I voted today in the TX constitutional amendment election

[bluestateguy]

Turnout was very light. Even though nearly half of the voters in my precinct are Hispanic, I only saw one person on the list persons who had voted today with a Hispanic last name. That is not good.

The big amendment on the ballot today is Proposition 12, which would allow the legislature to cap all "non-economic" damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and all other lawsuits. The AMA, HMO's and other corporate interests lobbied hard for a Yes vote. The trial lawyers lobbied against it, but trail lawyers usually lose statewide elections in Texas because many people don't like lawyers---until they need one. People just don't foresee the possibility that they may someday be screwed by a careless doctor, an HMO or big business. $250,000 (that is the cap amount) is not a lot of money when somebody's life is ruined, nor will good lawyers take cases from defendants with valid claims if damages are capped at that amount. Instead, people will be stuck with lawyers like Lionel Hutz of Springfield's "I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm!" I urge Texas DUers to vote NO on 12.

[carpetbagger]

1. I'm a doctor, and I voted against 12 today.

The prop's a total farce. There's already a law that caps medical malpractice. This caps everything. If we could trust our state government to make and enforce laws regarding consumer and environmental protection, it might be a good thing. But this is Texas, and when the pigs fly, it's likely because they were suckled in a brownfield.

I agree with the TMA, et al., that the medical malpractice situation is a joke. It's pretty much a craps shoot as to who wins and loses cases. Most of the "malpractice" I've seen succeed in court involved no malpractice. This does nothing other than lower the jackpot. Unless, of course, you happen to make a lot of money. Then the sky's the limit for economic damages.

[pmbryant]

2. Yow! Thanks for reminding me.

What a farce.

--Peter

[Castilleja]

3. I voted early, no on 12...

and the news and paper said that there was a pretty decent total so far for early voting. I am not sure what to conclude from that, being as how we are apparently the litigation capitol of Texas... I am sure that rep. is not entirely undeserved.

I am afraid it is going to be "for" here, we have heard scads of ads by doctors, etc., on how they would like to be able to stay and practice but can only do so if this is passed. Otherwise, I guess they will be moving out of state..? :/ Only lately have there been ads for the other side of this, and rarely any mention of Insurance Co.'s LARGE part in this problem, which I believe is the real culprit here.

Your last para. about people being unable to put themselves in that position is dead on.

[pasadenaboy]

4. Just curious, tell me your thoughts

I'm in favor of caps for non-profits, but no caps on for profits.

What do you think?

[Ilsa]

6. You mean like Spohn in Corpus Christi?

They are non-profit. I beleive they are the only county hospital there also. And they own several other hospitals in CC. I wouldn't trust them for a minute to make the "ethical" decision in cost-benefit analysis.

[bluestateguy]

7. No I'm against caps

Being a non-profit should not shield one from responsibility for malfeasance. Hell, universities (and their hospitals) are "non-profit", but having spent 10 years on college campuses dealing with administrators I can tell you that they are "non-profit" in name only.

[Ilsa]

5. Voted No on 12.

Corporations don't have hearts, just cost-benefit analyses.

I trust the doctors on this, but not the corporations (hospitals, nursing homes, etc.).

[lcordero]

8. uh

People just don't foresee the possibility that they may someday be screwed by a careless doctor, an HMO or big business.

I will die in my own home or maybe on the street rather than be treated in a hospital. Medicine and pharmaceuticals has become the new carpetbagger's paradise. They are more crooked than used car salesmen.

[Trek234]

9. So did I

I'd say a person came in to vote every 30 or so seconds. Oddly a lot of them had to be redirected to the correct voting place.

Voted no on 12, voted for 6 person jury, against allowing appointments, against not having an election, against giving the military money.

The last one was a tough one. It SOUNDED good... "military communities". But it sounded state side only, and I figured if they couldn't get the money from the state of Texas they would have to pull it from some place else. (i.e. bomb production, etc.)

I realize it might no go down like that - but from what I could tell this would only potentially help soldiers state side. If it was for helping soldiers get food/etc in Iraq or elsewhere I would have voted for it. State side soldiers (I believe) have it much better than soldiers in Iraq and don't really need such aid like the soldiers in Iraq do.

[Ms. Clio]

10. voted no on 12 too

Watching TV commercials of Governor Goodhair's wife pushing for the cap didn't exactly inspire confidence in this citizen.

[Yupster]

11. Amendment 4

I voted this afternoon too.

Amendment four was very short. It said something like.

"The amendment pertaining to the Parks and Wildlife Commission."

WTF is that? I voted no just because...

[bigluckyfeet]

12. I voted no

on everything,I don't play around.The city had a ballot also,I had to vote twice.There was a good crowd at around 10AM.The Texas constitution has had enough admendments.

[Trek234]

14. This site details them all

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2003sepconsamend.shtml

If I don't know what something is on the ballot (or if I couldn't care one way or the other) I cast no vote for that item.

That was true on the home related taxes/mortgage/whatever it was.

[jiacinto]

13. What is prop 12

nt