[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S3871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the second issue, that I just mention
briefly, has to do with the cloture vote on the medical malpractice
issue that will come before the Senate this afternoon.
This bill actually differentiates between those who walk in the front
door of a hospital and those who get emergency care. We objected last
time we voted on this because it differentiated between men and women.
Men and women would be treated differently under the bill that cloture
was voted on a few weeks ago. Now our Republican colleagues add to that
people who walk into a hospital or are taken into a hospital via an
emergency room.
This draws a distinction that I think is inexplicable. If you are
injured in an emergency room, under this legislation, you have
virtually no legal recourse. If you are injured by walking through the
front door of a hospital, you still have all the recourses that are
allowed under Federal law. Drawing that distinction, to me, is not an
improvement. That is not reform. Yet that is what some of our
Republican colleagues have said.
On more than one occasion, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Dick
Durbin have said they are prepared to work, in a bipartisan way, to
allow us the opportunity to address meaningful malpractice reform,
including the high cost of malpractice insurance. But that is what it
is going to take.
Having cloture votes on bills that draw a distinction between two
circumstances that have nothing to do with punitive damages, or with
economic damages for that matter, is something I think will get us
nowhere. This vote, as all the other votes, will not be accepted. It
again reminds us how important it is that we work together to find a
real solution to malpractice, as Senators Graham and Durbin are doing.
____________________