What crap. Let's hope this dies in the Senate.
Quote:
|
The vote was also a crucial victory for doctors, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and business groups, which had lobbied heavily for it.
|
Knock doctors off the list, and I agree. This is stuffing more $$$$ in the pockets of EvilInsuranceCo and BigDrugCo.
When Worker's Comp passed, it gave workers 100% guaranteed recovery for an injury at work, but limited the employer's liability. Hugely supported by industry, this law was immediately put to good use by subjecting employees to all manner of guinea pig-type exposures and injuries, because their recoveries were strictly limited to their salary.
Now hospitals can do the same. We now know that if your doctor hacks off the wrong leg it is worth no more than $250K. Thank you Congress for telling me what my leg is worth. This is unjust.
So you don't like big insurance premiums for doctors? Fine, limit the amount evil (evil, I say) insurance companies can charge for malpractice insurance. Regulate *that,* not the redress someone can get for being wronged.
So you don't like large jury awards? Fine - take those millions in punitive damage awards and don't give them to the plaintiff and lawyers, but instead set them aside in a Legal Aid fund so other victims who cannot afford a lawyer can access the money and pursue legal remedies.
But, without the looming prospect of huge punitive damage awards hanging over their heads, hospitals will be able to plug the numbers in and give you an acceptable loss-count where they'll still make a profit. That's just wrong. When a company is truly wanton, we should be able to hit them enough in damages *to hurt them,* even if that number is $6 $60 or $600 million. Otherwise, they won't be properly discouraged from willful and wanton misconduct.
Okay. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] off. Read on.
From Today's NYTimes
House Acts to Limit Malpractice Awards
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, March 13 — The House passed legislation today imposing a $250,000 limit on jury awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, arguing that frivolous lawsuits are driving medical liability premiums out of control and forcing doctors out of business.
The vote of 229 to 196 with one member voting present, was an important victory for President Bush, who has made overhauling the nation's medical liability laws a centerpiece of his domestic agenda.
"Today's House vote," Mr. Bush said, "is an important step toward creating a liability system that fairly compensates those who are truly harmed, punishes egregious misconduct without driving good doctors out of medicine and improves access to quality affordable health care by reducing health care costs."
The vote was also a crucial victory for doctors, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and business groups, which had lobbied heavily for it. By today, those groups were so confident the measure would pass that the American Insurance Association, an industry trade group, put out a press release lauding the vote hours before it was taken.
Now the measure moves to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has vowed to take up medical malpractice legislation this month, and at least one influential Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, strongly supports revamping the liability laws.
But several prominent Senate Republicans have said that any malpractice legislation would have to include an exception for egregious cases, like the one involving Jésica Santillán, the 17-year-old who died after transplant surgeons gave her a heart and lungs of the wrong blood type.
And backers of the House bill are acutely aware that Republicans hold only 51 votes in the Senate, nine short of the number to break a filibuster.
"We're going to have to find nine Democrats," said Representative James C. Greenwood, Republican of Pennsylvania, the chief sponsor of the House bill. But, he added, "I think we have the best chance we've ever had, and we have a president who is very keen to get this done."
So keen, in fact, that on Wednesday Mr. Bush invited about a dozen undecided lawmakers to the White House to urge them to support the bill.
At the time, Republican leaders counted 220 votes in their camp. Representative Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican who shepherded the measure on the House floor, said today that Mr. Bush was instrumental in bringing the total to 229. Sixteen Democrats voted with 213 Republicans to ensure the measure's passage, while 9 Republicans voted against the bill. Voting present was Representative Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama.
"The president was very persuasive," Mr. Tauzin said. "He basically made the case for it and urged them to consider the importance of for the nation's good. This was a national thing that he was very invested in personally."
Changing medical malpractice law has long been high on the Republican agenda. But the issue has gained national attention this year, in part because President Bush has taken a strong stand, and in part because doctors around the country have engaged in highly publicized walkouts and rallies to protest high insurance costs.
The bill the House passed today does not limit jury awards for medical and funeral expenses. But the caps it imposes on pain and suffering damages apply not only to lawsuits filed against doctors, but also to those filed against insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical devices — a provision that Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, called "another reward that Republicans are giving to the pharmaceutical industry."
Democrats, adopting the argument of trial lawyers and consumer groups, say the House bill will unfairly prevent innocent victims of medical malpractice from seeking legal recourse. They also argue that there is no evidence the bill will actually reduce liability premiums.
"We're voting on a bill that overrides state law and undercuts compensation for victims of medical malpractice, yet we don't know whether medical malpractice premiums will come down," said Representative Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio.
Mr. Brown added: "We're supposed to take it on faith, trust the insurance companies that they will pass along the savings. We can't trust patients, we can't trust juries, we can't trust lawyers, but we can trust the insurance companies?"
At times, today's debate seemed like a face-off between victims. Democrats showed pictures of victims of medical malpractice, while Republicans talked about what Representative Tauzin calls "the hidden victims" and cast the debate as one over access to medical care.
"What we don't often hear about are the victims of a medical malpractice system gone awry," Mr. Tauzin said. "They are the victims who get hurt, who get injured, who get denied access to health care at critical moments, because some doctor couldn't get his insurance renewed because the premiums are too high."
Today's vote came after hours of contentious debate in which Democrats complained that Republicans were preventing an alternative measure from getting a fair hearing. In a series of party-line votes late Wednesday, Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted to block any amendments from being introduced, an action that enraged Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat and chief sponsor of the alternative, which would not have imposed caps on jury awards.
"It is shameful and it is totally inconsistent with the practices, rules and traditions of the House of Representatives," Mr. Dingell said, calling the move "a bite on the throat of the right to free debate."