[galveston]

For you liberals and Obamaniacs out there who think team Obama can cure the economic ills with their policies of tax and spend, here is a report from my State Representative, Betty Brown on the economic health of the state of Texas.

Washington view: Texas Economy Shining Brightly Despite Recession

The following was posted on Columbian.com By Don Brunell on August 10, 2009.

The federal government is borrowing a trillion dollars to fund its massive stimulus plan, California is broke, the feds have taken over car companies and banks, and the national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent and rising. Nevertheless, bills moving through Congress would spend an additional $1 trillion on health care reform — an expenditure President Obama says is crucial to the nation's economic recovery. This, say supporters, is the only way to return the U.S. to prosperity.

Really? Perhaps they should take a look at what's happening in Texas.

In Texas, business is booming. In 2008, 70 percent of all jobs created in the United States were created in Texas. That same year, Texas was named America's Top State for Business in CNBC's second annual study that scored states on 40 different competitiveness measures. Texas now surpasses New York as home to the most Fortune 500 companies, and Texas dominated Forbes' "Best Cities for Jobs in 2008" list with five cities in the top 20.

While the nation's unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, the rate in Texas is 7.5 percent. And while our state faces a $9 billion deficit, Texas has a $9 billion surplus. Instead of raising taxes, Texas is cutting them.

How did they do it? Gov. Rick Perry says holding the line on taxes, having a reasonable regulatory structure and offering economic development incentives such as the Texas Enterprise Fund and Texas Emerging Technology Fund have attracted hundreds of employers to Texas. He notes that 7,300 new jobs were created in Texas in November 2008 alone.

"We set the state up for it back in 2003," says Perry, "when we came in here and had about a $10 billion budget deficit. We were able to cut that deficit without raising taxes, passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation, and people paid attention."

In fact, new businesses and doctors have flooded into the state in the wake of the lawsuit abuse reform legislation, which capped non-economic damages at $250,000. According to the Dallas Morning News, the average award prior to tort reform was $1.21 million; now it is $880,000.

Malpractice lawsuits have plummeted. In 2003, in a last-minute rush before lawsuit reform took effect, 1,108 medical liability suits were filed in Dallas County. Only 142 cases were filed the following year. In 2007, 184 cases were filed.

To ensure protection for patients, the legislature beefed up the power of the Texas Medical Board and disciplinary actions against doctors have nearly tripled since 2001.

Holding the line

Lawsuit reform has had a major impact on the state's economy. In addition to the influx of new businesses, more than 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas in the past three years. According to the Texas Medical Association, malpractice insurance premiums for Texas doctors have dropped more than 30 percent since 2003 and 15 new insurance companies have entered the Texas market. Regrettably, the federal health care reforms moving through Congress include nothing about lawsuit reform.

In addition, Gov. Perry is adamant about holding the line on costs. In fact, in the face of intense federal pressure, he refused to accept $550 million in unemployment insurance payments as part of the stimulus plan because it would have mandated a permanent expansion of unemployment benefits. "There was going to be a mandated tax on our small businesses of $75 million a year. And I said no."

Granted, Washington has also said "no" — no to major tort or lawsuit reform legislation, including efforts to adopt damage limits.

But we've also said "yes" to the unemployment money in the federal stimulus package and the resulting future increase in employer costs. And yes to energy policies that ignore hydropower, one of our most abundant natural resources and strongest competitiveness factors. And we're toying with other issues that might further erode our attractiveness to employers — cap and trade, paid family leave and employer gag rules, just to name a few.

There's an old proverb: "nothing succeeds like success." Before our state and our nation mortgage our children's (and grandchildren's) future on costly experiments, they should consider adopting some of the policies that have made Texas an economic powerhouse in the midst of a national recession.

Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state's chamber of commerce. Visit AWB - ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON BUSINESS - Washington State Chamber of Commerce.

Since all this information is readily available, why is the present administration going in the opposite direction?

Could it be that they don't really want to fix the problem at all?

Could it be that they want to use the crisis to enslave all of us?

[450donn]

Looking back, Texas has had a long history of doing the "right" thing despite what the pundits say. And it shows.

[N0help4u]

Yeah I heard that Texas is way ahead with the things they are doing whereas Michigan (Democrat) is doing the opposite.

Hunger Hits Detroit's Middle Class - WalletPop

[excon]

For you liberals and Obamaniacs out there......

Malpractice lawsuits have plummeted. In 2003, in a last-minute rush before lawsuit reform took effect, 1,108 medical liability suits were filed in Dallas County. Only 142 cases were filed the following year. In 2007, 184 cases were filed.

To ensure protection for patients, the legislature beefed up the power of the Texas Medical Board and disciplinary actions against doctors have nearly tripled since 2001.

Hello gal:

We've talked about tort reform before... You mentioned a guy in a hospital who got his legs cut off instead of his gall bladder taken out. Yes, it was in a VA hospital, but of course it could happen in ANY hospital - even the ones in Texas...

If that happened to YOU, or one of your kids, you wouldn't be pleased at the paltry $150,000 you'd get after you paid your lawyer, which is the MOST you could get because Texas capped the awards... That probably wouldn't pay your medical expenses for a year... Then the rest of your life, you're on your own...

Plus, I don't know how happy it would make you, while you're lying in bed with no legs, that the Texas disciplinary board fined the SOB who did this to you...

Now, I don't know if you want to call me a lib or an Obamaniac... It's no matter... I'm for the little guy. I'm for the guy with no legs... I want to get HIM taken care of for the REST OF HIS LIFE. If that punishes the offending doctor SOOOOO much that he has to QUIT being a doctor, that's fine with me...

So, if Texas balanced its books off the backs the Texans who got butchered, I AIN'T a supporter...

excon

[450donn]

Didn't think a pot smoking hippie from Seattle could resist! And I was right. I was just in the hospital for some minor surgery and it is really interesting how many times that I was asked what I was in for. I think at least 6 times I was asked and answered exactly the same and this was before I ever set foot in the Operating room. The anesthesiologist, the doctor, the head nurse all came by and asked the same questions. Yes, mistakes happen, but in today's system it is so rare, yet the lawyers are so greedy that if a mistake happens they are chomping at the bit to sue. Why should a lawyer who has not been wronged by a doctor jump in and take 45% of a settlement? For what a few threatening letters? Come on get off the liberal bandwagon. Until and unless there is tort reform in this country there can be no meaningful debates about health care. So get the lawyer lobbies out of Washington, fire all of the congressmen ( they are almost all lawyers too) and replace them with real people who can make real laws that work. Then we will talk some more.

[N0help4u]

yet the lawyers are so greedy that if a mistake happens they are chomping at the bit to sue. why should a lawyer who has not been wronged by a doctor jump in and take 45% of a settlement?

Yeah look at the fiasco with Al Gore and the babies he 'channeled' in court. Before he got into his global warming scam.

[inthebox]

Hello gal:

We've talked about tort reform before... You mentioned a guy in a hospital who got his legs cut off instead of his gall bladder taken out. Yes, it was in a VA hospital, but of course it could happen in ANY hospital - even the ones in Texas....

Then give us a link

If that happened to YOU, or one of your kids, you wouldn't be pleased at the paltry $150,000 you'd get after you paid your lawyer, which is the MOST you could get because Texas capped the awards.... That probably wouldn't pay your medical expenses for a year.... Then the rest of your life, you're on your own....

A cap on "non-economic damages" I think that means punitive damages. There is nothing to state that there is any limit on the cost of subsequent medical care. In this case it will probably run in the millions of a lifetime.

Plus, I dunno how happy it would make you, while you're lying in bed with no legs, that the Texas disciplinary board fined the SOB who did this to you...

Now, I dunno if you wanna call me a lib or an Obamaniac... It's no matter... I'm for the little guy. I'm for the guy with no legs... I wanna get HIM taken care of for the REST OF HIS LIFE. If that punishes the offending doctor SOOOOO much that he has to QUIT being a doctor, that's fine with me....

So, if Texas balanced its books off the backs the Texans who got butchered, I AIN'T a supporter....

excon

1] This happened at a VA, by your own admission. That is a government run entity, and ERISA laws make it harder to sue the federal government vs. a private sector doctor[s]/hospital etc.

2] That I know of the language on caps on malpractice awards EXCLUDES the cost of medical care regarding that condition.
If it is your intention to punish the offending doctor at the cost of making the legal environment unfriendly to the rest of the doctors, then you do so by limiting acess to medical care for others
.






G&P

[N0help4u]

Yeah I was going to mention Texas has nothing to do with VA. VA hospitals have a very high rate of being poorly run in every way

[speechlesstx]

Texas is starting to feel some of the effects but we're still in great shape considering. In fact, my little city of 200,000 was recently named the best real estate market in the country. Yeah, got to gloat a little bit over that. :)

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

So... you are afraid of Texas "balanc[ing] its books off the backs the Texans who got butchered", but you have no problem with slip-and-fall lawyers getting rich off the backs of innocent medical doctors who have to settle cases because fighting them is too expensive.

You are troubled by insurance companies "getting rich" by charging patients premiums to provide insurance services (at a profitability of 3.4% annually), but you have no problem with insurance companies charging ludicrous premiums of innocent doctors for malpractice insurance to protect them from frivolous lawsuits that have no merit, and who then have to charge their patients more for their services, thus hurting the patients.

I guess it's more important for someone to win a hundred million dollars they don't really deserve from the "medical malpractice lottery" than it is for us to lower medical costs for EVERYONE by as much as 60% and insure all those 46 million uninsured people you continue to complain about.

I see where your priorities are. With the lawyers, the insurance companies that you claim to hate, and the serial lawsuit filers.

Figures.

Elliot

[excon]

I guess it's more important for someone to win a hundred million dollars they don't really deserve from the "medical malpractice lottery" than it is for us to lower medical costs for EVERYONE

Hello again, El:

The judicial system has gatekeepers already in place... For the most part, they work. Or, do you think shady lawyers slip the frivolous lawsuits by dumb sleepy judges??

Furthermore, I'm troubled by your picture of our judicial system as a "lottery". Surly, if the law or the judges have nothing to do with ANY of it, why do you get so concerned about who gets chosen for the Supreme Court?? If it's where LUCK prevails, who cares who sits there?

As usual, you want it BOTH ways. Too bad for you that I'm here, huh?

excon

[speechlesstx]

First of all Texas did not balance its books "off the backs the Texans who got butchered." The majority of our revenue is from sales tax, and we don't even tax groceries and don't have a state income tax.

Tort reform here basically capped noneconomic damages to $750,000, so the poor sap unhappy with her boob job can't get $14 million for pain and suffering. It's been a rousing success and victims of true malpractice are still taken care of.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

The judicial system has gatekeepers already in place... For the most part, they work. Or, do you think shady lawyers slip the frivolous lawsuits by dumb sleepy judges???

Furthermore, I'm troubled by your picture of our judicial system as a "lottery". Surly, if the law or the judges have nothing to do with ANY of it, why do you get so concerned about who gets chosen for the Supreme Court??? If it's where LUCK prevails, who cares who sits there?

As usual, you want it BOTH ways. Too bad for you that I'm here, huh?

excon

The luck isn't within the court system. That's already rigged in their favor. The "lottery" part is in being in the care of a doctor that gave them some minor excuse to sue. They won the lottery in that their doctor gave them the excuse, whether valid or not.

And what gatekeepers are in place in our civil judicial system? How do they work?

Given the number of frivolous lawsuits that are filed every year... and the number is HUGE... how effective are those gatekeepers really? You say for the most part they work. I say that for the most part they fail, because so many frivolous cases end up in the system and end up costing the tax payers AND the parties to the case huge bucks. Whatever those gatekeepers are, I'd say that they are pretty ineffective.

As for the judges... liberal judges tend to think the same way you do. Corporations (big business) are bad, individuals (the little people) are good. The system is skewed by that philosophical point of view, regardless of the reality of that point of view.

Thus, if an individual files a suit against a company (and that "company" might be a single-practitioner medical practice) the individual is assumed to be in the right and the "company" is assumed to be wrong. Moreover, people (including judges) tend to think, "What does anyone care who is really right or wrong here, the doctor's insurance company will pay for it anyway... and those damned insurance companies are a bunch of crooks anyway, so who cares if they lose a few bucks." (You're probably thinking the same thing yourself.) There is a bias in favor of the individual, especially when it's insurance companies that end up paying out. (This bias has been shown over and over again in study after study of the civil judiciary system.)

Nobody cares how it effects the doctor's premiums, his overhead, and the amount his patients (or their insurance companies) have to pay to cover his now-increased overhead.

So... with judges who are automatically biased in their favor, if any patient finds an excuse to sue, he's won the lottery.

THAT, excon, is why we need judges who will interpret the law regardless of who the parties involved are, rather than judges who are "empathetic" in favor of the little guy.

That's why Sotomayor was a BAD choice for SCOTUS, and why your support for a judge who would be empathetic was wrong.

Elliot

[excon]

As for the judges... liberal judges tend to think the same way you do. Corporations (big business) are bad, individuals (the little people) are good. The system is skewed by that philosophical point of view, regardless of the reality of that point of view.

hello again, El:

So, the judicial branch of government has been taken over by liberal judges, and the conservative ones can't stop them?? They're hamstrung for some reason? They're ineffective? They're complicit in the "lottery"? Is that your story?

Dude! You get sillier by the day.

excon

[ETWolverine]

hello again, El:

So, the judicial branch of government has been taken over by liberal judges, and the conservative ones can't stop them??? They're hamstrung for some reason?? They're ineffective?? They're complicit in the "lottery"?? Is that your story??

Dude! You get sillier by the day.

excon

Not my story, excon. THE story. Just ask any civil law attorney, especially litigators.

But you won't. It might prove me right, and that would just stick in your craw, wouldn't it?

Elliot