[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 48 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E421-E422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PROTECTING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 21, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to 
     improve patient access to health care services and provide 
     improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the 
     liability system places on the health care delivery system:

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I am caught between a rock and a 
hard place on this bill. I spoke and voted against the health care bill 
that is most frequently referred to as ``ObamaCare.''
  I am strongly opposed to this Independent Payment Advisory Board, 
which many see as being a major step towards rationing of medical care.
  I strongly favor protecting access to healthcare which is the title 
of H.R. 5.
  However, legislators have been talking about $250,000 caps probably 
since the late 1970s, if not earlier.
  I can assure you that $250,000 in the 70s is far more than $250,000 
today.
  Secondly, it does not seem fair to me to tell all of my 
constituents--or at least more than 99 percent--that they can be sued 
for everything they have, but we are going to limit suits against this 
one small, privileged segment of our society.
  I have great admiration and respect for physicians, but I also 
believe they should not be placed on a pedestal way above everyone 
else.
  Third, every trial judge sits as a 13th juror and can set aside or 
reduce a ridiculous or unjust judgment. If the trial judge does not 
act, then there are courts of appeal. There are safeguards throughout 
the system, and most really excessive judgments have been reversed in 
some way by a trial court or at a higher level.
  Fourth, USA Today published a box 4 or 5 years ago which showed that 
for the then most recent five-year period, medical malpractice 
judgments had gone up only 1.8 percent while medical malpractice 
premiums had gone up 131 percent.
  A few big insurance companies have given the public a very false 
impression of what is really happening in the courts so that they can 
impose very exorbitant rate increases.
  Last, some members, including me, believe that this should be handled 
by the states under our Constitution and that this malpractice part of 
the bill goes against the spirit and intent of our tenth amendment.

[[Page E422]]



                          ____________________