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!
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT
Please keep in mind just because you disagree with a practice (ambulance chasing) doesn't mean this amendment addresses the problem! Sanctions against lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits or seek overinflated damages is better than punishing those representing truly injured individuals at substantial costs to the lawyers. Representing a client in a major medical action will cost the attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there is always a change of loss, even when representing truly injured individuals. More importantly, the volume of true ambulance chasers bring smaller, less than $250,000 suits...this will not deter them at all!!! I am a corporate defense attorney...I speak from experience. This amendment does not solve the problem, and could negatively impact the rights of the injured.
Our physicians are getting attacked from both ends. The government controls the amount in which doctors get paid.(which is being cut every year)
The insurance companies are increasing the malpractice premiums, and trial lawyers are swarming to attack them any way they can.
Government controls are not ideal, but doctors have been dealing with it for quite some time.
Something must be done to give the doctors a break.
I respect your posts and opinions, NVA, but I still think it's prudent and fair to make information available to the public regarding medical institutions or the 'high priests' that keep them afloat. From my point of view, a potential patient who takes the time to research his/her caregiver will also have the intellect to determine whether or not the record was tarnished with nuisance or neglect. Since judges don't seem to be able to make JUDGEMENTS on so many issues (not the least of which is frivolous and what is relevant), who else is going to decide where to take your body for repairs ? We have more options in choosing a BBQ grill by logging on to epinions.com or reading Consumer Report than we do with whom to trust our life. And on #8..........I'm sorry but the BPR is pretty lenient on real offenders as it is now. If I see a definite pattern or trend develop against one particular physician, I can wager serious money that it is a bonafide M.O. for this individual and I want to know about it so I can run as fast as I can from his/her office or O.R. suite. I was in the medical field for over 33 years and I'm voting YES on both #'s 7 and 8.
Thank you very much for your contributions to the discussion. It is too late to change my vote since it is already cast so I can help out on election day. :) But perhaps others will consider your input and explore this further.
It really doesn't matter since both 7 & 8 will pass, but I can't see how anyone (aside from trial lawyers) can support this.
Amendment 7 would end the practice of peer review, and physicians would no longer report their mistakes.
Amendment 8 will force physicians to settle every case that is brought against them. It will deter any young physicians from coming into the state. The trial attorneys set it up so that out of court settlements don't count as strikes against the doctor. Hence, no physicians in his right mind is going to risk a strike if it means losing his lincense. Instead, he/she will settle every malpractice suit against him out of court to avoid a "strike." This will drive up the cost of malpractice insurance, and decrease the number of physicians and the quality of care for Floridians.
As for 3, trial attorney fees are already capped in the state. Amendment 3 simply lowers the cap at the high end judgments, preventing the trial lawyers from "hitting the lottery" with their $20 million judgments. Amendment 3 makes sure that those who are truly injured get to keep the majority of the settlement, and it will prevent trial lawyers from filing frivolous suits.
For each amendment, take a look at proponents and opponents.
For example, info on Amendment 2:
Sponsor: Florida LegislatureH'mmmm . . .Proponents: VoteSmartFlorida.org, which is composed of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Student Association, Florida Retail Association, AAA, and more than 60 organizations statewide
Opponents: Hands Off Florida, which is composed of the Common Cause Florida; ACLU; Ballot Initiative Strategy Center; Citizens in Charge; Florida ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and more than 15 organizations
YES ON #4....
Hi, GY -- thanks for your input on that. It's a tough call, indeed.
Does anyone have any thing on 1st dca judges? All I can find is 'retain all'... I've not been here long enough to know any major problem cases, I guess, and my random case search didn't help.
Here's a special thread for amendments. Someone had great foresight in starting this, for which I am grateful!
Good luck when you get to the judges :o) !
SUPPORT THE DOCS, VOTE YES ON 3 !!!!!!!!!
NO ON 7 & 8 !!!!!!
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR VOTER GUIDE!!!
I didn't want to fooled by tricky wording
btttttttttttttttt
btttttttttttttttt
btttttttttttttttt
btttttttttttttttt
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.