Monday, November 7, 2005

Initiatives vs. Reality Initiatives are funny critters. This year, there are two diametrically opposed initiatives on the Washington ballot purporting to solve the medical malpractice crisis of recent years.  (The crisis involves a few, or a swarm, of doctors who have stopped practicing because of high malpractice rates.)  In a nutshell, the initiatives pit the state's doctors against the state's trial lawyers.  I-330 says that the problem is caused by greedy trial lawyers, and patients who, while they may have been harmed by reckless medical professionals, have won "lawsuit lottery" judgments of millions and millions of dollars, endangering all doctors by their own greed.  Their initiative would limit the rights of patients to sue doctors, cut damage awards, and (most symbolically important) cut lawyers' fees.  I-336 targets two villains:  insurance companies, and renegade doctors.  Their initiative increases reporting and accessibility of medical malpractice claims, adds accountability for doctors who consistently are found guilty of malpractice, and creates a new state-run medical malpractice pool.  Now, I'e done a tiny bit of work on medical malpractice and know the general arguments.  The most compelling argument I've heard suggests that increases on malpractice rates can be closely linked to rises and falls in insurance companies' investments.  In other words, if the insurance company loses money in the stock market, or if the stock market crashes for everybody, get ready for rates to rise.  I haven't studied the numbers in detail, but that's the argument that rings true for me, because I don't trust insurance companies. The advertising campaigns have been interesting to watch during this race.  I-330 is getting all of the ads, for and against.  I have not yet seen a single ad in support of I-336.  Instead, the doctors are taking out huge full-page ads and running nonstop tv commercials pro-330 and anti-336,  bashing trial lawyers for being greedy.  And the opposition has been running their own ads, attacking not doctors (because doctors aren't exactly a good villain), but the insurance companies that they say are behind the initiative.  The opposition ads also don't mention I-336 at all - only 330.  It's an interesting campaign, strategically speaking - I'm curious whether it'll work.  I'm certain that a lot of voters will cast the "pox on both your houses" move, and vote down both.  Several organizations - most notably (for a health care issue) AARP - are recommending "no" votes on both.  (Full disclosure:  I have a dear friend who is highly placed in the No on 330 campaign, and another friend in the Yes on I-336.)  Many people - including me, at various moments - are saying that this an issue for the legislature, not popular initiatives.  But the stealth campaign on I-336 intrigues me.  I'm wondering if they're waiting for voters to be completely overwhelmed and disgusted with information overload on 330, and pull the lever for 336 because they haven't been bludgeoned with commercials about it.  Maybe it'll look like the reasonable one by comparison.  I'm not sure how it'll play out.  I guess we'll find out tomorrow. 6:48:05 PM     Speak up!  []