Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman has read page 167 of the bill which provides to certain health care plans sponsored by very large group providers absolute immunity for nonmedical injuries? The language of the gentleman's bill says if there is a self-funded, self-insured plan, it gets absolute immunity when someone is injured or killed by a nonmedical determination. So let us say they wrongfully decide coverage and a patient is injured, there is absolute immunity, there is no recovery whatsoever.
John Shadegg: “Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman has read page 167 of the bill which provides to certain health care plans…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about immunity provisions in the Ganske-Dingell health care bill.
Share
More from John Shadegg
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?
So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?
It seems to me morally indefensible, morally indefensible to say to the American people, If you work for a big, big, big employer--like you and I do, the Federal Government--or like we'll say, General Motors or Intel or Motorola or AT&T or…
No, we don't force people to do that. I guess we do say that if you want to drive in some places, you have to buy auto insurance to insure against damage to somebody else. Right?





