurers (that is what several reps and senators has told me).

As for car insurance, it can be low in certain areas or be high in
others. Our biggest problem is uninsured motorist and illegals who
driver without a license and insurance.

Lets see what happens!

MRC

Not Me

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 9:28:27 AM9/15/03
to
| I have seen data from the AMA that showed
| that the number of doctors had decreased. I am curious what the
| difference in the data collection vs data presentation of both the AMA
| and Texas board of medical examiners.

Is that due to med mal insurance or the added BS of fighting with insurance
carriers over payments and authorizations?


techie

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 10:26:28 PM9/15/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:41:09 -0500, "William R. Cowan"
<wrco...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>I take it that you live in Corpus Christi since you read the Caller
>Times. I would suggest that you take what the Caller Times has to say
>with a large grain of salt. It has bee know to have loks of errors and
>is often a several days later and a dollar short in reporting news
>events.

Yeah, more than once I've read of some major world event online, and
then 5 days later the Caller-Times finally got around to it.

I'm not totally happy at having to use their $60 million/year figure
without knowing where *they* got it, but unfortunately both sides of
the prop. 12 debate have been long on rhetoric and short on verifiable
evidence.

> From my experience living in the Rio Grande Valley, people there think
>that the courts is a giant casino to play. They file huge lawsuits and
>get huge awards out of proportion to the actual injury or damages.

Then the solution is to fix the court system so unjust damages aren't
awarded. However, I have my doubt that the abuse is really that bad.
In every case where I've ever been able to learn the full details of
some "outrageous" judgement the media's been raving about, I've found
something the media didn't see fit to mention that in fact made the
judgement seem quite reasonable to me.

>With that siad, I have spoken to doctors and read about the cost of
>insurance. It is sky high.

Agreed, but actual and not punitive damages are primarily responsible
for that. Actual damages have to be proven in court so if they're
"unfair" then someone is perjuring themselves on the stand.

As for the AMA figures, they're a political organization that exists
to represent the interests of doctors. The Texas Board of Medical
Examiners is a more objective source.

>I beleive their is a fallicy in you cost analysis. Dividing the cost of
>insurance equally across the board or even the cost of the jury award
>across the board does not reflect reality. Not every doctor in every
>speciality is hit by the costs the same. Secondly the cost burden is
>unequally divided up base upon region, risk and costs. The next factor
>that has been left out of the equation if the cost of layers fighting
>the claim appealing the claim and dealing with the claim at any
>particulat junction in the legal fight.

Fine, then dig up all that information, do all the calculations, and
then get back to me. :o)

The way I see it, when a change in the law is proposed it's up to
those proposing the change to provide proof that it's needed. I have
seen loads of rhetoric but not a shred of proof that prop. 12 was
necessary. My numbers on punitive damages are admittedly rudimentary,
but they're still better than anything I've seen out of the
pro-prop-12 camp. I fully trust my numbers on the number of doctors in
the state and *those* numbers show that it is indeed a lie that great
numbers of doctors are leaving the state.

Also, if prop. 12 was about medical damages, it should have specified
just medical damages and not tried to rope in everything else with
that nasty little "other" clause at the end.

>Now that there is cap that is set, the preceptions of filing a medical
>lawsuit will be a lottery windfall is removed.

How much is it worth to you in pain and suffering, to be paralyzed
from the neck down for the rest of your life because of a doctor's
carelessness or because an auto company sold you a car that they knew
had a very high rate of back injuries even in minor accidents? How
about suffering such untreatable pain for the rest of your life that
just moving makes you throw up several times a day? How about going
through years of painful surgeries and the miseries of repeated
chemotherapies because a doctor ignored clear-as-day symptoms of
cancer until it was too late?

These weren't just pulled out of my imagination. I just spent 11 years
taking care of a friend who was quadriplegic. During that time we
spent a lot of time in the hospital and in therapy with others in
similarly dire condition. All of the above happened to real people. Do
you think their destroyed lives are worth only $250,000 each?

Suppose I were to offer you $250,000 to let me cut off one of your
arms, would you take it? How about both arms?

>As for car insurance, it can be low in certain areas or be high in
>others. Our biggest problem is uninsured motorist and illegals who
>driver without a license and insurance.

Texas' biggest problem is too many stupid drivers, too much alcohol,
too many undivided 2-line roads with 70 mph speed limits and no
shoulders, and too little law-enforcement.

Larry Kessler

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 10:38:39 PM9/15/03
to

Don't forget about Medicare payment rates getting shaved thinner than
gold leaf.

Neal Atkins

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 11:00:02 PM9/15/03
to
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:26:28 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

> Do
>you think their destroyed lives are worth only $250,000 each?

The $250K is for PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY. But you knew that. Anyway
it's a moot point. The ambulance chasers and the people hoping to win
the "lawsuit lottery" ate a big one.

Enjoy.

news.corenews.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 2:13:35 AM9/16/03
to
Amen brother


"Neal Atkins" <nat...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3f667caf...@news-server.austin.rr.com...

Jim Riley

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 5:33:52 AM9/16/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:49:43 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>I couldn't find a link to verify the $60 million figure for medical
>malpractice suits so I'll just have to trust the Caller-Times on that.
>Remember now, we're talking about $60 million for punitive damages.

If there were only 1000 awards for punitive damages, this would work
out to $60,000 per case. So either the cap won't make much of a
difference; OR lawyers are frivolously filing in every case in hopes
of hitting the home run.

--
Jim Riley

techie

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 1:25:06 PM9/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:00:02 GMT, nat...@austin.rr.com (Neal Atkins)
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:26:28 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Do
>>you think their destroyed lives are worth only $250,000 each?
>
>The $250K is for PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY. But you knew that.

Deepest apologies. I forgot how thick some of these Texans are.

Let me spell it out for you: Punitive damages are to punish and deter
egregious behavior. We no longer get even using the eye-for-an-eye,
tooth-for-a-tooth mutilation of old. Nowadays we convert the suffering
to cash terms, and inflict punishment as cash damages. But now the law
says that if a million dollars (or ten million dollars) worth of
damage is done to your quality of life, punitive damages are still
limited to only $250,000.

Furthermore this $250,000 cap limits the deterrence effect where large
corporations are involved or where the offender is partially shielded
from damages by his insurance. If a doctor recklessly screws someone's
health up and the jury levies low punitive damages, he only ends up
paying higher insurance premiums while his insurance company pickes up
the punitive damages. So instead the jury raises the punitive damages
to exceed the upper limit of his insurance plus the amount the
physician ought to be made to suffer. This is hard on insurance
companies so instead of capping punitive damages, some states now
allow juries to levy punitive damages directly on the offender and
preclude his insuror from compensating him.

We've seen many examples in the auto industry where it was known that
a serious safety defect existed, but was ignored and hidden from
consumers because some $200 million a year executive decided it was
cheaper to let people get killed or injured and pay off a few lawsuits
than to fix the problem. Only by levying extroardinarily high punitive
damages were the juries able to convince these filthy-rich
mega-corporations to respect human life.

> Anyway it's a moot point. The ambulance chasers and the people
>hoping to win the "lawsuit lottery" ate a big one.

I just came from a state where punitive damages are limited. A lot of
people will change their tune when the full implications come due.

Neal Atkins

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 1:59:28 PM9/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:25:06 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>>> Do
>>>you think their destroyed lives are worth only $250,000 each?
>>
>>The $250K is for PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY. But you knew that.

>Let me spell it out for you: Punitive damages are to punish and deter


>egregious behavior. We no longer get even using the eye-for-an-eye,
>tooth-for-a-tooth mutilation of old. Nowadays we convert the suffering
>to cash terms, and inflict punishment as cash damages. But now the law
>says that if a million dollars (or ten million dollars) worth of
>damage is done to your quality of life, punitive damages are still
>limited to only $250,000.

And you STILL GET THE $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 IN ADDITION TO THE
$250,000! Of course you are trying to COVER THAT UP. But that won't
happen.

techie

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 5:30:33 PM9/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:59:28 GMT, nat...@austin.rr.com (Neal Atkins)
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:25:06 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>

No you don't. The legislature has already capped damages for pain,
suffering, and loss of a normal life at $250,000, or $750,000 if three
or more defendants are involved. Proposition 12 also caps
pain-and-suffering damages at $250,000.

>Of course you are trying to COVER THAT UP. But that won't
>happen.

Read my lips, moron: Compensatory damages are to compensate the
plaintiff and "make him whole" again, in other words to put him back
where he was. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant. Neither
has anything to do with the other.

Neal Atkins

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 5:48:41 PM9/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:30:33 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>>>>> Do
>>>>>you think their destroyed lives are worth only $250,000 each?
>>>>
>>>>The $250K is for PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY. But you knew that.
>>
>>>Let me spell it out for you: Punitive damages are to punish and deter
>>>egregious behavior. We no longer get even using the eye-for-an-eye,
>>>tooth-for-a-tooth mutilation of old. Nowadays we convert the suffering
>>>to cash terms, and inflict punishment as cash damages. But now the law
>>>says that if a million dollars (or ten million dollars) worth of
>>>damage is done to your quality of life, punitive damages are still
>>>limited to only $250,000.
>>
>>And you STILL GET THE $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 IN ADDITION TO THE
>>$250,000!
>
>No you don't. The legislature has already capped damages for pain,
>suffering, and loss of a normal life at $250,000, or $750,000 if three
>or more defendants are involved. Proposition 12 also caps
>pain-and-suffering damages at $250,000.

YES, YOU DO. IF there are "economic damages" those are recoved IN
ADDITION to the $750,000 cap.


>
>>Of course you are trying to COVER THAT UP. But that won't
>>happen.
>
>Read my lips, moron: Compensatory damages are to compensate the
>plaintiff and "make him whole" again, in other words to put him back
>where he was. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant. Neither
>has anything to do with the other.

WHAT????? That is the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile. Are you
running for Molly Beth Malcomb's old job? If there are no "economic
damages", there certainly won't be any "punitive damages". You don't
think there are TWO TRIALS do you?

Not Me

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 11:38:31 PM9/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:48:41 GMT, nat...@austin.rr.com (Neal Atkins)
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:30:33 -0500, techie <no...@nospam.invalid>

So, Neal, what happens when a doctor or hospital kills an infant
through malpractice, or an elderly person no longer working? It's a
fact that economic damages for the death of an infant are miniscule.
Under Proposition 12, that makes the value of an infant a max of $750K
plus a few thousand in economic damages. The basic idea of Prop 12 may
be OK, but the limits are low.

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 7:12:15 AM9/17/03
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:15:10 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:

>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>Yea, except that's a lie..... AARP is not against prop 12, One person
>>in AARPTX is against it and posting on AARPTX in their "announcement"
>>section.
>
>AARP national has no dog in this hunt. Unlike AARP Texas, they have
>no standing to take a position.
>
>>This liar expects everyone to believe that AARP, nationwide, is
>>against a Texas amendment.
>
>I simply quoted from a flyer. Perhaps the anti-Prop12 group which
>sent it to me should have been more specific.
>
>>That's why he states
>>"Historically, AARP has not taken positions on proposed constitutional
>>amendments that are passed by the state legislature and placed on a
>>ballot before voters for final approval. The upcoming September 13th
>>ballot will be no different, with one exception. AARP believes that
>>Proposition 12 is bad for Texas. "
>
>That was straight from AARP Texas. Where's the lie?
>
>>Here's some opposing AARP views:
>>http://community.aarp.org/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=rp-legislative&msg=1257.1&ctx=1
>
>I take the position of the Texas AARP organization more seriously than
>the opinion of one doctor.

Here's the email from AARP:
<begin email>
Return-Path: <comm...@aarp.org>
AARPTX does not work for AARP, nor does the post reflects
AARP's stance on proposition 12.

I'll work to get an official AARP stance on prop 12 for you.

-AARP Community Host William
<end email>

I just received this yesterday...... They seem to be a little slow on
their responses... but it does prove that AARP, nor AARP Texas
approved that ad. Deceptive of the trial lawyers, wasn't it.

Mike Smith

Mike Smith

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 8:15:22 AM9/17/03
to

>their responses... but it does prove that neither AARP, nor AARP Texas


>approved that ad. Deceptive of the trial lawyers, wasn't it.
>
>Mike Smith

Added a missed word to my post.

Mike Smith

Neal Atkins

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 12:28:37 PM9/17/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:38:31 -0500, Not Me <no...@springmail.com>
wrote:

>So, Neal, what happens when a doctor or hospital kills an infant
>through malpractice, or an elderly person no longer working? It's a
>fact that economic damages for the death of an infant are miniscule.
>Under Proposition 12, that makes the value of an infant a max of $750K
>plus a few thousand in economic damages. The basic idea of Prop 12 may
>be OK, but the limits are low.

Well, if the infant's parents get a real smart lawyer, they can argue
that the baby was the next Bill Gates and a "reasonable" expectation
would be that he would have earned $20 billion in his "economic
lifetime". Thus, the parents might collect $20 billion in REAL
economic damages.

As for old folks, well, the most most of them could earn would be
social security for a few more years. Which, since they are dead,
they won't earn anymore.

Maybe the old folks lobby can get the "economic value" of old folks
raised via a Constitutional Amendment. BTW, that is the way the law
was BEFORE the just passed amendment.

Not Me

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 8:28:47 PM9/17/03
to
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:28:37 GMT, nat...@austin.rr.com (Neal Atkins)
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:38:31 -0500, Not Me <no...@springmail.com>


>wrote:
>
>>So, Neal, what happens when a doctor or hospital kills an infant
>>through malpractice, or an elderly person no longer working? It's a
>>fact that economic damages for the death of an infant are miniscule.
>>Under Proposition 12, that makes the value of an infant a max of $750K
>>plus a few thousand in economic damages. The basic idea of Prop 12 may
>>be OK, but the limits are low.
>
>Well, if the infant's parents get a real smart lawyer, they can argue
>that the baby was the next Bill Gates and a "reasonable" expectation
>would be that he would have earned $20 billion in his "economic
>lifetime". Thus, the parents might collect $20 billion in REAL
>economic damages.

According to lawyers I know who deal with this sort of thing, no, the
parents can't argue that the baby might be the next Bill Gates. That's
not provable by a preponderence of the evidence, the standard in these
cases. An infant has no dependents and has not established any earning
power. Economically, they are worth approximately $0.

The main reason the insurance industry argued for Prop 12 is they want
predictability. Everything in a malpractice case is predictable,
except for uncapped non-economic damages. Now they are capped, the
insurance actuaries will be happy, the shareholders will be happy,
etc. Unfortunately, the State of Texas still hasn't done anyhting to
eliminate incompetent doctors.

Neal Atkins

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 9:00:53 PM9/17/03
to