1. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 9:00 am:

   And the writer “omitted” the fact that the same report shows defender of the salaries, board chairman Jensen, knocked down over $226,000 in salary & expenses. Sweet! Bet some of the insured did not get that much in 2004.




2. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 10:30 am:

   I’m shocked,SHOCKED to find the miracle of medical malpractice “reform” isn’t spreading any love to doctors or their patients.

   -Captain Renault




3. - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 1:03 pm:

   What industry do you know of that, when it’s had a few bad years, doesn’t try to improve the balance sheet before lowering prices??

   Of course, trial lawyers make less than that, don’t they? :)




4. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 1:45 pm:

   “Trial Lawyers make less than that, don’t they? :)”

   Difference is, you don’t see them in the paper every day crying poor. Let’s at least try to call it as it is and stop the deception. However, the Medical Society doesn’t deceive, do they? :)

   Or should I say the doctors…no wait, the medical society is an insurance company…not a doctor’s group…and obviously not working in the doctor’s best interest.




5. - the other anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 3:22 pm:

   Actually, only the most successful of trial lawyers (or firms) would show a profit of $900,000+, let alone $11 million.

   Besides, the people who really bear the brunt of tort caps are the most seriously injured. You don’t get a multi-million verdict unless there’s a serious injury and some pretty clear indication of liability.

   Here’s an argument against tort caps that the trial lawyers aren’t likely to use, but it’s true nonetheless. Tort caps do nothing to stem frivolous lawsuits because most frivolous lawsuits get settled well under the caps. It’s not the top trial lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits; and the multi-million dollar verdicts are not driving insurance pay-outs.

   Why would insurance companies push for tort caps? The Crain’s article provides one reason: blaming high verdicts allows the malpractice carriers to justify increasing their rates.




6. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 3:39 pm:

   Here is the most amazing press release yet. Notice the pinhead, do gooders, Cindi and Kent, fail to note the US Chamber does not disclose where it gets its money. Before anyone worries about other “reforms” we should start with the basics

   Supreme Court Contributors Rocket to Top of Illinois’ Donors List

   Full 2003-2004 Campaign Finance Analysis Posted to ilcampaign.org

   CHICAGO and SPRINGFIELD, Ill., March 15 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Chamber
   of Commerce has become the largest political donor in Illinois, according to
   new figures released by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the
   Sunshine Project.
   The U.S. Chamber, which previously has not made the Donors List, gave
   $2,050,000 during the 2003-2004 election cycle, edging out last cycle’s leader
   the Illinois Education Association for first place. Analysis of receipts and
   expenditures of all candidates for state legislative and supreme and appellate
   court in the 2003-2004 election cycle is now available on-line at
   http://www.ilcampaign.org .
   “Illinois’ 2004 Supreme Court contest has changed the political
   landscape,” said Cindi Canary, Executive Director of ICPR. “New groups
   vaulted to the top of the donor list, all as a result of one judicial
   election.” The U.S. Chamber gave the bulk of its money to the Illinois
   Republican Party, which spent the funds on the Supreme Court race.
   The 2004 Supreme Court election shattered national records for spending on
   a high court contest. The race between Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat
   Gordon Maag generated more than $9 million in spending, more than seven times
   the previous Illinois record and twice the previous national record. Karmeier
   won the election.
   Other new entrants to the Top Donors List include the Illinois Civil
   Justice League (#3), a proponent of tort reform, and Justice for All PAC (#4),
   which supported the candidate favored by trial lawyers and labor unions.
   Totals are based on giving to legislative candidates and caucuses, state
   political parties, and candidates for Appellate and Supreme Court.
   “Particularly striking is that much of this giving came in the last six
   weeks of the campaign, including all of the money from the U.S. Chamber,” said
   Kent Redfield, Director of the Sunshine Project. “The IEA, which had
   previously topped the List, takes two years to give that sort of money. The
   U.S. Chamber surpassed them with astonishing speed.”
   The Sunshine Database was the first in the nation to put state-level
   campaign finance data into a searchable on-line format. It now includes
   hundreds of thousands of individual contributions and expenditures by hundreds
   of candidates for public office. Unlike the State Board of Elections
   database, the Sunshine Database standardizes the names of all donors and
   vendors, codes receipts and expenditures by industry, and includes profiles of
   the largest donors.
   The new data updates the lists of Career Patrons, the top lifetime donors
   to all six statewide constitutional officers, and to the four legislative
   leaders. And it includes top individual donors as well as lists of the most
   expensive elections in state history.
   ICPR was founded in 1997 by the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon. ICPR is a
   non-profit, non-partisan public interest group that conducts research and
   advocates reforms to promote public participation in government, address the
   role of money in politics and encourage integrity, accountability, and
   transparency in government.
   The Sunshine Project is based at the University of Illinois at Springfield
   and is funded by the Joyce Foundation. Its goal is to increase public
   awareness and understanding of the role of money in Illinois politics.




7. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 6:27 pm:

   First, 3:39 anon., Redfield isn’t a pinhead, and you make it sound like being a do-gooder is a bad thing. So they didn’t mention your biggest problem with the current law, poor baby.




8. - Eye Doc - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 7:25 pm:

   After Texas capped noneconomic damages, the number of malpractice lawsuits in that state fell by about fifty percent. If that doesn’t prove conclusively that there were a lot of frivilous lawsuits being filed than I don’t know what does.

   And this argument that caps hurt seriously injured patients is crap. They still get compensated for their real economic damages.

   Someday, the gravy train is finally going to come to end in Illinois and the extortionists on the Illinois Bar will actually have to get real jobs. Or, I suppose they can go find some other group of people to blackmail.




9. - the other anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 10:04 pm:

   hey, eye doc:

   I’ll look into the Texas stats. I don’t know that they prove anything conclusively (esp. if TX caps were accompanied by other reforms), but it’s an interesting factoid.

   On the other hand: you’ve got to be kidding thinking that $500K or $250K compensates someone for major injuries! You’re an eye doc (or at least you play one on this board). So, let’s take an injury where a 25-year-old loses sight in one eye. If he or she is a white collar professional, he can probably continue working with no real loss of wages. But the injured person is deprived of a variety of non-economic activities as a result of the loss of depth perception, etc.

   Do you really think that $500K is fair in this case? If you do, I’ll find another eye doc, please — someone who is maybe a little more compassionate and caring.




10. - the other anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 15, 05 @ 10:22 pm:

    oops, sorry for the multiple posts. Blogger is acting weird.

    Rich, feel free to delete redundant posts.




11. - wildcat - Wednesday, Mar 16, 05 @ 2:26 pm:

    So how about we give the guy with the eye injury $50 million. Does that make things better?

    And congrats to Wojo for getting his boys to write in on this issue.

    While you’re checking out Texas’ malpractice situation, why don’t you look how many insurers are writing in the state now compared to pre-constitutional amendment.




12. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 16, 05 @ 3:14 pm:

    It would be interesting to see how many companies would write in Illinois if ISMIE opened up its books. As it is, medical insurance appears by this account to be quite a lucrative business.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.