The big action this week is the Senate vote on their non-repeal, non-replace Obamacare bill. The bill remains a "work in progress," and is likely to remain so until the final vote, as Senate leadership cuts deals to get the votes needed to pass it.
On Monday afternoon, the bill was amended to include a "continuous coverage" provision, allowing insurance companies to make individuals wait six months before getting insurance if their policy lapses. While Republican leadership claims to be against the individual insurance mandate, they have no problem using government force to punish individuals for not carrying health insurance.
The Senate could vote on the health care bill this Friday or Saturday, and there is a possibility that the House will vote immediately afterward.
The House is currently scheduled to be in session Monday through Friday. Among the legislation being considered is H.R. 1215.
H.R. 1215 sets a federal statute of limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits, limits the amount of "non-economic" damages (such as pain and suffering) that can be awarded, and allows introduction of evidence of other compensation to the plaintiff (such as insurance payments).
Whatever one thinks of the merits of these proposals, the fact is they violate the 10th Amendment. The bill's proponents claim it is constitutional because it only applies to cases with a "federal nexus."
However, it defines federal nexus so broadly that any medical procedure effected in any way by federal law -- including one where the patient uses federal health care tax credits -- would be covered. Unconstitutional infringement of state power should never be used to justify a new usurpation of state authority.
Here and below is a column written by C4L Chairman Ron Paul wrote about this issue in 2003:
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
I’ve spent nearly four decades practicing medicine as an obstetrician, and I’ve seen firsthand how the cost of medical malpractice insurance has risen. Among doctors, malpractice costs truly represent a crisis that threatens the economic viability of the profession.
There is no question that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in this country. We’ve become a society that expects medical care to be guaranteed, that demands a perfect outcome to every medical procedure. Mother Nature provides no guarantees however, and things can go wrong without the slightest negligence by the doctor involved.
Of course some malpractice suits are legitimate, and truly negligent doctors should pay economic damages. But far too many suits are filed simply because a patient is unhappy despite the competent efforts of his doctor, and far too meritless suits are settled simply to avoid litigation costs.
The result is malpractice premiums that cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars per year, and increasingly threaten to put some out of business. Every American pays for this not only in the form of much higher medical costs, but also in countless other ways.
Trauma center doctors have walked off the job in protest. Many doctors feel stressed, unhappy, and unappreciated, which leads to a declining quality of care. Most are hesitant to explore new treatments that could benefit patients because they fear a lawyer will seize on any deviation from standard practices. Similarly, patients endure more and more unnecessary and costly tests ordered by doctors who feel they must explore even the most unlikely diagnoses. Worst of all, the best and brightest young people are abandoning the pursuit of medical careers.
Already faced with years in medical school and daunting tuition bills, they increasingly understand that malpractice and economic concerns have damaged the quality of life for doctors. Many Americans understandably want Congress to fix the medical malpractice problem.
Yet the solution offered by Congress, namely the federalization of malpractice law, threatens to do more harm than good. First and foremost, this approach damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules. Capping liability limits sounds appealing, but it fails to address the basic problem of too many lawsuits and too many shakedowns, most of which settle for less than the proposed caps anyway.
The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation.
This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of the system and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses. Yet the assessment of liability and compensation should be determined by private contractual agreements between physicians and patients — in other words, by the free market.
The free-market approach enables patients to protect themselves with negative outcome insurance purchased before medical treatment. Such insurance ensures that those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.
This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
I have introduced legislation that allows individuals a tax credit for the purchase of negative outcomes insurance.
Needless to say, my bill prohibits the IRS from treating such insurance proceeds as taxable income. After all, while we don’t need trial lawyers getting any more insurance money, we certainly don’t need the IRS getting it either! Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Here is a good piece by my friend, Dean Clancy, on the constitutional flaws in the bill.
The House will also consider two bills dealing with immigration. H.R. 3004 provides new federal penalties for illegal immigrants who returned to the country after being deported and subsequently where convicted of a crime.
H.R. 3003 denies federal funds to "sanctuary cities."
The House will also consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including:
1. H.R. 1726 -- Reauthorizes and makes structural changes to the Coast Guard.
2. H.Res. 397 -- Solemnly reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In other words, perpetual war for perpetual peace.
NATO was forced in the early days of the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union, yet almost 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell, NATO is not just still around, but is continuously expanding. Every new country added to the alliance is another country that the US is obligated to defend.
Instead of reaffirming our commitment to NATO, or working to strengthen NATO by increasing the amount spent,Congress should be working to withdraw from NATO.
3. H.Res. 351 -- Condemns violence in Chechnya and calls on the US Government to demand release of prisoners unjustly detained. This may seem harmless, but this type of resolution sets the stage for future US interference.
The House may also consider legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security. More details on that will be posted if they become available.
Print 
PDFTags: Obamacare, Congress, NATO, tort reform