Fight Stupidity: Reject 330 and 336

Progress Washington has jumped on the "no on both" bandwagon--or should we say, ambulence--along with numerous advocacy groups, some doctors and nurses, the State Insurance Commissioner and anyone with common sense.

I-330 would rough up those evil, money-grubbing personal injury trial lawyers, by putting a cap on jury payouts at $350,000. This would supposedly--although there isn't any actual proof, and the Insurance Commissioner disagrees--bring down malpractice insurance premiums and keep doctors from fleeing. The only problem is that those jury payouts are punitive and not recompensary damages (meaning they are intended solely to punish the defendant), and limiting them would also limit the scope and the power of our judicial system. Besides, there already is a Constitutional Amendment forbidding excessive fines and bails, so if the doctors don't like it, they can take it up with the Supreme Court.

I-336, on the other hand, would take on those evil, money-grubbing doctors and insurance companies, by requiring, among other things, a "three-strikes" rule against doctors, and the reporting of all insurance rate hikes above 15% to the state. It would also add two superfluous members to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission, create another level of bureaucracy in an independent supplemental malpractice insurance program that would exist solely to pay claims and defense costs for eligible health care providers, and cost the state roughly $700,000 more per year.

Tort reform is an actual, pertinent issue, but the initiative process is not the way to force it through. The luxury of having a representative system of government is that we have the opportunity to elect officials that can review the state budget, pass laws, and amend policy. Most of the time, they marginally know what they're doing. Let our representatives do their job and, hopefully, force a settlement between docters, lawyers, and insurance companies that would be acceptable to all.