That is exactly right. The whole theory behind the Patients' Bill of Rights is between a combination of complex government regulations, and going at the issue of ERISA reform by allowing lawsuits, we can solve the problem. That is not going to solve the problem. Our legislation says, let us create a marketplace. If people want to buy a plan where the plan is less expensive because they have given up their right to sue their plan, let them do that. On the other hand, if people want to pay a little bit more for a plan and recognize that in paying more, they are getting the right to sue their plan, that seems to me to give them an option. In addition to which I think this Congress is going to move forward on thoughtful legislation for HMO reform which will not open the door to unlimited lawsuits. I agree with the gentleman, the last thing we want to do is create a litigation frenzy.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Patients' Bill of Rights and HMO reform during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Wait, the gentleman's telling me that never before in Federal law have we ordered people to buy a particular product, that we don't do that in Federal law as a routine matter?
Or maybe even a small doctor's office. If their employer doesn't give them employer-paid health care coverage, here's what we do the little guy. Here's what we do to the least among us. We say, Oh, you really ought to be insured, but we're…
The underlying legislation creates a $5 billion government loan program to assist people in purchasing energy efficiency devices. Anytime we spend that amount of money, we ought to be very careful about the spending of that money…
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?





