Vote NO on I-330
- Thread starter Kev
- Start date
I-330 isn't about denying people the right to pursue claims its about putting a cap on how much people can sue for. Why does someone need to sue for 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars, most of which goes to lawyers. If you allow people to sue for unlimited amounts the insurance companies have to charge doctors exhorbinant malpractice fees. Ultimately these fees get passed on to the consumer. Also doctors and hospitals are more hesitant to take on high risk patients for fear of being sued. How would you like it if you needed surgery to save your life but the hospital or surgeon refused because they deemed your surgery to high a risk and didn't want a lawsuit from your family if the outcome wasn't positive.
sirlickheralot said:
So your saying instead of lawyers getting rich lets make the insurance companies richer? In Washington State only 4% of all claims are personal injury. A settlement is only paid out when it is proven in court of law that the defendant screwed up. Thats democracy and thats the way it should be.
This is what i believe right here. "A person should have the right to pursue claims in a court before a jury." The insurance companies want to take that right away and thats wrong.
VOTE NO on I-330
I am always curious at the level of interest in local US politics by Canadians.
I have not study I330 yet. I have heard about it and I think I understand the concept.
I like the concept, law suites against doctors have a cap. They should be limited to real damages a person suffers. A 21 year old who is denied gainful employment for the rest of his life because some idiot doctor made a huge mistake, he should get compensated based on what his life earning potential was and what his increased costs may be to take care of himself.
But he should not get 500 bazillion dollars on top of that. If I330 caps punitive damages or what ever the term is, then I will vote for it.
Remember the lady who got 2.7 million for the hot coffee. The opponents of I 300 say, yabut her aware his reduced to 450,000 on appeal. Just a minute, I would still pour a cup of hot coffee in my lap for $450,000.
The US legal system is out of control. Our legislators (most lawyers) are not willing to fix it. But we have the right to put initiatives on the ballot and fix what our politicians do not have the balls to do.
God Bless America
I have not study I330 yet. I have heard about it and I think I understand the concept.
I like the concept, law suites against doctors have a cap. They should be limited to real damages a person suffers. A 21 year old who is denied gainful employment for the rest of his life because some idiot doctor made a huge mistake, he should get compensated based on what his life earning potential was and what his increased costs may be to take care of himself.
But he should not get 500 bazillion dollars on top of that. If I330 caps punitive damages or what ever the term is, then I will vote for it.
Remember the lady who got 2.7 million for the hot coffee. The opponents of I 300 say, yabut her aware his reduced to 450,000 on appeal. Just a minute, I would still pour a cup of hot coffee in my lap for $450,000.
The US legal system is out of control. Our legislators (most lawyers) are not willing to fix it. But we have the right to put initiatives on the ballot and fix what our politicians do not have the balls to do.
God Bless America
Do you really think these jackpot awards that juries are giving out effect the insurance companies bottom line. They just hike up the malpractice premiums for doctors, in some states that don't put caps on noneconomic damages doctors experienced a 25% increase in their malpractice premiums in just 1 year. They don't swallow these extra costs themselves, they just pass them on to the patients. If they aren't allowed to increase their rates doctors just leave the states without caps and move to states with caps. With fewer qualified doctors everyone suffers. Thats why more and more states are implementing caps, not to protect insurance companies.Kev said:
Like I said I-330 doesn't stop people from suing doctors who screwed up, they can still sue for any economic damages causes by the doctor as well as a reasonable amount of punative damages. Who the hell needs an award of $100 million.
Thats easy i have extended family in Washington State.luckydog71 said:
When you take the time to read over what I-330 stands for ask yourself..
If i was seriously injured by a hospital's negligence would i be comfortable by having my case going through "voluntary arbitration." (as they call) Or would you prefer it going through a jury?
They claim that more money will be given back to plaintiffs. But what would you prefer 50% of 5 million (on average injury awards are split 50/50 between plaintiff and lawyers) or 78% of 1 million? (the amount proposed by I-330)
I don't like how lawyers are getting rich through personal injury claims but I-330 isn't the answer. The powers that be have to come up with something better. IMHO
sirlickheralot said:
As i posted above whats proposed by I-330 is "voluntary arbitration."
You have an arbitrator resolve your case not a jury and thats what i have a problem with.
I agree things are out of whack with personal injury claims in the USA but I-330 isn't the answer.
