by Goldy, 10/25/2005, 8:28 AM

No on 330
Courtesy of Andrew Wahl

I come from a family of doctors, so I understand the burden of malpractice insurance, but I-330 isn’t a pro-doctor initiative, it’s a pro-insurance industry initiative. And either way, it certainly ain’t pro-patient. There is no medical malpractice crisis in WA state, and no need for some insurance industry written and financed anti-consumer fix. Quite frankly, I-330 sucks.

(Hmm. Why is it Republicans are always trying to put trial lawyers and organized labor out of business? You think if hotdog vendors were big contributors to the Democrats, the GOP would be trying to bust them up too?)

68 Responses to “I-330 sucks”

1. rujax206 spews:

It’s a “save your ass” initiative for incompetent insurance company lawyers is what it is.

2. prr spews:

Make sure and tell your family practioners that this is how youfeel.

More than likely they’ll choose not to have you as patients, and rightly so.

3. Felix Fermin spews:

I also come from a family of doctors. Their concerns about insurance rates are legit. So why aren’t we demanding that the insurance companies open their books? We know from California’s experience that capping malpractice awards hasn’t reduced insurance rates and hasn’t reduced incidences of malpractice. The elephant in the room is the insurance companies – we should demand accountability from them.

No on 330!

4. yearight spews:

Let the free market handle the crisis. If enough doctors leave an area or state the effects will be obvious.

Question – Do any of the single payer health plans on the left maintain the current liability structure? What provisions, if any, would a single payer system have to keep doctors from leaving the profession or the system due to liability/malpractice issues?

5. prr spews:

Personally, I’d like to see our insurance commissioner open the books on Insurance companies, Corporations open co-ops that would negotiate with with drug companies to reduce costs. Additionally, i would like to see legislation that would limit attornet fees to no more than 15% on all settlements.

Oh, and by the way, I did vote yes on 330

6. Apache Fog spews:

Goldy: Didn’t you know that hotdog vendors are part of the gay conspiracy to convert otherwise square and straight WASP Republican males. First it’s hotdogs, then God only knows what!!!!????!!!!
You have to be ever vigilant about these insidious, creeping evils. Please help in the fight against hotdog vendors by contributing to, The Pat Robertson Ministries. We have the means to take them out, so why shouldn’t we use them?

7. bj spews:

If most of the electorate is like me, they’re probably totally confused as to the distinctions between I-330 and I-336: what distinguishes them, who’s sponsoring them, who’s on which side, and what or yes or no vote means. A good reason to just vote no for both.

8. prr spews:

or yes to I-330 and No- on 336

9. headless lucy spews:

Mr. Cynical once told me that if we had socialized medicine we’d end up paying7% of the gross national product on health insurance. Knowing how rightys use numbers, I looked up what we’re paying now for healthcare: It’s 15.2% of the gross national product. So, we’re paying for it twice and we still don’t have it. I wonder who’s raking in the profits. Does the name “FRIST” ring a bell?

I feel a “COMMIE” label creeping up on me….

10. Roger Rabbit spews:

Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush can take 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

How many doctors have actually left the profession because of malpractice insurance rates? Betcha it’s none. Betcha you can’t find 1 doctor who prefers making his living as a janitor, fast food worker, or nursing home orderly. No malpractice insurance premium worries in those occupations!

Insurance rates are high across the board. Trial lawyers have nothing to do with it. It’s very simple. Insurance companies have only 2 sources of revenue — premiums and investment returns. The stock market and interest rates are down. Insurance companies raised premiums because they have been earning less from their investments — pure and simple.

11. Goldy spews:

I know quite a few doctors who don’t practice medicine anymore, but they didn’t leave primarily because of malpractice… they left because they never should have been doctors. A lot of doctors go into the profession because that is what really smart people do, and/or because they knew they could make a good living… but these days, you just can’t make as good a living at medicine as a really smart person can elsewhere.

Which means, these days, a much larger portion of medical schools incoming classes consist of people who really want to practice medicine… instead of like in my father’s generation, when if you were smart and Jewish and didn’t want to be lawyer, that’s what you did to escape the ghetto.

The best doctors are not always the smartest ones. They’re the ones who really love being doctors.

12. prr spews:

The idiot at 10
“Trial lawyers have nothing to do with it”

I’m thinking that taking anyhere from 33% – 50% of all court settlements may have just a more than a little to do with this situation.

Why not limit lawyers “commissions” to say… 15% on mediacal cases?

13. N in Seattle spews:

The “doctors are leaving Washington” lie keeps coming up. Some time ago, I did something silly — I looked up the numbers.

I can’t find the comment in which I reported my results, nor the blog I was commenting on, nor even the year in which I wrote it. Suffice it to say, however, that there were more physicians in WA in Year X than there had been in Year (X-1), which was more than there were in Year (X-2), which was more than…

The report may even have shown physicians/1000 population, in which case demographic trends wouldn’t contribute.

14. Jimmy Kimball spews:

You are wrong on this Goldy.

There is now only one back surgeon left in Bellevue. The rest have fled (Michigan is a prime relocation area). And he’s considering bolting too.

15. rujax206 spews:

You know, one thing always bugs me about this “frivolous lawsuit payouts are the reason malpractice (or general liability for that matter) premiums are so high” meme.

What’s the matter with these plaintiffs attorneys. Are they so bad that they can’t prove a lawsuit is frivolous, unfounded, or wrong? Aren’t the same twelve people considering arguemnts for BOTH sides? Last time I looked…insurance companies hire very large, very prestigious law firms at verrry high rates. Can’t they earn their dough?

I guess we better legislate protection for lawyers who can’t win cases.

16. yearight spews:

Jimmy Kimball-14 ‘There is now only one back surgeon left in Bellevue.’

Most of the reports I have seen involve MDs changing from GP or OBGYN to other specialties. The prime targets are the relatively lucrative specialties that do not have as much possibility for malpractice. (Radiologist, etc.) The changing specialties, along with changing locale, (county or state), have been the most-reported movement I have seen. Again, if a single-payer plan were to ever work in the current litigation environment, how would the movement by MDs be curtailed? (Especially with what would understandably be lower compensation?)

17. Roger Rabbit spews:

12

Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush takes 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

“I’m thinking”

Since when do you “think,” prr? You don’t “think,” you regurgitate. Right wing talking points, that is. Malpractice suits account for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of U.S. health care costs. As for your idea of price controls on lawyers, go screw yourself, you fucking communist!!

18. Roger Rabbit spews:

16

Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush takes 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

Doctors are earning relatively less for the same reason lawyers are earning less — more medical schools and law schools. The AMA’s efforts to keep doctor incomes high by limiting the number of U.S. medical school admissions has been defeated by the proliferation of offshore medical schools and importation of foreign-educated doctors. It’s called competition, and it’s working to break the AMA’s lucrative monopoly on health care.

19. Aexia spews:

Capping awards isn’t a new idea. It’s been tried elsewhere. It’s *failed*. States with caps have actually seen premiums go up *faster* than states without caps.

20. rujax206 spews:

So Rabbit…are you vacationing on the EASTER ISLANDS?

21. N in Seattle spews:

Jimmy Kimball (as dumb here as his TV persona):

There is now only one back surgeon left in Bellevue. The rest have fled (Michigan is a prime relocation area). And he’s considering bolting too.

There’s no specific physician specialty code for “back surgeon” … the closest match is “neurosurgeon”. There are *seven* neurosurgeons who participate in the Medicare program with offices in Bellevue. The AMA’s Doctor Finder shows three other neurosurgeons who belong to the AMA and another two (not previously counted) who are non-AMA. And of course none of this addresses the neurosurgeons in nearby Kirkland or Renton or Seattle.

But why let facts get in the way of lying hypocricy?

22. rujax206 spews:

re 20-

I’ve heard it’s a nice place for BUNNIES (two AND four legs)!

23. prr spews:

Rabbit,

price control on lawyers is a wonderful pursuit.

Additionally, limiting the number of lawyers would be another great step

24. hardovertoport spews:

I’m voting NO on I-330. The malpractice premiums Doctors face are undoubtedly high as are the insurance premiums I face. The medical industry had no business putting patients in the middle of this debate. Obviouly they are out of touch with the cost of health care their patients face on a daily basis. Their argument is with the insurance companies, and frankly so is mine. Had they approached it that way, maybe we could have gotten together on something. As it is…my advice to doctors who want to go elsewhere is: GO! Don’t let the door hit your worthless butt on the way out! And.. ENJOY!. Enjoy the company of that vast group of other doctors who felt the same way and ENJOY the free market competition you are so looking forward to in those states. Enjoy that overcrowded field. I’m sure patients will just come running in the door, there will be so many who can still afford your care after they pay THEIR inflated insurance premiums (which you have never tried to do anything about). Hope it works out for you. Good riddance.

25. Bubbasaurus spews:

I can understand anyone wanting to avoid a jury trial these days. You’re not getting a jury of your peers, your getting a jury of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty, so anything can happen. These trials are also civil cases, so beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t apply – I’d be scared to have to defend myself in that situation.

26. proud leftist spews:

prr @ 12
What is wrong with the free market determining attorneys’ fees in malpractice actions? Don’t you believe in the free market? No law sets such fees at one-third of proceeds. Everything is negotiable. The cynical reasoning behind I-330′s limitation of fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers (but not defendants’ lawyers) is to take any incentive away for lawyers to pursue malpractice cases at all. Also, of course, I-330 is just a Republican attempt to defund a financial supporter of Democrats–trial lawyers. Curiously, invariably it is the defendant doctor in a malpractice case that asks for a jury; juries are hell on plaintiffs in malpractice cases in Washington (85-90% defense verdict rate). So, we see malpractice insurers want the juries, but they don’t want them to be able to freely evaluate the evidence and render a fair verdict. It’s amazing that people would want to vote to limit what has been considered one of our fundamental civil liberties since the Magna Carta–the right to trial by a jury of our peers. Oh, and by the way, Washington has a net influx of doctors and I personally know a helluva lot more than one back doctor on the Eastside.

27. rujax206 spews:

Bubbasaurus-

That’s a shitty attitude toward jury duty, man. Have you no civic pride?

28. yearight spews:

N in Seattle-21 ‘But why let facts get in the way of lying hypocricy?’

Not all neurosurgeons operate on backs. What you did show, however, is that the one-size-fits-all methodology of our system gets pretty useless when your back hurts.

29. N in Seattle spews:

yeawrong:

Not all neurosurgeons operate on backs.

As I said, you can’t pick out the subspecialties unless there’s a code for them (as there is, for instance, for “hand surgery”). OTOH, brain surgery is *more* specialized than back surgery, and there are a lot more operable backs than brains, so if anything the percentages favor the majority of those neurosurgeons doing spinal surgery.

And I didn’t look at orthopedists, some of whom could also be back specialists.

What you did show, however, is that the one-size-fits-all methodology of our system gets pretty useless when your back hurts.

WTF does this mean? If you need back surgery, you ask your primary-care doc for a referral. Or you call up neurosurgeons and ask whether they do back surgery. Or whatever it takes. Finding a back surgeon isn’t rocket science.

Or brain surgery. :-)

30. Wayne spews:

Medical malpractice cases are very expensive to pursue and pretty risky too. Limiting lawyers fees to 15% will mean that injured patients won’t be able to find representation even for valid claims. Notice that I-330 doesn’t cap defense fees.

The $350,000 cap will probably be thrown out as the state supreme court has already thrown out a similar cap some years ago as against the state constitution. It is also too low.

prr: If a doctor, through malpractice, caused you to be permanently injured to the extent that you could not earn a living, pursue your hobbies, play with your children or have a sex life, and left you permanently disfigured, would you think $350K was sufficient to pay for your pain and suffering? Also, any recovery for your spouse and children to compensate them for their loss of a parent and spouse would also come out of that $350K, as well as any attorneys’ fees. Still think a $350K cap is a good idea?

If the problem is frivolous lawsuits, why make it harder for people with legitimate claims to find a lawyer, and why reduce the damages they are legitimately entitled to? I-330 is a bad idea for patients. By the way, you should be aware that the Washington State Nurses Association is opposing I-330.

31. Mark The Redneck spews:

Hey Wabbit – I just decided NOT to come to your house and rob you of your money.

Are you enjoying my subsidy? You selfish greedy fuck.

32. David T. spews:

As a matter-of-fact, Washington State has as many doctors as we can handle. I personally know several doctors in other states who would love to practice in Seattle, but there are very few opportunities. Seattle is one of those places where doctors, like everyone else it seems, wants to live.

homesteadbook.com

33. prr spews:

Wayne,

I am NOT saying the the issue of our healthcare crisis is to be blamed solely on lawyers.

The whole situation of Dr.’s laweyrs, Insurance Companies, drug companies as well as the the ancillary industries surrounding this situation is a golden trough that all of the industries have been feeding off for all to long.

However, this needs to be addressed and it needs to be done all across the board.

Do I feel that lawyers have continually filed lawsuits against innocent Dr.’s? Absolutely.

is there any reason in the world why some innocent person should fall victim to shoddy medical procedures?
No.

However, if someone has a claim that is grounds for them to receive a large sum of money, should an attorney receive the bul of the costs? Absolutely not.

Our legal system is filled with crooks that have ripped off the American public and it needs to be addressed. Limiting Attorneys fees seems to me to be just one step in the right direction.

34. Roger Rabbit spews:

Roger Rabbit has returned from vacation! If Bush can take 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t I take 3 vacations a month too? Anyway, I’ve turned off the automatic messaging machine and I’m baaaaaack to put you hypocritical lying greedy neo-Trostkyite right-wing trolls in your proper place — HELL!!!

Let’s see, which of these fuckers shall I kick in the balls first? Oh, I know, Mark the Redneck is always good for a laugh!

Hey Mark, what subsidy am I getting from you? I don’t remember seeing your check in my mail. On the other hand, every time I buy lettuce at Safeway, I have an extra fraction of a cent for it because selfish greedy commodity traders like you are skimming off the top. Go screw yourself.

Let’s see, who’s next? Hey Jimmy Kimball, I don’t remember seeing you before, are you a new guy? I’m 100% in favor of negligent doctors who injure or kill their patients LEAVING our fair state! Michigan (or whoever) can have ‘em!! Tell your malpracticing doctor buddies to don’t let the door hit their asses on their way out.

Hey prr, if we’re going to limit the number of lawyers, then it’s only fair and right that we also limit the number of Republicans. Since there’s too many of them already, we’ll have to eliminate some. Let’s start with you. If you don’t like that — go screw yourself, you fucking communist!

35. proud leftist spews:

prr.
Please tell me why the free market should not set attorney’s fees. Please tell me how an initiative limiting attorney’s fees is not a violation of the constitutional right of contract, and how limiting the fees of one side in a legal dispute, but not the other, is not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s right of equal protection. You must be quite the fan of governmental interference in the marketplace to support I-330. True conservatives gasp at what the initiative wants to do. More hypocrisy from the rightwing, it just never ends . . .

36. prr spews:

Rabbit…

Have you made ammends to the families of the innocent women and children that you killed?

Does that keep you up at night?

37. prr spews:

proud leftist…

Why should some scumbag lawyer make 30-50%, plus expenses, off the suffering of someone?

When did Justice and the legal system seperate?

38. wayne spews:

prr:

50% would be pretty unusual, 30 to 40 % is more typical. Also, the lawyer may go all the way to trial and get 30 to 40 % of zero. It’s pretty obvious that the initiative is not intended to reduce lawyer’s fees so that the patient gets more money, but instead to make it harder for injured patients to find a lawyer to pursue their case.

39. The Real Mark - who is usually Right and always right spews:

NO on I-330 and YES on I-336

Goldy, this isn’t a clear-cut Dem/GOP issue. A lot depends on personal experiences. While trial lawyers should not be getting the big paydays they sometimes get, the two bigger issues are the right to sue and the fact that the medical profession has a longstanding history of secrecy. They do more to hide their mistakes than Dean Logan and Ron Sims at election time. Good doctors should be amply rewarded. Bad doctors should lose their licenses.

That said, I also know doctors who left the field (or the state) or cut back their practices because of overwhelming malpractice insurance. The other problem they had was that people are SO used to the quasi-socialized medicine of big insurance, that they’re unwilling to pay any kind of serious money for services other than brain, heart or baby. With CDHP’s, people would understand the real cost of service and would have incentive to STAY healthy instead of relying on doctors to enable unhealthy lifestyles.

40. For the Clueless spews:

OT but important: there was a spirited debated between John Carlson and Ed Murray this morning on KUOW. They may have already put it up on the website for streaming. See KUOW.ORG.

Transportation is a complex issue and easy to demagogue which Carlson does in spades during this debate.

NO on 912!!

41. prr spews:

Wayne….

You and I both know that typically these cases are negotiated and settled with an insurance company to avoid a costly trial.

At any arte, this topic is not part of I-330 or 336, just a uestion that I have posed.

42. Mr. Cynical spews:

lucy@9–
There you go making up shit again. I NEVER said 7% of GNP moron.
I would expect the party of John Edwards, King of the Ambulance Chasers, to choose shysters over doctors. Predictable.
Goldy, being a shyster himself, is the SIMS SHITSQUAD Captain and now the SHYSTER SHITSQUAD Captain.
Good work Goldy…..at least you are consistent.

43. N in Seattle spews:

wayne:

Also, the lawyer may go all the way to trial and get 30 to 40% of zero.

In that case, the lawyer loses money … sometimes a lot of money. Injury cases are taken on a contingency basis, with the lawyer paying for all research, filings, discovery, depositions, experts, etc. (along with staff salaries and benefits, rent, utilities, and the other costs of doing business). If the judgment goes against the plaintiff’s client, the lawyer gets not a dime for all that work, has to eat all those costs.

It’s pretty obvious that the initiative is not intended to reduce lawyer’s fees so that the patient gets more money, but instead to make it harder for injured patients to find a lawyer to pursue their case.

Yep. The contingency system is a far better way to cut down on “frivolous” lawsuits … plaintiff’s attorneys don’t take clearly-unwinnable cases, because of the marginal costs noted above.

If the defendants/insurance companies didn’t decide regularly to settle rather than defend winnable cases — because, of course, a settlement is cheaper than trying the case, and the bottom line is all that ever matters — there would be far fewer cases overall. And the ones that were filed would be the most meaningful and societally important ones.

44. Roger Rabbit spews:

@35

There you go again — spitting on a Vietnam vet.

45. Roger Rabbit spews:

38

“Good doctors should be amply rewarded. Bad doctors should lose their licenses.”

Then why shouldn’t good lawyers be amply rewarded, and bad lawyers should lose their licenses? Why the double standard?

46. Mr. Cynical spews:

David T. @ 31 says,
“As a matter-of-fact, Washington State has as many doctors as we can handle. I personally know several doctors in other states who would love to practice in Seattle, but there are very few opportunities. Seattle is one of those places where doctors, like everyone else it seems, wants to live.”

David, you obviously didn’t see the piece Robert Mak did on King5TV this weekend. Washington does as miserable a job counting Doctors as it does counting Votes.
The Shysters (lawyers) quoted these numbers about Doctors per Thousand and claim Washington was “just fine”. KingTv looked into the list supporting the total # of doctors the shysters claimed were in Washington and found many that were dead, moved, no longer in practice, retired, not actual doctors serving patients but researchers etc. etc.
The shysters had grossly overstated the number of doctors in Washington. Shysters lying!!! Imagine that.

47. Roger Rabbit spews:

@38

“That said, I also know doctors who left the field (or the state) or cut back their practices because of overwhelming malpractice insurance.”

Wait a minute … screeeeech … how do you save money on malpractice insurance by cutting back your practice? If you practice ANY medicine, you need malpractice insurance, or you run the risk of losing everything you own. What insurance company gives a premium break to part-time doctors? Do you know of any? What doctors do you know who left the field? Can you give us their names? What are they doing for a living now, selling real estate? Sweeping floors?

Or are you just another troll bullshitter?

48. Mr. Cynical spews:

Roger Rabbit–
Glad to see you are back.
Hope your health is in order.
Hey, I heard you were such a stud even as a little bunny that you actually were banging one of your teachers.
Any truth to that rumor???

49. Erik spews:

The doctors need to remove from their ranks the people who are committing negligence.

The focus needs to be on keeping patients from being injured from the very few doctors who are screwing up, not insulating them from the harm it causes.

50. N in Seattle spews:

Roger Rabbit:

Wait a minute … screeeeech … how do you save money on malpractice insurance by cutting back your practice? If you practice ANY medicine, you need malpractice insurance, or you run the risk of losing everything you own.

Welcome back from your vacation … did you clear much brush?

This is an excellent point, but it falls short of reality. Physicians have to carry malpractice insurance even if they are no longer in practice, because they could be sued for something that may have happened years ago. My father, who was an anesthesiologist, was served with a subpoena about a decade after he’d stopped passing gas (this was in the 1980s … this battle has been raging for a loooooong time).

51. Mark The Redneck spews:

Wabbit – I decided NOT to rob you. By libral thinking, not taking someone’s money IS a subsidy. It’s a giveaway.

Are you enjoying my subsidy you greedy lazy fuck?

Be nice, maybe I’ll give you more money tomorrow.

52. The Real Mark - who is usually Right and always right spews:

Roger @ 45:

“how do you save money on malpractice insurance by cutting back your practice?”

For example… As an OB/GYN, you cut back to office visits only, you stop delivering babies and you don’t do GYN surgery.

“What insurance company gives a premium break to part-time doctors?”

Who said part-time?

53. The Real Mark - who is usually Right and always right spews:

Roger @ 45: “Then why shouldn’t good lawyers be amply rewarded, and bad lawyers should lose their licenses? Why the double standard?”

Feel free to look up all of the disciplinary actions of the WA State Bar. Note that they are ALL public, AFAIK — unlike medmal cases.

54. proud leftist spews:

prr @ 37:
You evaded the question. If you believe in the free market, then why should lawyers and clients not be permitted to set the terms of their financial relationship without governmental interference? Why should someone outside that relationship be in a position to complain about the terms of the relationship? How the fuck does it affect you? Clients who have a beef with the amount of a fee can either go to the bar association or sue. Our economic system rewards those who take risks; that is the nature of capitalism. So, we often see people get huge payouts who did not in some sense “earn” them; sleazy CEOs getting 400 times the annual pay of workers in the same company is an example that comes to mind. Are you in favor of limiting CEO pay? Medical malpractice cases are among the most difficult to pursue and settle of any type of civil litigation. The attorneys who risk pursuing them should not be punished for doing so.

55. Husky1993 spews:

Yes on I-336
No on I-330

We need medical malpractice reform – but directed at ways of stopping malpractice, not towards restricting the rights of the victims of it.

56. Roger Rabbit spews:

53

It’s high time the medical association stopped protecting bad doctors.

57. Living in tacoma spews:

I am always leary of simple soultions to complex problems (like med mal) BUT I have an idea that the general population could wrap their minds around –

Make Med Mal Insurance similar to car Insurance. Everyone understands if they get a speeding ticket, their rates go up, cause an accident and their rates will increase again. If a person has too many infractions they either need to stop driving or pay the increased rates.

Apply this to Med Mal – The bad doctors would be forced to pay for their mistakes through higher rates. Eventually only the bad doctors will be priced out of business and the responsible docs will enjoy lower rates.

Is this too simple? Maybe. But I do know there are good doctors out there who are paying for the mistakes of a few and giving up our right to hold people accountable for their actions is Un-American. As an added bonus you can sell this idea to the right by saying you will “let the market decide” they love that kinda stuff.

Sorry I dont have any details, just a vague idea. Make Malpractice insurance like car insurance.

58. NoWonder spews:

Roger Rabbit-56 ‘It’s high time the medical association stopped protecting bad doctors.’

…and the ABA stopped protecting lawyers.

59. Roger Rabbit spews:

58

How does the ABA protect lawyers? The ABA has no control over the discipline of any lawyers. The ABA is a voluntary national organization of lawyers that has nothing to do with lawyer discipline. Gawd, NoWonder, you are an ignorant fuck.

60. Roger Rabbit spews:

Hey NoWonder, you stupid fuck — FYI, in Washington lawyer discipline is the responsibility of the Washington State Bar Association and the Washington Supreme Court (which, I assure you, do NOT protect bad or dishonest lawyers). In this state, all disciplinary actions against lawyers are published, you stupid fuck.

61. NoWonder spews:

Roger Rabbit

‘How does the ABA protect lawyers?’

Joke. Touchy, touchy. In reality the problem with lawyers is that they have had a hand in creating laws that force the poor smucks to use them. (Lots of make-work.) Most I have worked with would be out of business if not for their legal secretaries, as the lawyers are not the sharpest tack in the room. In most areas of law the bulk 90% of new work is boilerplate stuff, yet their egos do not let them do a simple copy. They need to charge for a complete new set of papers. I have seen many lawyers in action in WA Family Court and the results in terms of intellect and simple reuse of very boilerplate stuff is virtually non-existant.

Defend them all you want. Most who have to interact with the courts would say that lawyers are much worse than neocons.

62. hardovertoport spews:

NO on I-330.

63. The Real Mark - who is usually Right and always right spews:

Roger @ 56

So you were just bustin’ my chops over this?

Man, I should give your home address (or at least your last known whereabouts [Shark's garden]) to Bob Barker.

Bob Barker says, “Be sure to have your Wascally Wabbits neutered!”

64. Libertarian spews:

I’m gonna vote against 300 and 336. It’s the doctors/insurance companies vs. the lawyers, and the little guy is getting the shaft, again.

65. torridjoe spews:

N in Seattle @13

I did a very similar analysis that you speak of, here at Horse’s Ass in a comment thread several months back. If Goldy has archives of his threads that he can search, I’m sure he’d find it.

I did both Oregon and Washington. Both have more doctors practicing in state now, than three years ago–and the ratio of citizens to doctors is also smaller than three years ago.

The myth of doctors abandoning practice appears to be about as sound as the one about families losing their farms to the estate tax.

66. RUFUS spews:

Yes on I-336 X 3
No on I-330 x 3

Because I live in King County! Well at least I am going to say I live there.

67. SeaAtTull spews:

this is directed at “prr” and his stupid comments in “12″. Before you open your STUPID MOUTH! Why don’t you find out the facts ASSHOLE! Lawyers charge 30%-50% because they are fighting the Insurance companies who will simply outspend the defense to win a case, after the spending war, the “LAWYERS AND THE PLANTIFF” end up with alot less than they deserved, if they even win at all, which isn t very often, instead of bitching about how much malpractice lawyers make, maybe you sould wonder what the insurance lawyers are making you insurance company dick sucking asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!

68. SeaAtTull spews:

In response to (50) “N in Seattle” about your dad being sued ten years after he quit practicing medicine. how could he sued after the statute of limitations ran out? BUSTED IN A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!