This GOP Senate Bill Is Wrong

[Kathianne]

It's what makes me move away from both parties-they do the same things in different ways to the people, for their own power/money gains:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/280368/senate-gop-jobs-bill-contains-landmine-federalism-carrie-severino


Senate GOP Jobs Bill Contains a Landmine for Federalism (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/280368/senate-gop-jobs-bill-contains-landmine-federalism-carrie-severino)
By Carrie Severino
Posted on October 18, 2011 10:57 AM


Douglas Holtz-Eakin offers three cheers (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280072/rational-jobs-plan-senate-republicans-douglas-holtz-eakin) for the “Jobs Through Growth Act (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=feb4d840-c3be-83b1-a1fb-b7f2a039e94d),” the Senate Republican alternative to President Obama’s jobs bill...


On the upside, the bill would repeal the Obama administration’s two most aggressive assaults on the Constitution — Obamacare and Dodd-Frank — and “require congressional approval by joint resolution of any federal rule that would cost the economy $100 million or more.” ...


Unfortunately, the bill would also enact S.197, “The Medical Care Access Protection Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197).” Among other things, S.197 sets a statute of limitations for claims, caps damages and creates standards for expert witnesses. These may sound like great ideas, but they are not within the constitutional powers granted to the federal government for the very same reasons Obamacare is not.


The law’s own justification for its constitutional authority should be chilling to anyone committed to limited federal power. The bill’s findings state that health care and health insurance are industries that “affect interstate commerce,” and conclude that Congress therefore has Commerce Clause power to regulate them — even when it involves an in-state transaction between a doctor and patient, governed by in-state medical malpractice laws. Is there any industry that couldn’t be found to have an effect on interstate commerce? The agriculture and manufacturing industries, long considered the paradigmatic areas not covered by the Commerce Clause, certainly fall under federal power under this broad analysis.


As Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett explains here (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/05/tort-reform-and-gops-fair-weather-federalism#ixzz1alZd6kQB), in a piece criticizing Republicans for their “fair-weather federalism, “tort law — the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries to their person and property — has always been regulated by states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart of what is called the ‘police power’ of states.” Of course, there are contexts — product liability, for example — in which states can take actions that set standards for the entire country, turning federalism on its head. (See Michael Krauss’s brief summary here (http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2007/748).)


...

[red states rule]

The Tea Party took out incumbents in 2009, now it is time to gear up for 2010 Kat. Unlike the hippies who want bigger and more expensive government, it is time to toss out ALL the big spenders and government growers for those of us still working and paying the bills

[Kathianne]

The Tea Party took out incumbents in 2009, now it is time to gear up for 2010 Kat. Unlike the hippies who want bigger and more expensive government, it is time to toss out ALL the big spenders and government growers for those of us still working and paying the bills

So what's your take on this proposal?

[Thunderknuckles]

I'm with you Kat. It's not the first time a seemingly good bill has an insidious little clause tucked away deep inside it with significant long term consequences for this country. It's the basis for my initial reaction on all bills coming out of Congress:

"OK, I've heard what you've had to say about the bill. Now, what didn't you tell me about it?!"

[fj1200]

It's what makes me move away from both parties-they do the same things in different ways to the people, for their own power/money gains:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/280368/senate-gop-jobs-bill-contains-landmine-federalism-carrie-severino


SEC. 5. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.[/URL] (http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197&version=is&nid=t0%3Ais%3A63)
(a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses in Health Care Lawsuits- In any health care lawsuit, nothing in this Act shall limit the recovery by a claimant of the full amount of the available economic damages, notwithstanding the limitation contained in subsection (b).

(http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197&version=is&nid=t0%3Ais%3A64)
(b) Additional Noneconomic Damages-
[URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197&version=is&nid=t0%3Ais%3A65"] (http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197&version=is&nid=t0%3Ais%3A65)


(1) HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS- In any health care lawsuit where final judgment is rendered against a health care provider, the amount of noneconomic damages recovered from the provider, if otherwise available under applicable Federal or State law, may be as much as $250,000, regardless of the number of parties other than a health care institution against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same occurrence.

What's the problem? This is nothing like BO Care that requires one to engage in interstate commerce.

[ConHog]

I'm with you Kat. It's not the first time a seemingly good bill has an insidious little clause tucked away deep inside it with significant long term consequences for this country. It's the basis for my initial reaction on all bills coming out of Congress:

"OK, I've heard what you've had to say about the bill. Now, what didn't you tell me about it?!"



Which I favor making these little riders ILLEGAL. A bill to do X should do X only, if you want to do Y write a bill for Y.

[revelarts]

Which I favor making these little riders ILLEGAL. A bill to do X should do X only, if you want to do Y write a bill for Y.


I'm with you Kat. It's not the first time a seemingly good bill has an insidious little clause tucked away deep inside it with significant long term consequences for this country. It's the basis for my initial reaction on all bills coming out of Congress:

"OK, I've heard what you've had to say about the bill. Now, what didn't you tell me about it?!"

Agreed

[DragonStryk72]

This is one of the reasons I support a line item veto. Watch this shit die out if the president could just approve the overall bill, but kill off all this insane little shit tacked on. For further point, it should be required that the person who proposed the additions have their name on them. I would be the bastard as president who would go on tv and read off the names, though

[ConHog]

This is one of the reasons I support a line item veto. Watch this shit die out if the president could just approve the overall bill, but kill off all this insane little shit tacked on. For further point, it should be required that the person who proposed the additions have their name on them. I would be the bastard as president who would go on tv and read off the names, though

Me to, and I'd damn sure call out ALL parties for doing it.

Just make riders illegal and be done with it.

[Kathianne]

What's the problem? This is nothing like BO Care that requires one to engage in interstate commerce.

Federal usurpation of state level provision. http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/05/tort-reform-and-gops-fair-weather-federalism#ixzz1alZd6kQB

[fj1200]

Federal usurpation of state level provision. http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/05/tort-reform-and-gops-fair-weather-federalism#ixzz1alZd6kQB

Are you saying that HC does NOT effect interstate commerce?


(2) EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE- Congress finds that the health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197)
I'd say if you use the Federal courts you should abide by Federal rules regarding torts.

[Kathianne]

Are you saying that HC does NOT effect interstate commerce?


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-197)
I'd say if you use the Federal courts you should abide by Federal rules regarding torts.

Not the care between patient and doctor and that's where tort reform comes in.

[fj1200]

Not the care between patient and doctor and that's where tort reform comes in.

Not necessarily, but this is an issue where Federal rules can make the marketplace more efficient by normalizing rules across state lines.

[Kathianne]

Not necessarily, but this is an issue where Federal rules can make the marketplace more efficient by normalizing rules across state lines.

So efficiency over Constitution? That's the argument?

[fj1200]

So efficiency over Constitution? That's the argument?

No, as I asked I think they've got IC covered.

[Kathianne]

No, as I asked I think they've got IC covered.Well unless like Barnett pointed out months ago, the people start looking at both Congress and SCOTUS and the Constitution. Then, all the 'covered' may not be.


I'm not into anarchy, but one thing the OWS and Tea Parties do have in common is a very healthy cynicism towards the way the government is operating. Government should take heed, but the political elite seem incapable of such introspection and awareness of the winds of the populace.

[fj1200]

Well unless like Barnett pointed out months ago, the people start looking at both Congress and SCOTUS and the Constitution. Then, all the 'covered' may not be.


I'm not into anarchy, but one thing the OWS and Tea Parties do have in common is a very healthy cynicism towards the way the government is operating. Government should take heed, but the political elite seem incapable of such introspection and awareness of the winds of the populace.

I don't even think they share that because one wants a larger government and the other wants smaller. Nevertheless, no one is more cynical than I but I don't see this as "usurpation." Doctors don't pay out on malpractice claims, insurance firms that cross state lines do.

Barnett?

[DragonStryk72]

I don't even think they share that because one wants a larger government and the other wants smaller. Nevertheless, no one is more cynical than I but I don't see this as "usurpation." Doctors don't pay out on malpractice claims, insurance firms that cross state lines do.

Barnett?

I agree with Kathianne here. Both groups want a level playing field. They're both blaming different entities, TEA party blaming the government, while OWS is blaming corporations. Which one is right? My answer is Yes. Yes, corporations screwed people over to make a quick buck, but they were enable and encouraged in this by the government that set the economic policies that allowed it.

[fj1200]

I don't think OWS wants a level playing field. I think they want government domination over corporations.

And I disagree with your characterization of corporations; they exist to make money, nothing wrong with that.