State legislators: leave tort reform to us

[Greenbeard]

From Healthwatch:

A bipartisan association of state lawmakers is urging House Republicans to abandon efforts to overhaul the nation’s medical liability laws — the most prominent piece so far of the GOP's efforts to replace the Democrats' 2010 healthcare law.

The states — and not the federal government — should decide on medical malpractice standards, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) wrote to House members this week.

“The adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach to medical malpractice envisioned in H.R. 5 and other related measures would undermine that diversity and disregard factors unique to each particular states,” the NCSL wrote to the House Energy and Commerce health subpanel.

An alternative might be what I'll call the Ryan-Obama proposal (since Paul Ryan and Obama have both suggested it, independently), which is to provide federal grants to state governments to study and implement appropriate reforms to their existing tort laws.

H.R. 5 is, by the way, the bill that led to this intra-party squabble during a markup in February:

At a Judiciary Committee markup, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) accused Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) of proposing legislation that would violate the Constitution.

The panel was considering legislation sponsored by Gingrey, who does not sit on the committee and was not present, that would impose a $250,000 cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages. Poe, a former felony court judge and a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, said that violates the Constitution.

He also warned he'd vote against the measure if it imposes caps on states that don't want them.

"I got problems with that," Poe said. "I think it's a violation of the Tenth Amendment."

 

[Trajan]

the states doing their own thing, yes, interesting.....

 

[The T]

the states doing their own thing, yes, interesting.....

*AS they should be doing* Per The Constitution.

Perhaps the *OP* has something to counter that the Constitution allows for the Imperial FED to dictate Healthcare against the Objections of the States...per the Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

And OBAMA had ZERO to DO with this.

OP? Yer an ASS.

 

[Greenbeard]

Perhaps the *OP* has something to counter that the Constitution allows for the Imperial FED to dictate Healthcare against the Objections of the States...per the Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

If you're talking about the feds forcing state governments to act as agents of the feds, they certainly can't do that.

 

[jillian]

Perhaps the *OP* has something to counter that the Constitution allows for the Imperial FED to dictate Healthcare against the Objections of the States...per the Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

If you're talking about the feds forcing state governments to act as agents of the feds, they certainly can't do that.

the feds can legislate anything in interstate commerce or for the general welfare.

so i'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Greenbeard]

the feds can legislate anything in interstate commerce or for the general welfare.

so i'm not sure what you mean.

Absolutely they have the authority to pass federal laws/regulations, but then the authority and responsibility for executing those laws or regs will generally fall on federal-level officials, unless the state itself wants to play that role. The state government itself won't be forced to play a role it doesn't want to play.

 

[jillian]

the feds can legislate anything in interstate commerce or for the general welfare.

so i'm not sure what you mean.

Absolutely they have the authority to pass federal laws/regulations, but then the authority and responsibility for executing those laws or regs will generally fall on federal-level officials, unless the state itself wants to play that role. The state government itself won't be forced to play a role it doesn't want to play.

that's true in theory. but generally what happens is that if the states refuse to do something, there will be some payback... like being denied funding of some type.