The only thing that has been compromised here with the Norwood amendment is the rights of the American people as patients. In 6 months, the President has done to this bill what he was unable to do in Texas: he has killed those rights of the American people. I wish the gentlewoman from Connecticut had stayed longer, because she would realize that in the second sentence of the applicable section of the Norwood amendment, what appeared to be giving States rights is taken away, in essence, what appears to be a preemption for the managed care industry of all underlying State law related to health care quality. On economic damages, yes, you can get the money for the cost of your operation back, but now this law is going to tell you what your arm is worth, what your eyesight is worth, and the limit is quite low. Lastly, we spent over 5 years trying to deal with an industry that we do not trust, that has made bad decision after bad decision, that the American people have recognized; and the way this amendment deals with it is to say that when you are sick, when you are down and out, you do not just have to prove that you are right by the preponderance of the evidence, as anybody else would with any other type of claim, but you also have to overcome a presumption that is a rebuttable presumption. This is the HMO protection act. This is something done in the dark of night.
John Tierney: “The only thing that has been compromised here with the Norwood amendment is the rights of the American people as…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the Norwood amendment and its impact on patients' rights.
Share
More from John Tierney
I want to just amplify comments made by Mr. Courtney with respect to what the Ryan budget would do to some of the higher education funds on that.
I don't think I've seen a display of this kind of disrespect in all the time I've been here in Congress, and it's unfortunate that anybody would have to be subjected to it.
In view of Libya's challenges in building and stabilizing democratic institutions it seems advisable that we review whether or not the success of that country in transitioning has impacted its ability to meet national security requirements.
The risk that you have is that the board may disagree with you, and then that is the risk that Mr. King takes.





