slingblade

I concur. You concur?!?!?!? ROFLMAO What exactly qualifies you to judge my expertise? The person who pointed out my mistake IS a lawyer. What do you do that qualifies you to concur with anything? Something smells fishy I thinks its rotten TUNA. BTW Vote Yes on 3 and no on 7 and 8.

True, I don't know law well enough. It isn't my field, and I've only had one course in medical jurisprudence so I am far from an expert. I'm sure the professor would be disappointed in me for not remembering the diff in liability and guilt, however, the point of my little analogy still stands. Surely you could find some "expert" somewhere that could "prove" to the court that based on the type of bacteria and the timing of symptoms that Pizza Pete's pizza cutter must have been the fomite. Anyway, my point is that nobody wants to go through the trouble of doing that because Pete's pockets are too shallow to bother.....translated as: Not enough money in it for the atty to take the case and do all that work.

Hehe, funny. I am interestied in what amazing insight you might have into the situation that is not available in the public domain (ie political ads full of hypotheticals). Help me and educate me on what tremendous benefit Dr. Dagny will see from it once she graduates. If you can school me in a private message then surely you can educate everyone at once. After all, wouldn't your wisdom benefit anyone who ever has to see a doctor?

It amazes me as well how dyslexic people become when they read. The title of the damned amendment is "Claimant's right to fair compensation." not Doctors right to keep more of their money. Where in the text of the amendment do you see that it helps a doctor? Do you assume that if it hurts a lawyer it must by definition help a doctor? If you read it again, without your eyes crossed this time, you will see that it allows a patient to keep more of the money they sue for rather than paying 1/2 of it in legal fees. Let me say this louder and slower to help you understand...THE BAD DOCTOR WHO GETS SUED FOR MALPRACTICE AND IS FOUND GUILTY STILL PAYS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. You confuse the fact that doctors are pushing for this on behalf of their patients with the notion that doctors will not get sued as much. Read it again. This is Tuna right? I thought Dagny taught you better.

I must say that while amendment 3 will not help doctors much, it will help patients by allowing them to keep more of their settlements. Ergo it is a beneficial move for FL voters. Apparently many voters have forgotten that their doctors are their best and most powerful (as a group) proponents, whereas their friendly neighborhood lawyer simply goes where the money is. Ideally, the practice of law should also be to protect individual rights against the transgressions of more powerful interests just as physicians, by the very nature of their title, work for the benefit of all people. Since we all have to deal with doctors at some point in our lives, we have nothing whatsoever to gain by having unlicensed doctors/dentists or under-trained (ie the ones who cut off wrong toes, legs, etc.) ones or even ones who criminally neglect their duties to the patient and work drunk, stoned, exhausted or whatever practicing in our state. Amendment 3 however, as my ex-wife Dagny quotes, has nothing whatsoever to do with improving or degrading the quality of care in Florida as the lawyer union would have you believe. Obviously there are negligent people in every field (including law, BTW), but these people aren't pursued with such vigor because they aren't perceived to be walking lottery tickets like doctors. How often do you see an ad on TV that says... Did you eat today? Did your stomach not quite feel right after you ate? YOU MAY HAVE BEEN POISONED!!! Call us at Greedy and Greedy we will fight for your rights. You may be entitled to compensation for your missed work and toilet paper. Call us today! before its too late! Obviously if eating establishments were held to a pious standard as doctors are then a slick lawyer could dig up the source of your Ecoli and prove that little Crissy didn't wash her hands when she went to the crapper and a jury might award you a big settlement. Now why doesnt Joe lawyer advertise this on TV? there are many many many more cases of food poisoning every year than there are actual medical negligence cases. And someone was obviously negligent in washing his hands like the sign says before returning to work. I'll tell you why. Because little suzy taco maker HAS NO MONEY to pay Johnny Cochran's fee that's why. If you died from the botulism poisoning, or had to have part of your intestines removed from the damage you might be able to go SEARCHING for that altruistic lawyer but you can bet your colon that he won't be advertising to you on TV. So vote yes on amendment 3 to help level the playing field for YOU the patients not for the docs or the lawyers. Doctors can't just raises their fees to make up the difference like a lawyer can. Because your HMO will still only pay what they choose to pay your doctor. IF your doc charges 50 for an office visit, she may get 25 from the HMO whereas if you pay cash then she might get the whole 50 minus income tax of course. How many of you would name your primary in your law suit if a surgeon he referred you to replaced the wrong heart valve thinking that he too might have deep pockets (might be a walking lottery ticket)? How many of you who would realize that the average TAKE HOME PAY of a primary care physician who takes HMO's is less than many of you probably take home at around 45-65k a year? 3 YES 7,8 NO Fuzzy

Interesting post EYEball. Suspected as much. Tell us again about your bad friends.