Protecting Access to Healthcare Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Today, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this harmful bill, H.R. 5, the so-called Protecting Access to Healthcare Act.

Now, this bill is premised upon what I would call a story, because that's what my mamma used to tell me. My mamma and my grandmamma, as I was growing up, used to say that's wrong to say that someone is lying. Don't say that. You say that they're telling a story. So I grew up plagued with the guilt that comes from calling somebody a liar. I still have that sense of shame associated with that word ``liar.''

I'm not here to accuse anybody of lying, but I will say that H.R. 5, the so-called Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, is a story, is premised on the story that runaway frivolous lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits are a major cause of driving the cost of medical care through the roof. That's not true.

This bill restricts a patient's ability to recover compensation for damages caused by medical negligence, defective products, and irresponsible insurance companies. It also sets a cap of $250,000 for noneconomic compensatory damages which are awarded to victims for emotional pain and suffering, physical impairment and disfigurement.

I'm so sorry to have not had this photograph blown up. It's a photo of Caroline Palmer of Marietta, Georgia. Ms. Palmer was in an automobile accident back on March 23, 2007. She sustained two broken legs, a broken shoulder, abrasions on her arms, and a collapsed lung. While she was at the hospital, recuperating, they noticed that her left hand was swollen, dusky blue, and cool to the touch. But after so noting on her medical record, the doctor left work that day, and no further action was taken about that. That was a clear sign that blood was not flowing to that limb and that something was wrong.

Nothing was done. No followup. The next day they found that the IV line had been misplaced in her arm, and they referred her in for some treatments to try to reinvigorate the circulation in that arm, and there was nothing they could do.

They tried everything. They even subjected Caroline to a procedure on both arms to relieve the pressure and treat the loss of circulation by producing a large gaping hole in both arms, and that procedure failed. Whereupon, she then was subjected to the cutting off of her left arm and the cutting off of her right arm.

Now, we've talked a lot about, well, how much is a leg worth? How much is a leg worth when you lose a leg? Well, how much are two legs worth? How much are two arms worth?

This picture shows Caroline Palmer in this horrendous state; and under this amendment, under this bill, H.R. 5, this woman, this victim, would be limited to $250,000 for her pain and suffering and disfigurement, and that's not right.

How do you put a cap on someone's pain and suffering? How heartless is it to cap noneconomic damages when one has lost a limb? becomes blind?

How much is vision worth? How much is the ability to see? How much is that worth? $250,000, under this legislation.

If you become paralyzed at the hands of a negligent health care provider, can no longer walk, how much is that worth? $250,000.

These caps hurt the most vulnerable among us: children, senior citizens, and working poor. They can't even recover for economic losses such as lost wages. They may not be working. A child doesn't work. A child left with no arms is limited in noneconomic damages to $250,000. He's got to roll with that for the rest of his life--$250,000. It's not right.

Medical malpractice is about real people with real injuries. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 98,000 people die each year in the United States from preventable medical errors. Tort reform proposals, such as H.R. 5, fail to address the deaths and injuries associated with preventable medical errors every year.

Now, this, H.R. 5, is an unholy alliance between two stories: the one story which I just outlined to you and the other story being the repeal of the 15-person Independent Payment Advisory Board, also known as IPAB, which was created under RomneyCare. Oops, I mean ObamaCare. Oops, I mean, the Affordable Care Act.

Now, while I do believe that there are some good reasons to be opposed to the IPAB and to vote to abolish it--I believe there are some good reasons for that--the rationing of medical care is not one of them. Anyone who says that this IPAB board has the power to cut the benefits paid to Medicare recipients has either not read the bill or is telling you a story.

Just for the record, I want to read 42 U.S.C. section G, 1395kkk. I'm not going to comment on the kkk right now, but that's the subsection of the subsection of 42 U.S.C. where the law that was passed, RomneyCare--I mean ObamaCare, I mean Affordable Health Care Act--is stated, the law, 42 U.S.C., and it says:

The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

That is what ObamaCare, RomneyCare--I mean the Affordable Health Care Act--provides for. That's the law. Anybody who tells you otherwise is telling you a story.

Going back to the first story, I really oppose it for the reasons that I've previously stated. This bill is another example of the Republican majority bringing a partisan bill to the House floor that has virtually no chance of becoming a law. H.R. 5 does not create any jobs or grow the economy. It's a slap in the face, also, of states' rights--something we've heard--that the other side has depended on for a long time, states' rights, the 10th Amendment.

H.R. 5, ladies and gentlemen, denies States their right to have their own tort laws. The State of Georgia, for instance, in its constitution, says that all citizens are entitled to a jury trial. The legislature imposed a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice and other cases. The case went up to the Georgia Supreme Court, which ruled that to limit noneconomic damages deprives one of their constitutional right to a jury trial. This bill, H.R. 5, would do away with what the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled insofar as Georgia law is concerned. It's a gross overstepping of Federal legislation into the affairs of the State, and I oppose it.

I understand that there was a meeting yesterday, a specially called meeting that Majority Leader Eric Cantor called of the Tea Party Republican Caucus to kind of tighten some screws and twist some arms to get the caucus to go along with H.R. 5 so that no one would get embarrassed. Now, we've yet to see what will happen, but I believe that all of the Tea Party Republicans will fall into line and vote in favor of H.R. 5, which has absolutely no chance of passing once it goes to the other body.

I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, for giving me this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source