The Democrats are at it again. They are trying to foist yet another hoax on the American people. The Democrats are trying to get us to believe that their "Patient's Bill of Rights" is going to help the American consumer. WRONG! The only people this bill is going to help is the trial lawyer of America. Incidently, American trial lawyers are among the stongest supporters of the Democratic Party
Earlier this week, the Democrats formally presented their Kennedy-McCain bill for debate and consideration before the Senate of the United States. The Republicans are insisting on following a procedural rule that would put off debate for two weeks so that members can read and study the legislation, as well as get feedback from their constituents. This is a long standing practice of the U.S. Senate, and a rule used frequently by the Democrats during the recent years of Republican control of the Senate. But goodness, as soon as the Republicans use this sensible rule, Daschle goes into a fit.
Yesterday, Daschle was on TV pounding the lecturn stating that there would be no Fourth of July recess until their version of the Patient's Bill of Rights was passed! Not voted on, but passed! He isn't even considering that their version isn't good for the American people and he is ruling out any compromise with the Republicans. So much for bipartisanship, hey there Sen. Daschle?
What is not getting nearly as much press attention is that President Bush and the Republicans have a TRIPARTISAN Patient's Bill of Rights proposal. This is one that will actually protect the American patient without opening medical providers and employers, YES EMPLOYERS, to under punitive damage awards.
This is where the major difference between the two bills lies, the right to sue. Both the Bush and Democrat proposal include the right to sue your HMO for negligence, as should be the case. However, there are important differences.
The Democrat proposal would allow you to sue in either a State court or a Federal court. The Bush proposal gives you the right to sue in Federal courts only. The rationale behind this is that State courts traditionally give astronomical punitive damage awards. With every astronomical punitive damage award, whose pocket gets lined? The trial lawyer.
Another key difference is in the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. These are damages above and beyond actual economic damages. Neither bill limits legitimate economic damages, but there is a huge difference in punitive damages allowed. The Democrat proposal allows UNLIMITED punitive damage awards in State courts and up to five million dollars in Federal courts. The Bush proposal limits punitive damages to $500,000.
Why is this distinction important? After all, these rich HMO's and insurance companies have tons of money, right? WRONG! What happens when a huge punative damage award is given to a plantiff? Well, say you are a member of Kaiser Permanente's HMO. Someone sues Kaiser and in addition to a $100,000 award for economic damages, the plantiff is awarded an additional $10 million in a State court. What happens? That is ten million dollars that comes out of Kaiser's ability to provide health care to its members. How do they recoup it? HMO fees must increase in order to provide the same level of coverage. This is simple economics. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't seem to understand this.
There are two additional pertinent differences. One is a provision that would allow you to sue your employer who provides your health insurance. How many employers are going to discontinue their insurance plans should they be open to a lawsuit? Quite a few small businesses can be expected to at the VERY least.
Another important distinction between the two is the Democrat proposal allows for class action lawsuits. This is a dangerous provision. A class action suit allows a judge to combine the cases of a large number of plantiffs against a common defendant. The nature of the case then changes. Instead of an individual plantiff having to prove that negligance occurred in his/her individual case, a group need only show statistical trends to gain a judgement.
What are the results going to be of this Democrat plan should it pass? Premiums will increase as more and more astronomical punitive damage awards are decided upon by ill-educated State juries. Employers will cease offering health plans to their employees so as not to be open to lawsuits. Fewer people will be covered by private insurers. Then, ten years later, the Democrats will complain that there are too many people uninsured and will push again for nationalized health care. Yes, this is just another dishonest scheme by the Democrats for government to mismanage all of the health care to be rationed to the American people. This is the true motive of the Democrats in their presentation of this "Bill of Rights". The kicker of this whole thing is that this proposal doesn't include anyone whose health care is provided by the government (i.e. Medicare).
The Bush Patient's Bill of Rights protects the legitimate rights and concerns of the American people. It provides them ample right to sue and collect damages for malpractice. It will also protect the continued existance of private medical care by keeping premiums at an affordable level. It will not open employers to lawsuits. Call your Congressmen and Senators. Support the Bush plan and opposed Kennedy-McCain.