Posted on 10/12/2004 7:21:29 PM PDT by NonValueAdded
This is a thread to consolidate all of the commentary on the Florida message board concerning the Constitutional Amendments up for ratification on November 2nd. Please keep this thread focused on the amendments but feel free to start other discussion threads. Help us all make informed decisions on election day!
See post #19 for a good reason to vote YES on #2.
My $0.02 is that all three medical malpractice amendments (3,7 & 8) should be voted "NO". Each is very radical in its own way and does nothing to improve medical care or the rights of a truly injured patient.
Why vote "NO" on 3???
It prevents med mal attorneys from hitting the lottery on big dollar cases, and helps dry up funding to the Dem party both locally and nationally?
Yes, 3 does limit attorney fees but there are better ways to place caps then by amendment and 3 is as radical as 7 & 8. All are misguied attempts by special interests. All deserve a "no" vote.
Anyone have info on Florida judges up for election/re-elction?
Anyone have info on Florida judges up for election/re-elction?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243100/posts
Have you seen this thread yet?
I'm sort of amazed at how many conservatives can't wait to impose government controls over what is a private contract i.e. the agreement between an attorney and client.
When have price controls ever accoplished what they set out to do?
BTW: I'm not a "trial attorney" so this amendment won't impact my pocketbook. I'm opposing this amendment on principle.
There are already limits on contingency fee agreements, this would just alter the limits. The only real difference is that in the extremely high judgments, patients get to keep more of the money. Other than that, it doesn't change very much.
The reason contingency fees are already limited is because the goverment offers lawyers certain protections. In a perfect market, anyone could be a "supplier" in the law industry, and the public wouldn't need any fee limits. However, since lawyers get certain benefits from goverment protection, the public also needs protection from collusion. If anyone could practice law, you would likely see contingency fees fall (along with the quality of representation). However, this is why fees are (and should continue to be) capped. Is $75,000 PLUS ALL EXPENSES in a $250K setllement really not enough for the attorney?
I don't like the government deciding how much is "enough." That is a slippery slope you are on.
Not everyone can be a plumber. You must be licensed. Should the Florida Consitution also impose limits on how much plumbers can charge?
I understand that attorneys are not popular, so it makes it easier to justify in one's mind the imposition of price controls.
BUMP for reference!
BUMP. Thanks.
I don't like the gov. putting limits either but it's out of control. Would you favor this if it set the limits an attorney could recieve at say $5 million ?
thanks julieRNR21.
By: Gator Girl on the Florida Locale board, 10/22/2004 7:25:54 PM EDT
Re: Amendments 3, 7 and 8
My husband works in the ER and was sued by someone who waited a week to go to the ER for a eye injury and subsequently lost his eye.
The guy named the doctors, PA, nurses, and even the on-call clinic because they asked to have the guy sent over in the morning instead of coming in.
Because he waited, he would have lost the eye anyway.
My husband's malpractice carrier decided to settle instead of spending the money it would take to fight, and then most likely paying out to a sympathetic plaintiff who lost an eye.
A "yes" on Amendment 3 will allow more carriers to fight lawsuits and will give some of these plaintiff's lawyers pause before they take some of the more questionable cases.
By the way, I am a lawyer.
With regard to 7 and 8, there is no definition of "malpractice" or "adverse incident" in either Amendment. Neither my husband nor any of the other medical providers involved really committed malpractice, but the result of the suit may lead someone to believe they did.
Don't get me wrong, I think patients should be able to select a qualified physician, but "malpractice" is not always "malpractice". Let the doctors police the doctors, just like lawyers police the lawyers.
No problem, hope it helps. I fear I'm preaching to the choir.
And thanks for the ping to the "amendment" thread too! I'll take a look.
On # 4- there's no reason not to allow slot machines. They will bring tax revenue from the people who want them great enough to offset the cost to the people who don't want them or don't care about them.
Implications of #2 - provides more structure to the efficiency of the state legislature. Also, requires citizens to be informed and to use discipline in filing petitions. Requiring the Supreme Court to review in a timely manner is a good thing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.