I cannot speak. I am not a representative for that organization. All I can say is I am sure that that organization would like to see those provisions become law at some point in time, but the recognition is there that on this piece of legislation that will be considered a poison pill. We have broad bipartisan consensus and support for a limited Patient Bill of Rights like is in the Patient Bill of Rights bill, 3605, or Patient Access to Responsible Care Act. It is not like you have to reinvent the wheel. These bills have been out there for some time. They already have broad bipartisan support. It is simply a matter of bringing them to the floor for a debate under a fair rule in a timely fashion before this session runs out.
Greg Ganske: “I cannot speak. I am not a representative for that organization. All I can say is I am sure that that organization would…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for bipartisan support for a Patient Bill of Rights.
Share
More from Greg Ganske
In preempting State law, the Norwood amendment goes beyond conduct that involves negligent medical judgment to a particular patient's case. The amendment made by virtue of the words 'based on' stipulate that State malpractice law does not…
I believe there are ethical considerations that enter to the creation of an embryo for research purposes, and that is why I will support the Weldon bill. And I will vote against the Greenwood substitute.
Let me just read to the gentleman a statement by Ari Fleischer today on this issue. The question to him was: Republicans and Democrats believe that the deal struck between Mr. Norwood and the President would abrogate State laws on…
So he stands by his statement that HMOs are treated better in his amendment than others. Now, is it the gentleman's understanding that his bill would abrogate State laws on patients' rights?





