I declined to enter into a time agreement because this is an amendment which deals with the complex subject of jurisdiction. I have long been a cosponsor for a Patients' Bill of Rights, and I was surprised to learn many years ago of the Federal preemption which precluded an injured patient--for example, where a family doctor recommended a specialist and the HMO refused to provide the specialist to the person and the person was injured, or perhaps died, and had no redress in the Federal courts because of the so-called preemption under ERISA. It has seemed to me for many years that that was one of the problems that ought to be addressed. I compliment Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Edwards for the work they have done, and also Senator Frist, Senator Breaux, and Senator Jeffords for their companion bill, and what the managers have done here. This amendment addresses what I believe, from my experience as a litigator in the civil courts, to be a very fundamental question of concern as to what courts these cases are going to be tried in.
Arlen Specter: “I declined to enter into a time agreement because this is an amendment which deals with the complex subject of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of ERISA preemption on patient rights and jurisdiction in healthcare cases.
Share
More from Arlen Specter
I believe that it is vital that the public really understands what the Supreme Court does.
I cannot applaud Rutland enough, because we had a similar hearing a few years ago when Senator Arlen Specter and I were here, and that shaped a number of federal programs for the better because of what we heard from you.
the reason we serve is to ensure that our children and our children's children inherit the same great country that we received from those who went before us.
We have a requirement, as you may know, for 60 Senators to be in agreement before a bill is taken up, and some people--we were two votes short.





