Why do Dentists hate Sally Lieber

Why Do Dentists Hate Sally Lieber?

Posted on by

The other day we got a flier in the mail.  Actually, we get a couple of dozen every week.  After all the California primary is March 3. But this mailer raised a question: why do dentists hate Sally Lieber?

This mailer focused on the nominee for State Senate District 13.  There are five candidates.

Why do Dentists hate Sally Lieber

(click for larger image)

The mailer has good things to say about Josh Becker, Michael Brownrigg, Shelly Masur, and Annie Oliva.  But Sally Lieber?

Why do Dentists hate Sally Lieber

(click for larger image)

Huh?  Sally Lieber is something of a fixture in local politics.  Our curiousity was aroused.  Who sponsored this mailer?

Why do Dentists hate Sally Lieber

(click for larger image)

The California Dental Association?  Really? We’re left wondering why dentists hate Sally Lieber.

Share if you feel like it

4 Replies to “Why Do Dentists Hate Sally Lieber?”

    2. NopeSorryWontSay

      Sally Lieber says:
      … a special interest group, the Californians Allied for Patient Protection, a group that lobbies to keep the limit on medical malpractice awards, is attacking me because I refused to sign away my vote in advance to avoid their hits. I was told that if I didn’t sign their pledge I would be attacked, but I didn’t sign, because my vote is also my constituents’ vote.

      1. Tony Post author

        We’re pretty conservative here and tend to side with CAPP’s position on keeping the limits on medical malpractice. The real issue is awards for pain and suffering in excess of actual physical damages to the injured party. The pain and suffering awards were truly out of control before the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) was passed in 1975. That law limits pain and suffering awards to $250,000. Here’s what Dan Walters has to say about the most recent proposal.

        The new proposal would technically leave a cap on damages in place, but raise it by inflation since 1975, thus pushing it over $1 million, adjust it for inflation in the future, allow the cap to be pierced for “catastrophic injuries,” and increase lawyers’ contingency fees for winning. The proposed measure would also allow juries in malpractice cases to be informed of the cap, something prohibited by MICRA.

        Sally Lieber responded with an op-ed of her own. Here are two relevant paragraphs.

        Especially insidious are the groups that are committed to attacking any candidate or officeholder that doesn’t agree to sign a pledge to support their viewpoint. That kind of quid pro quo should be illegal and candidates who agree to them to get a campaign benefit should be disqualified.

        I’ve experienced this in my current race for state Senate, where a special interest group, the Californians Allied for Patient Protection, a group that lobbies to keep the limit on medical malpractice awards, is attacking me because I refused to sign away my vote in advance to avoid their hits. I was told that if I didn’t sign their pledge I would be attacked, but I didn’t sign, because my vote is also my constituents’ vote. And I’m angry and outraged on my constituents’ behalf.

        We are sympathetic to the argument that inflation has eroded the purchasing power of $250,000 over the last 44 years. We suspect the trial lawyers used the Consumer Price Index to calculate inflation. A far better measure is the price deflator for personal consumption expenditures (from the national income accounts). In 1975 the deflator was 28.47. In 2019 it was 109.67, an increase of 285.2 percent. The correct limit on pain and suffering damages is $713,061.26, far less than the $1 million claimed in the proposal.

        Many thanks for clarifying this issue!