[Aragorn]

Somebody help me out here. The way I understand it, Senator John McCain originally stated that employers would not be held liable in potential lawsuits by employees/patients. Now, Senator John McCain(and others) voted AGAINST that very issue. In other words, employers could be sued by employess/patients. The way I see it, employers do not have any legal obligation to give employees health benefits. What's going to happen if this Bill passes? Hypothetically, employers could say "Screw this! We're not gonna get sued outta business. Let's drop the Health Care Plan for our employees!". Also, I think John McCain lied to the American Public regarding this issue(just my feelings). Thoughts? Clarification?

[Ninong]

Without taking the trouble to read the current language of the bill, I believe you may be misunderstanding it.

Employers would only be sued if they were the "decision makers," the people who either granted permission or denied permission for a medical procedure. This is extremely rare. Very, very few employers act in this capacity. If they do, they should see a shrink fast.

The authority to approve or deny claims is normally vested in the HMO or administrator of the plan. Obviously, the people acting in the decision making process would be the ones sued.

Certain state laws actually allow employers to be sued at the present time. I believe the Republican party and the Democratic party have a difference of opinion on how the new federal law should impact existing state laws.

Please bear in mind that John McCain is a conservative Republican, but one who may not be as influenced by Big Insurance, Big Oil and Big Tobacco as some of his neighbors on the left side of the aisle. (Maybe he can be persuaded to move his desk to the right side of the aisle next to Jim Jeffords' desk. )

Ninong

[Aragorn]

Thanks Ninong. Being an employee of a Telecommunications Co. that "self insures" troubles me though. I currently have FABULOUS benefits for my family and I. I wouldn't want to lose that. Oh yeah....I wouldn't go so far as to say McCain is "conservative"...

[Ninong]

WASHINGTON, June 26 — Senate Democrats won two significant victories today as the Senate rejected Republican challenges to provisions of a Democratic bill to define patients' rights for more than 180 million Americans.

The back-to-back votes, combined with a similar vote last week, created a sense that the bill was gaining momentum, after being tied up in a partisan impasse for nearly five years.

The new Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said today, "We have been very, very pleased overall with the victories that we've enjoyed so far."

By a vote of 57 to 43, the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to provide employers with COMPLETE IMMUNITY against lawsuits by employees who challenge the denial of their claims for health benefits. Republicans said the risk of such lawsuits would prompt employers to stop offering coverage, but Democrats said employers should be liable when they directly participate in decisions that harm patients. (Sounds reasonable to me. ) The other victory for Democrats came in a 61- to-39 vote that defeated a measure to pull the bill from the floor.

President Bush threatened last week to veto the Senate Democrats' bill. And House Republican leaders today unveiled an alternative that was considered acceptable to the White House.

Asked about today's votes, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chief Republican sponsor of the Democrats' bill, said they "continue the momentum we have, but there are still tough issues remaining."

The bill, a far cry from Democratic efforts in 1993-94 to guarantee health insurance for all Americans, would define a wide range of rights for people who have coverage. The measure would, for example, guarantee patients access to emergency care, medical specialists, clinical trials of new drugs and an independent medical review of decisions denying care.

The bill would make it easier for injured patients to sue health maintenance organizations and other health plans for the denial of promised benefits. Employers could also be sued if they directly participated in decisions to deny care to a patient.

Supporters of the bill claimed a significant political victory today, saying that it would improve the ability of covered patients to get quality health care. But the bill would not guarantee coverage for any of the 43 million people who lack health insurance. And opponents said that the rejection today of the proposed limit on employer liability meant that the bill would unleash a torrent of litigation.

Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, the assistant Republican leader, said: "Employers beware. You are going to be sued. Under this bill, there is no limit on economic damages, no limit on damages for pain and suffering in federal or state court."

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, an architect of the legislation, denounced the proposal to give employers full immunity. With such sweeping protection, he said, "there would be no end to the irresponsible behavior of some unscrupulous employers, who could deny necessary medical treatment any time it became too costly or inconvenient." And backers of the bill said there has not been an explosion of lawsuits in states that have adopted similar legislation.

Employers are not required to offer or provide any health benefits to employees, but many voluntarily do so, through a variety of arrangements. Sponsors of the Senate bill said they did not know how many employers might be exposed to lawsuits. Most employers would not incur risk because they hire insurance companies or other entities to manage health benefits for their employees, and the employers do not rule on individual claims, Democrats said.

But Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, said that plaintiffs' lawyers would name employers as co-defendants in lawsuits filed against H.M.O.'s and other health plans. Mr. Gramm said the bill would provide employers with a legal defense, but not with complete immunity, so employers would have to hire lawyers and defend themselves in court. The cost of such litigation would increase the cost of health insurance for employers and employees alike, Mr. Gramm said.

The action on employer liability came after the Senate rejected a Republican motion to pull the bill off the floor so it could be reviewed.

Last Thursday, by a vote of 52 to 45, the Senate killed a Republican amendment that would have increased the tax deduction for health insurance costs of the self-employed.

Democrats announced that the patients' rights bill would be the first order of business after they took control of the Senate this month.

The House Republican bill unveiled today would give patients a more limited right to sue and is closer to what Mr. Bush wants. When he threatened last week to veto the Senate Democrats' bill, Mr. Bush said it could lead to explosive growth in lawsuits and an increase in insurance premiums, prompting many employers to drop coverage.

J. Dennis Hastert, the speaker, said the House Republican bill was "the only one with a real chance of being signed into law by the president." White House officials endorsed the measure.

Under the House Republican bill, a patient could sue a health maintenance organization in state court if the patient was injured because the H.M.O. refused to provide care ordered by an independent medical reviewer. Damages would be subject to any limits set by state law.

Alternatively, patients could sue in federal court. Damages for pain and suffering would be limited to $500,000, and no punitive damages would be allowed.

Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio, both Republicans, are working with Democrats on an amendment to limit the liability of employers, and Mr. Bush is encouraging their effort. They would allow employers to shield themselves by naming an outside entity, known as "a designated decision-maker," to assume liability. The House Republican bill includes a similar device.

In a statement of principles in February, Mr. Bush said employers should be "shielded from unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits." At the same time, Mr. Bush said, "employers who retain responsibility for and make final medical decisions should be subject to suit."

Ms. Snowe said Mr. Bush called her today and urged her to expand her efforts at compromise beyond the issue of employer liability. The president, she said, also wants Congress to channel most lawsuits into federal courts and to limit the amount of damages.

Senate Democrats showed today that they had some reliable Republican support. On the first vote, 12 Republicans and Senator James M. Jeffords, an independent of Vermont, voted with 48 Democrats in rejecting the motion to send the bill to committees for further work. On the second vote, relating to employer liability, six Republicans and Mr. Jeffords voted with all 50 Democrats.

[Ninong]

Here is what the President had to say about the prospects for this bill:

"I haven't had a chance to talk, but I'm confident we'll get a bill that I can live with if we don't."—Referring to the McCain-Kennedy patients' bill of rights, Brussels, Belgium, June 13, 2001

"Can't living with the bill means it won't become law."—Referring to the McCain-Kennedy patients' bill of rights, Brussels, Belgium, June 13, 2001


Hmmm... a rather courageous political statement considering the fact that all of the opinion polls show that this legislation is quite popular with a majority of the citizens of this country.

I believe the President is threatening to veto any legislation that is not to his liking, quite confident that the two-thirds majority to override does not exist in either the House or the Senate.

Still, he is either extremely naive, extremely courageous, or dumber than even I thought to play into this one. What a golden opportunity he would be handing to the Democrats to help them take back control of the House in 2002 and increase their majority in the Senate; to say nothing of what it would do for McCain's chances to mount a third party challenge (ala Ross Perot) in 2004. Maybe Daddy will explain to him what a bad thing that would be. Of course, I guess Nader could jump back in to sort of cancel out any benefit the Democrats might enjoy from a McCain third party run. But hey! Maybe McCain will challenge within the Republican party again. That would be loads of fun. Remember, Lyndon Johnson was challenged by Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. Actually it was his early poor showing against McCarthy that convinced him to announce that he would not seek his party's nomination.

Ninong

[wgscott]

Aragorn has finally won me over. I think we should abolish all types of cost-sharing/risk-sharing enterprises, whether they are government-sponsored or private. Instead, we should have a pay-as-you-go system.

Don't have the cash to have that breast tumor removed surgically? Well, lump it. I guess you should have saved for a rainy day. Why should all the people that don't get cancer have to pay for the people that do? That is just an unfair system that begs to be abused. Soon people will even want their melanoma tumors carved out at our expense, when all they really need is an Xacto knife and a bit of spine. In fact, health insurance just encourages people to contract long-term costly chronic illnesses, when they would be better off with cheap acute illnesses, and besides, it only contributes to the surpluss population problem and all the things that come with it like traffic and pollution.

[Aragorn]

Whoa! Hold on a minute! I don't believe I ever said the Bill was good or bad. I was simply asking the question w/ respect to the way I understood it. As Ninong was polite enough to point out...I may have misunderstood it. Additionally I thanked him for that. I didn't know about it only affecting employers who were also insurers etc. And yes, seeing how my employer is an insurer and gives me excellent benefits(no out of pocket expense to me) I am concerned because I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEM!!! I think you're putting words in my mouth Wg. If you would have stated what Ninong stated(and the manner in which he presented himself), I would've thanked you as well. Again, I never stated the Bill was either good or bad...according to the way I understood it. Ninong clarified it for me.
BTW...I still think McCain is a double-talker. But then again, what politician isn't, right?