Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Defeats Effort to Limit Medical Malpractice Awards
Los Angeles Times via latimes.com ^ | May 9, 2006 | Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Posted on 05/09/2006 12:57:51 AM PDT by Lancey Howard

WASHINGTON — The Senate blocked legislation Monday that would have limited jury awards in medical malpractice cases, shunting aside one of President Bush's most sought-after domestic policy objectives.

In procedural votes on two separate bills, proponents of the caps on damages failed to cut off debate. The defeat means that the effort to restrain malpractice awards — stalled in the Senate for two years — is unlikely to move forward in Congress unless Republicans increase their numbers on Capitol Hill in November's election.

The bills would have limited damages for pain and suffering to $250,000 in most instances, with an upper limit of $750,000 for cases involving multiple medical facilities. One bill would have applied to healthcare providers generally, while the other sought to shield obstetrician-gynecologists. Foes say such caps are unfair because they would fall disproportionately on people who suffer the most severe injuries.

The bills' Republican backers fell far short of the 60 votes needed to end Democratic-led stalling tactics. The vote to end debate on the broader legislation was 48 to 42; the tally on the second measure was 49 to 44

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/09/2006 12:57:54 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

The scumbag Democrats, long into the pockets of the "jackpot justice" trial lawyers, have done it again. This vote needs to be taken over and over, right up until the election.


2 posted on 05/09/2006 12:59:31 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Subtle MSM propaganda tactics.
The bill wasn't defeated, it was filibustered.
3 posted on 05/09/2006 1:07:31 AM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Who has the majority in both houses again? Functionally, it seems to be the Dems.


4 posted on 05/09/2006 1:08:43 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Subtle MSM propaganda tactics. The bill wasn't defeated, it was filibustered.

Excellent point.

5 posted on 05/09/2006 2:06:34 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Who has the majority in both houses again? Functionally, it seems to be the Dems.

Uh, not exactly. See, the minority party in the Senate, whether it's the Republicans or the scumbags, can filibuster.

6 posted on 05/09/2006 2:08:16 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

ping


7 posted on 05/09/2006 2:15:47 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Who has the majority in both houses again? Functionally, it seems to be the Dems.

The filabuster option in the US Senate is a very powerful weapon for whomever is in the minority, and is very difficult to overcome.

8 posted on 05/09/2006 2:18:53 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

"The filabuster option in the US Senate is a very powerful weapon for whomever is in the minority, and is very difficult to overcome."

Then I say if the spineless RINOS ever loose the Senate, they use it time and time again.


9 posted on 05/09/2006 3:58:20 AM PDT by poobear (The most critical job that Americans will no longer do: Vote for Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: poobear

Are you kiding? They WILL loose the Senate becaus they are spineless and they will NEVER use the filabuster when they loose.


10 posted on 05/09/2006 5:33:51 AM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Postman

Loose the Senate? Whoo said so? That's neews to me.


11 posted on 05/09/2006 5:46:24 AM PDT by ozzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: inkling

.....Functionally, it seems to be the Dems....

Almost no, that is nearly 0, FReepers understand this point. They curse inaction and ponder desertion from the cause because of they don't or won't comprehend this simple fact.


12 posted on 05/09/2006 5:49:24 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
This bill is a Federal Bill, which may preempt state law in some cases. So, there have been a variety of opinions on the appropriateness of that. However, anyone worth their salt understands the need to reform Malpractice. Especially reinstating the right to contract.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
13 posted on 05/09/2006 7:19:07 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ozzie

"Loose the Senate?..."

LOL


14 posted on 05/09/2006 7:21:50 AM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
This should be a state issue.

Texas has these limits in place already, and malpractice insurance premiums have decline dramatically.

15 posted on 05/09/2006 7:23:49 AM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

http://scarlettsays.blogspot.com/2006/05/bout-birthn-no-babies.html


16 posted on 05/09/2006 10:55:37 AM PDT by brothers4thID (Being lectured by Ted Kennedy on ethics is not unlike being lectured on dating protocol by Ted Bundy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Thanks for the good news ping.


17 posted on 05/09/2006 11:01:06 AM PDT by Lady Jag (Learning to shrug is the beginning of wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brothers4thID

Thanks for the link.


18 posted on 05/09/2006 11:26:05 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

The law is modeled after Texas.


19 posted on 05/09/2006 2:19:50 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag; sinkspur
"Thanks for the good news ping." ---

I'm not sure if it is good news or not... If you're interested in some further thoughts on this, we were just in DC to do some lobbying on this and other things:

LINK
20 posted on 05/09/2006 2:24:08 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ozzie

Thanks Oz,

I was really worried that my post would simply ooze down the trough into the cesspool of bad spelling.

Thanks again.


21 posted on 05/10/2006 11:17:15 AM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson