William Tauzin: “the Dingell motion offers us a different solution than H.R. 5. Interestingly enough, not a single one of the 175 health…”

“the Dingell motion offers us a different solution than H.R. 5. Interestingly enough, not a single one of the 175 health care organizations and associations, doctors across America, endorses that solution. But they have all endorsed H.R. 5. And let me explain to you why the doctors and the health care organizations have not endorsed the Dingell solution and have endorsed H.R. 5. By the way, the Committee on Energy and Commerce took a vote on the general substance of this motion to recommit and voted 30 to 20 against it and it was not a party line vote. Let me tell you why it was defeated, why so many organizations opposed it. Because what it generally offers is not insurance reform but a Federal commission, another bureaucracy to study the problem and to make recommendations one day to us. We have studied this problem ad infinitum. We have held numerous hearings. The States have experienced this problem going back 25 years and they have offered us a solution. We are following their lead after 25 years of experience. Do we really need another Federal commission? No insurance reform, just a commission? And then to solve the problem of high malpractice liability coverage, this is the Dingell motion to recommit solution, not a single limitation at all on recoveries, unlimited recoveries as in current law, not a single cap on any kind of damages. Instead we get an attorney's certificate of merit. An attorney's certificate of merit.”