John B. Breaux: “I was not going to say anything, but the arguments have nothing to do with the substance of the amendment. Everybody…”

“I was not going to say anything, but the arguments have nothing to do with the substance of the amendment. Everybody ought to realize punitive damages have nothing to do with awarding a person who has been injured. A person who has been injured is compensated for economic losses, and there is no cap on economic losses. They are compensated by pain and suffering. There are no caps on pain and suffering. Punitive damages have one purpose. That is to punish the person who has caused the injury. That is the only purpose for punitive damages, to say to a company or an HMO, your conduct has been so outrageous, so egregious, you will be punished. That has nothing to do with the compensation for the injured plaintiff or child. They have already been taken care of. The concept of taking punitive damages and saying, we will use those damages to help people who do not have insurance, is a novel idea. Other States have done it. It is a good approach. I think we should support it because it has nothing to do with taking away anything to which an injured person is entitled. They have already been compensated in this bill with unlimited, uncapped economic and noneconomic pain and suffering damages. The arguments that I have heard have no merit considering the nature of the amendment.”