I 330 vs I 336

[LadyDi381]

Do you have opinions on these two iniatives?
Diane

[1northernstar]

I know an ER doctor that was pushing the initiative when they were gathering signatures. They're looking to reduce their malpractice premiums since lawsuits are driving them thru the roof.

I told the Dr to fix their profession (i.e. clean up their own house) before looking outside. If internally, they held the standard for their profession at the proper level, they wouldn't be in this situation.

Basically, remove the root cause (bad doctors) and nobody will need to sue. Problem solved.

[Salmon Troller]

I have no specifics on these bills, but I always have an opinion. We can have the hospitals, doctors, and lawyers all throw rocks at each other on this. One thing stands clear - there are very few insurance companies willing to offer med mal in Washington, and the players continue to drop out. Unless the state legal climate improves, there will be less and less competition and the premiums and related costs can only go up. The bulk of this is passed through to the patients, who don't get better care just because they are paying more. Worse, the folks who depend on medicare find fewer providers since they are not able to pass along the cost to the government. Responsibility or legal lottery, take your pick, but you can't boycott healthcare for long.

[heymagic]

There are some bad doctors, but I'll bet there are more "bad" lawyers and way more bad patients. Doctors are people and certainly can make mistakes, however tragic. Way to many people are just waiting for a chance to get rich in a lawsuit...a sign of our times. I don't know if either intiative is a good or bad deal for us. If we don't stop the runaway lawsuits and ridiculous punative damages someday we'll have no deal.....

[SomeSailor]

I'm voting against BOTH. I heard a nurse on the TV yesterday who summed it up rather elloquently. Both of these problems need to be solved in our legislature... not by special interest groups and attorneys.

330 is bad because you can't arbitrarily decide a cap for ALL malpractice suits.

336 isn't as drastic... but I think reform should be guided again by our legislators and insurance commissioner.

The one thing that isn't covered well by either is the lack of transparency in the insurance industry. Rate hikes for no apparent reason. Malpractice insurance rates which are astronomical... you name it.

I agree we need a change... but both of these initiatives counter each other... not the issues themselves.


Now... I-912 has my vote :)

Let them get their local money from local sources, and from the revenue generated from the use of those roads... not the backs of every driver in Washington. I don't need to be paying for another viaduct... or I-5 floating bridge... and I can pay my ferry tolls when I need them, not with every gallon of gas I buy. :(

[Randygh]

I will vote for 330 and against 336. I strongly disagree that there are alot of bad docs and they aren't doing a very good job of policing themselves. Every profession has bad apples, but I venture to say that docs have a much lesser problem than unscrupulous attorneys in the legal profession. The cost of medical malpractice insurance is outrageous for high risk professions. I wonder how many ambulance chasing attorneys have litterally held a persons life in their hands and had to make the correct decision in emergent situations. Bad things happen even when the best standard of care was followed astitutely. My malpractice insurance is infinitely less than human docs pay, but I guarantee you most suits against my colleagues are frivolous or the result of a bad outcome that couldn't be foreseen or prevented.

[Tedster]

So Diane, you started this, and I'm sure you have an opinion on it esp. since you are in this industry, so share it with us. ;)

[Go Aweigh2452]

I'm with Randy on this one, I mean these two...

[MartySchwartz]

Plan on doing some research this weekend so I have not decided one way or the other yet. One thing that I see not being addressed is TORT reform. As long as (1) a lawyer's paycheck is based how much he wins in lawsuits, (2) anyone can sue for free (thanks to contingency fees) and (3) people refuse to take responsibility for themselves, this kind of stuff will continue. At best these two (and others like them) appear to attempt to fix a symptom, not the root cause.

The TORT laws were enacted to try to level the playing field to provide legal recourse to those who could not necessarily afford it. However, the law of unintended consequences has come into play and the the whole concept has turned into a Get-Rich-Quick scheme.

[LadyDi381]

To tell you the truth Ted, I am still on the fence and I will tell you why.

I do believe a change is necessary to keep our doctors in this state. Many are leaving their practices to work in other states where insurance is cheaper. We have a problem recruiting MDs to work here for the same reason. Malpractices insurance has doubled and tripled in Washington over the last couple of years in the high risk fields and will go even higher.

I330 puts a cap on lawyers getting a ridiculously high percentage of a settlement. That part I do agree with.

I don't like the binding arbitration clause that would take the place of a jury trial. For example, a patient goes to the clinic or hospital to be treated. You may be asked to sign a form to say that you would agree to arbitration in the event of a possible malpractice case prior to being treated. You may say, go somewhere else in that case. What if it is your family doctor you have been going to for years?

I don't like the time limitation to file a malpractice suit. We have in effect now, (I believe) 3 years from "when you knew or should have known" a problem excisted. I 330 puts a time limit, period. How this could affect you is, what if you were given tainted blood with HIV and didn't show symptoms for 5 years? With this initative, you wouldn't be able to go back and sue. It doesn't protect the patient.

I believe the $350,000 for pain and suffering is too low.

I know the Washington Nurse's Association, of which I am a member, is telling us to vote no because it doesn't protect the patient as well as they would like. I still haven't decided. I think it needs to be rewritten.
Diane

[Tedster]

Yup Diane I figured we would agree on this one, that being something should be done, but unfortunately this bill is tainted. So I guess then vote no and hope they get it right the next time would be the way to go 'eh. Thanks for your input though it helped me feel better about how I thought I felt. Ted :D

[bradvo]

Helped me to decide also. I keep thinking of that guy that went in for a vasectomy and had his unit removed. ( not in this state).
Brad

[Go Aweigh2452]

I keep thinking of that guy that went in for a vasectomy and had his unit removed.

Hey either way, it still accomplishes the "no more kids" part... what the heck was that doc thinking anyway? Hard to be thinking this was a real thing...

[bradvo]

Yah, thats what I thought. I read it in the Seattle Times years ago. It is one of those things you never forget. Kinda like that Enumclaw farm, ya know- the guy and the horse- what was he thinking??? DOA. This happened in our state.
Going to hold a Doctor accountabe for fixing some guy up that has been with a horse............ ya know, some quack brother of this wierdo might.

I dunno if Legislature will be able to fix this problem either though, I really think they will not want to touch it and the vote of the peoples puts the outcome on the general population.
These really are important issues and maybe I should take another look.
Maybe somtimes a small risk is worth much more in the end. It's kinda like, what if I had the option one day to be suing myself- I just screwed me self over. I think that mentality has to change.
Brad

[SomeSailor]

I think that both of these initiatives are funded by special interest groups and aren't truly in the best interest of everyone involved. I-336 would be the closest to getting my support, but still has too much teeth and no controls. My biggest problem is that we have an insurance commissioner, and a medical review board. I'm not thinking a 3 Strikes law for doctors is truly a good idea either. We might lose a lot of good doctors strictly from the view of those being afraid to practice after being sued in this state. We're paying public officials good money now to monitor for these problems. They have all the authority to suspend or revoke licenses. I think we should force the system to work as it is... or make changes... but not placing arbitrary caps on them.

I-330 is definitely a NO for me. I follow Brad's line of thinking that tort reform is the REAL answer to this... not just limiting medical claims. I think that between I-330 and I-336 you'll see cases go to court just like before and they'll write them a $350,000 check and send them on their way. Easier to cut their losses. Meanwhile the doctor now has 1 of his 3 strikes.

And oh btw.... if the judgement is over $50,000 ... they can set up a payment plan for 30 years (or the death of the plaintiff). How well can a person live on a $972.00 check? ($350,000.00 / 360 months). That wouldn't even cover the cost of a day nurse.

I guess the whole "sign here before we treat you" part sits crooked in my craw the worst. :(

That cap sounds good until you consider the long-term medical expenses some of these people are going to be stuck with and the frivilous stuff.


NOW.... I hope we SLAP DOWN the new GAS TAX with I-912 though. Let them ask for money when they need it.

YES on 912! :D