Jul 5, 2012 | Uncategorized
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken everyone know exactly what the Health Care Act does, does not do and how it will work right?? HAHAHA! I have a special insight as I took a Constitutional Law class in Law School, have never argued a case before the Supreme Court and haven’t read the Act or the complete Supreme Court opinion. I guess that makes me at least as qualified (if not more so) as all our representatives who voted for legislation they never read. So with that great lead in, let’s talk tax (or not) depending on whom you listen to and/or on what day and/or which part of the opinion you read.
I do not like the Act, but the Supreme Courts job in this case was to determine if those that passed it had the authority to do so, not whether it was good or bad. Under the taxing authority they did. It gives me a warm cozy feeling that the loveable and benevolent IRS is the collector of tax (penalty) which is designed to enforce the “mandate” of healthcare.
Is this a tax — Well it is but it isn’t or maybe it is. It appears it is not a tax otherwise the Court could not consider the Act because under the Anti-Injunction Act there can’t be a challenge to a tax until after it becomes effective which would have been around 2014, but the Court said that’s ok it isn’t a tax it is a penalty so we can hear the case, but wait there’s more…
The government does not have the authority to make people buy health insurance (or healthy veggies). The Court ruled that the ACA is creating business not regulating it so sorry the Commerce Clause can’t work, so guess what it really is a tax which the government can do (and very well I might point out) so we now have a penalty/tax which allows the Court to have heard the case and the government to tax those that don’t buy insurance. Clear?
So now we have a healthcare law which has the enforcement of the IRS (luckily we have thousands of new IRS agents out there to help out), millions of added people eligible for health care and being run by the same people who brought you Medicaid and Social Security. Oh and as an aside, we seem to be having a slight problem with not enough doctors currently, much less for the millions of additional patients. But wait there is still more…
If you get past the logistics of how we are supposed to provide healthcare to millions of more people without a significant number of new doctors, we get to a few other sticky issues like who is going to determine the priority for medical care, how is it going be to determined and the elephant in the room (or jackass depending on your political leaning) that little thing called freedom of religion.
I am Catholic and have a real issue with being told that I have to provide health coverage which includes treatments and care in direct conflict with my beliefs. I am surprised that the ACLU and others have not been filing suits and holding press conferences to decry this abuse of religious freedom. This Act puts millions of Catholics in a position of following their religious beliefs or being in violation of a law which allows the IRS to impose taxes and use their power in the collection of the penalty/tax. Just a heads up here — religious beliefs win.
The Supreme Court is not the issue, the legislatures who passed this are. If you are in agreement with law then great, but I would really like to know if you have read and understand all the provisions and how it will impact you and your family in the coming years. Apparently neither party can seem to understand if it is tax or penalty and how it will be implemented. The need for health care is real, but passing a law just to say you did something is just plain dumb, but this is brought to us by the same people who voted to provide all of us with healthcare which they would not make mandatory for themselves. If your representative is proud of the healthcare act why wouldn’t they want it for themselves? I guess that common sense thing keeps getting in the way of the great things they are providing for us (but don’t want for themselves).
I would like to thank the below referenced articles for information and also would recommend you read them. One is Forbes and the other is Dr. Thomas Parr a friend of mine here in Sugar Land.
http://forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/07/02/how-to-explain-the-obamacare-ruling-to-a-five-year-old/
http://fbindependent.com/texas-doctors-will-be-lean-and-mean-to-stay-in-business-p4970-89.htm
Mar 21, 2012 | Frivolous, personal injury, Tort Reform, trial attorney, Uncategorized
I haven’t blogged lately due to depositions, travel and general life, but had several issues which have been bumping around so lots to talk and comment about:
We are working on updating our website (I know — who knew that you have to update them more than once every 15 years and apparently spiders are good things). If you have any suggestions on must haves on a website let me know.
As I was driving my daughter to the airport at 5:00am drinking my coffee and listening to the sports radio about how Mario signed a deal for $100 million with $50 million guaranteed and Peyton was rumored to be signing a $95 million dollar deal I explained to my daughter that could have been me had I only been taller, stronger, faster, etc., etc. I was just as good a player as them if you factor in those few minor differences. Just like lawsuits. I know that most of you have experienced the “I have a friend who had a case just like this one and they settled it for (fill in the blank – but it is a lot).” Those darn minor differences kind of determine the true value of a case. A back sprain is not the same as being paralyzed and a 6’0” slow linebacker is not the same as a monster defensive end or all everything quarterback, BUT it does lead to another issue… which is why is it that people seem to have no issue with an athlete or actor getting paid millions of dollars for the job they do but those same people believe that compensating a family for the injury suffered because of someone else carelessness is somehow wrong. How much is the value of a mother, father, sister, and brother worth compared to how Mario or Peyton will do on Sunday? I am all for them being paid the value of their worth, but also would like to see the same value be paid to the family who has suffered injury or death because of someone else.
Anyway, back to my driving along drinking my coffee. I love coffee and I have some great friends who brought me some Columbian coffee which is amazing and may explain why my blogs are kind of a stream of consciousness event. Anyway, Jessica mentioned how hot the coffee was which brings me to the topic of Hot Coffee and McDonalds. You can see my prior blogs for a more in depth discussion, but for today I just want to remind you to check out the movie Hot Coffee (website link is http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp). You can also get it on Netflix. Check it out and let me know what you think and if it changed your opinion on the case.
Big Oil – they are the problem with America – no wait that is trial lawyers. Why should they get to take our top billing? When I was last in Midland my nephew Todd asked if I had seen the movie spOILed. When I told him no, he went (actually he asked Laura to go) and brought me two copies of the movie, one to watch and one to share. Being the skilled negotiator I said sure, if you will watch Hot Coffee. Todd, I expect you to comment about what you thought about Hot Coffee. So we put the spOILed in and watched it at my brothers. Understand that I am in oil country here and I guess because I am a plaintiffs trial lawyer I must be liberal and hate oil companies (I really don’t fit any of assumptions of what I must think or be – so that make me like – most everyone). Anyway back to the movie. It is great and I highly recommend it to everyone. If you believe Big Oil is evil or if you believe Big Oil is great (don’t you love how it always Big Oil – see the movie for more information on that as well) see the movie. One thing that struck me is the actual profit margin for oil companies. I would tell you, but why ruin the movie. The other thing that struck me is how you could replace the term oil company with trial lawyer and most of the things said are familiar to those of us representing plaintiffs who have been injured or killed. Regardless of your opinion of oil companies, check out the movie and let me know what you think. Same with Hot Coffee, watch it, drink it and let me know about it.
Facebook- I have written about this before in the context of claims and litigation, but in the news today it was pointed out how some companies now request/require job applicants to allow them access to their Facebook page before they are hired and in many cases during the interview they are asked to log on so they can check it out. What do you think? If you are an attorney should you have a prospective client give you access to their Facebook and other social media pages before you decide to represent them? What about twitter accounts, etc. etc.? Is it acceptable or not? Why? If you think no problem, I don’t have anything bad on my account (or I deleted it before the interview), what about your friends account which might now be accessed as you have permission to see them (and now whoever is logged on as you can see your friends pages). What about that picture of you that you deleted or never saw, but your friend has it on their page? Facebook is it really your friend or just a twit?
What do you think about these issues? (other than man you need to cut back on the coffee)
Feb 14, 2012 | Uncategorized
CEO vs. Plaintiff Personal Injury Trial Lawyer
A CEO’s job duties include the following:
a. Determining strategy of how the company will progress;
b. Making sure that strategy is understood throughout the company;
c. Hiring and firing a group of personnel which can bring the strategy to life;
d. Creating a path for the company to get from strategy to realization of goal;
e. Setting budgets to manage the growth of the company while maximizing return;
f. Creating a net profit for the shareholders.
For this job major CEOs are paid millions of dollars upfront along with stock options, retirement plans and benefits. If the company fails to make a profit, the CEO is usually fired or resigns with a severance package, full benefits and stock options amounting to millions of dollars. This despite the fact he failed in his or her job and the company and shareholders lost money. Additionally, none of the money budgeted or spent came out of his or her pocket.
A Plaintiff’s personal injury trial lawyer job duties include the following:
a. Determining strategy of how a case will progress from intake through trial;
b. Making sure that strategy is understood throughout the firm;
c. Hiring and firing a group of personnel which can bring the strategy to trial;
d. Creating a path for the firm to get from strategy to resolution of claim through settlement or trial
e. Setting budgets to investigate and develop of the case while maximizing return;
f. Recovering damages for the client to compensate for injuries caused by others.
For this job personal injury trial lawyer is paid nothing upfront. They receive no stock, no options, retirement plans or benefits. If the attorney fails to make a recovery for whatever reason, he or she gets nothing. This despite the fact he or she paid for all expenses out of pocket which could result of tens of thousands of dollars spent. If they do receive an offer to resolve the claim, the client has the ultimate decision on whether to accept the offer or to continue to trial. If the case is resolved the attorney will receive a percentage of the recovery which the client has approved and which the client authorizes prior to the settlement being completed.
Instead of attacking the way personal injury lawyers are paid perhaps we should have the CEO’s work on a similar structure. I would think they could even take a base salary of a $100k (since most of them do not seem to have enough confidence in their ability to do it without a base as personal injury attorneys do on a daily basis) plus a percentage of profit generated.
If CEO’s did this maybe they would consider what is best for the shareholder and company as it would directly impact their salary. They would not be spending shareholder money on expenses which do nothing for the bottom line profit of the company and they would be more selective in the risks they are willing to take with the company money. It still isn’t directly their money, but at least it will have some impact on their salary.
So next time you hear about those greedy trial lawyers why don’t you see if the person would be willing to take the same compensation package and be willing to have full accountability to their customers/shareholders.
Feb 1, 2012 | Uncategorized
I have seen facebook posts, blogs, etc. etc, both condemning and praising Susan G. Komen for deciding to stop their funding of planned parenthood. The stated reason is because Planned Parenthood is under investigation. Planned parenthood claims it is because of pro-life advocates. The question I have is why Planned Parenthood was ever getting money from Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The mission statement of Planned Parenthood is below and clear fertility management. Susan G. Komen is for breast cancer research and cure. I understand that Planned Parenthood has some clinics (I believe app. 17% ) do some mammograms, but it is not a part of their mission statement. Why can’t Susan G. Komen decide to stop funding to an entity under investigation and whose stated mission is not breast cancer research or cure? Susan G. Komen made a choice to not continue funding to a pro-choice group with a different mission.
I guess the question is –Is pro-choice only ok if it is the choice you decide?
Planned Parenthood Federation of America–Mission Statement: A Reason for Being
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.
Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is
- to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual
- to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services
- to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality
- to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications
Jan 24, 2012 | Insurance, Uncategorized
As I have not blogged lately I decided to start 2012 off with a low controversy issue. Let’s start off with a few definitions:
Pro-Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those advocating legalized abortion.
Pro-life is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those opposing abortion.
Abortion is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
This week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement detailing the requirement that employers are required to provide insurance coverage including contraceptive drugs including abortion drugs.
The rule will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.
The entire statement can be found at http://hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html.
If you are a Pro-Life employer you are understandably upset as the rule would require you to pay for something that you oppose on potentially both moral and religious grounds. If you are Pro-Choice I would think that you would be concerned as it is a clear move by the government to do away with Choice. In this rule they are requiring everyone to either obey the law in violation of their personal belief (religious, moral, etc.) or to violate the law and face the consequences. If the issue is truly one for the women whom it impacts — as espoused by Pro-Choice proponents then why is this decision a government issue which requires those who do not agree to pay for that decision.
The issue of pro-choice v. pro-life is one that is so fundamental to most people that a discussion on it will generally end with whether you consider the embryo to be a baby or not. The issue of paying for terminating the life of a baby is not one that should be forced upon anyone or mandated by the government.
The statement by Secretary Sebelius that an additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule is ridiculous. Who is the government to give a person or group a year to adapt to a rule that violates their very moral and/or religious beliefs?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care if you are pro-choice or pro-life. This is an issue of pro freedom from government interference in your life. The very thing that pro-choice advocates claim to have fought to achieve they are now conceding and welcoming because they see it as a benefit to them.
Oct 25, 2011 | car crash, Frivolous, health care, Insurance, personal injury, taxes; death; estate, Tort Reform, trial attorney, Uncategorized
Wal-Mart announces reduction in medical coverage due to continuing rise of cost of coverage. Premiums continue to climb while benefits drop. Auto, Home and Business insurance premiums continue to rise. It must be those lawsuits right? What about those trial lawyers they must be the cause. All those frivolous lawsuits keep driving up the cost for everyone. Great tag lines but as the old commercial says “Where’s the Beef?” The insurance industry has done a great job of advertising and obfuscating. They have convinced people that if only tort reform was passed then everyone’s insurance rates would drop. Texas has had tort reform for almost a decade. Have any of your rates dropped? I didn’t think so. Every year it is the same story, well the reforms didn’t go far enough.
Over the next few weeks I will go through some of the different legislative and judicial edicts that form our current Texas law and much ballyhooed Tort Reform. Why don’t we start with the newest fair haired tort reform -known affectionately as loser pays (if you are the one who is injured that is) which allows the Courts to dismiss frivolous cases. That is a great idea. That is probably why we have had that procedure in place for pretty much since the inception of laws in Texas.
The Courts have always had the power to dismiss a frivolous case upon request by either party. So why the need for the new law and why is it that the loser only pays if it is the person bringing the case and not the person who caused the injury. Could it be that the insurance companies defending the person causing wrecks and injuries are trying to intimidate people into not making valid claims? What a strange idea. So here we are with a whole new set of laws designed to reduce the ability to recover for injuries caused by others actions.
Even if it is an unintended (:>)) result at least the overall benefit is for the good of us all — right. Let’s look at that starting with loser pays. Sounds great, but who is the loser who is going to pay? Suppose that a driver, Rich causes a wreck and Joan is injured. Joan is taken to hospital and gets treated. She doesn’t have health insurance so who is going to pay the hospital bills? Well if she doesn’t have health insurance she probably has Medicare or Medicaid maybe — maybe not. If she does then one of those entities pays and has a right to recover all their money. So why if there is a chance of having to pay the person who caused the wrecks attorney fees and expenses would you take the risk? I mean everyone knows juries are crazy right. That is what we always hear as a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to determine damages in an injury case which could impact a person’s life (but they are great for deciding life in death in a criminal case – but I digress), so why would an attorney agree to represent Joan if he or she has to spend months fighting with Medicare/Medicaid just to get an answer as to how much is owed, invest significant time and money out of his/her own pocket to try and recover the damages for her. It may be that the determination is that it is not worth it so no lawyer, no lawsuit.
Great tort reform works. Oh Wait.
What about the hospital bills that Medicare/Medicaid paid on behalf of Joan. Well you and I paid those bills, after all isn’t Medicare/Medicaid essentially a tax funded insurance plan. But wait there’s more (I love infomercials) and since the hospital didn’t get the full value of their services they raise their charges to offset the loss which causes the cost to go up for everyone else. So now you and I are paying for the injuries caused by Rich. So when we hear loser pays we need to just admit that you and I are paying and Rich gets a free ride for his actions. Next time we will discuss the Court Decision I affectionately call Brainless.
The opinions in this blog, as always, are mine and not necessarily those of the firm.
