It is a few weeks away from Election Day 2005. There are no Federal officials on the ballot, but there is very likely a slate of local officials that you really ought to read up on. There may also be some very important ballot initiatives and/or amendments to your State Constitution.
I said it last year and I will repeat it this year: ballot initiatives are a good idea that almost always turn out badly.
This year, Washington State has a pair of dueling ballot initiatives — cue the banjos! Both initiatives have as their stated goal to control the cost of medical malpractice insurance. On one hand, we have I-330, supported by some doctors groups: “it caps at $350,000 the amount an injured patient can claim in noneconomic — also known as pain and suffering — damages. It also limits fees for plaintiff attorneys, shortens the time limit for filing malpractice claims and allows health-care providers to require binding arbitration for damage claims.” On the other hand we have I-336, supported by some lawyers: “it revokes medical licenses of doctors who have three malpractice jury verdicts against them in a 10-year period and makes it easier for patients to learn about medical errors. It also creates a state-run supplemental malpractice-insurance fund and requires public hearings on malpractice-insurance-rate increases.” Of course, all this is a summary of probably 20 pages of fine print legalese. For each initiative.
Supporters of I-330 claim that their proposal will improve medical care and access to it, as well as get more money to patients. Detractors say that “voluntary” binding arbitration will be something that doctors require before they will even treat you. Detractors have not pointed out the compete red herring of a cap on non-economic damages. The fact of the matter is that there is already a cap on what malpractice insurance will pay, and that amount is often exceeded by actual real damages when a person has been killed or disabled by true medical malpractice. The only state in which it appears that damage caps have kept down malpractice insurance rates is California, which happens to have a system in place for controlling insurance rates.
Supporters of I-336 claim want to create a “3 strikes” system for doctors and hold “public” hearings on insurance rate increases. Yeah, 3 strikes worked so well for California criminals. I am not against trying to get the “few bad apples” out of the doctoring business, but threatening the entire industry is not the way to do it. And as for hearings on rate increases that nobody will really attend? If you want to mandate regulation of rates, just do it. There is a State Insurance Commissioner, after all. Opponents say that I-336 will create more bureaucracy and put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers.
Allow me to join with several major newspapers and urge you to vote heck no on both I-330 and I-336. While you are at it, vote against all the other voter initiatives. But please, if your local schools and libraries need money, vote to let them have it.
In closing, I bring you these tidbits: On average, 2 American soldiers still die every day in Iraq. Don’t like the 9th Circuit? Hack it up! Fun with Science in the Home! and How a Democrat can get elected.