[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H9504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TWO EXTREMES IN THE HEALTH CARE REFORM DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). He read a letter from a 
doctor, a constituent of his, who said that he supported two bills, and 
I think it is very important to note that of the two numbers he read 
off, the second number that the doctor wrote him about said he 
supported H.R. 2824.
  I think the doctor is right about that. H.R. 2824 is the Coburn-
Shadegg bill, the bill that I have cosponsored, and his medical doctor 
constituent wrote to him to say that he favored either the Norwood-
Dingell bill or the Coburn-Shadegg bill. I hope tomorrow the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) will cross the line and do exactly what that 
doctor said, support the Coburn-Shadegg bill, because it is a 
reasonable alternative.
  I want to talk for a moment about the two extremes in this important 
health care debate. One extreme says we should do nothing about the 
faults in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. One of our 
colleagues, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), his father 
is a district judge. He has written a number of opinions in this area. 
I want to quote from those.
  I sent around a series of dear colleagues: ``ERISA abuses people. 
Courts cry out for reform.'' Here is what Judge Pickering wrote: ``It 
is indeed an anomaly that an act passed for the security of the 
employees should be used almost exclusively to defeat their security, 
and to leave them without remedies for fraud and overreaching.''
  Second in this series that I want to talk about, ``ERISA abuses 
people, courts cry out for reform,'' is a decision written by Judge 
William Young of the Federal District Court in Boston. He writes, ``It 
is extremely troubling that in the health insurance context, ERISA has 
evolved into a shield of immunity which thwarts the legitimate claims 
of the very people it is designed to protect.''
  I want to conclude this series by again reading from another opinion 
by Judge Pickering in which he says, ``Every single case brought before 
this court has involved an insurance company using ERISA as a shield to 
prevent employees from having the legal redress and remedies they would 
have had under the longstanding State laws existing before the adoption 
of ERISA.''
  Not amending ERISA is an extreme position that will hurt the American 
people. But I want to point out, there is another extreme position in 
this debate. That second extreme position is represented by the 
Norwood-Dingell bill.
  The Norwood-Dingell bill is extreme in several regards. First and 
foremost, it does not protect employers from liability. I want plans 
held liable. I do not want Mrs. Corcoran's baby to be killed and the 
plan to be able to walk away, as happened in Corcoran versus United 
States Health Care. But when that plan is held liable, I do not want 
the employer held liable. The employer just hired the plan. The 
employer just wanted to offer health care to his or her employees.
  The Coburn-Shadegg proposal, now joined by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) protects employers. Employers 
are not liable unless they directly participate in the final decision. 
That is the key language.
  That means, and here is the debate, and Members will hear this from 
industry, an employer is not liable, cannot be sued, for merely 
selecting a plan or for merely deciding what coverage ought to be, or 
for selecting a third party administrator.
  An employer cannot be held liable for selecting or continuing the 
maintenance of the plan. They cannot be held liable for modifying or 
terminating the plan. They cannot be held liable for the design of or 
coverage or the benefits to be included in the plan. They can only be 
held liable if they make the final decision to deny care. That is the 
way it should be.
  I want to go on to point out that the other extreme position 
represented by Norwood-Dingell is lawsuits by anyone, as my colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, that let the 
jury decide injury. Our bill says no, you have to have a panel of 
doctors to decide injury.
  Lawsuits at any time. They do not want you to have to go through 
internal and external review. They do not want to have to give the plan 
a chance to make the right decision. They want to just go to court.
  Lawsuits over anything. Our legislation says it has to be a covered 
benefit. Their legislation says you can sue over anything, just get the 
lawyer and go to court. Their bill says lawsuits even when the plan 
does everything right. Our legislation says, no, if the plan makes the 
right decision, you should not be able to throw the book at them in 
court and drag them and blackmail them into making a settlement.
  Their position is lawsuits without limits. They want all kinds of 
unlimited damages. There are over 100 organizations, not trial lawyers, 
but over 100 organizations endorsing the Goss-Coburn-Shadegg-Greenwood-
Thomas proposal. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this needed 
legislation.

                          ____________________