I used direct quotes from your allies. Sorry you didn’t like them, but they certainly weren’t twisted. You can verify them for yourself – I told you where they were published. It must really suck to find out they are contradicting everything they’ve told you when they are under oath and trying to raise rates.

The person didn’t “get” the money in that it went to the caretakers.

The person “got” care. To say the person got nothing is just another lie.

The person with “no income” either magically found a way to live on nothing, or had some source of income to pay the rent and put food on the table before the accident. He continues to have that. If the income had come from savings and was exhausted, that’s economic damage.

You’re good at twisting words, the fact remains that economic damages should be paid. To the extent that they’re not paid, it’s a failure of the plaintiff lawyer.

Now throw out your bag of quotes. It’s time to change the subject again.

If a child gets a $25 million award in a state with caps, then all but $250K of that will end up in the hands of caregivers. That’s it.

Although your statement does serve to further illustrate the fallacy that caps will have any effect on insurance premiums (it will have plenty of effect on victims). It’s a tiny percentage of cases that will even be affected by caps.

That’s why these insurers and Medical Association reps made the following statements:

“While MICRA was the legislature’s attempt at remedying the medical malpractice crisis in California in 1975, it did not substantially reduce the relative risk of medical malpractice insurance in California.”
~James Robertson, Assistant Vice President and Associate Actuary, SCIPIE Indemnity Company (California’s second largest medical malpractice insurer), in written testimony responding to a question from an administrative law jugdge who is overseeing a case in which SCIPIE has requested a 15.6 % rate hike. April 30, 2003.

“Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%.”

~GE Medical Protective regulatory filing with Department of Insurance (TDI), October 30, 2003. The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians’ premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.

We’re getting somewhere.

You’ve got money to pay your caregivers and medical bills. That’s it. You’re not even going to make it to the beach in Mississippi on $250,000 for a LIFETIME.

Or will you even remember 10 years from now during the next economic downturn? Or do you just figure that you’ll be retired, so screw the injured patients?