Amendment poisons Patients’ Bill of Rights

Wise is a fourth-year political science student and a member of
the Bruin Democrats. Click
Here for more articles by Jason Wise

By Jason Wise

In the vast game that we call politics, a compromise is often
the only realistic way to pass any piece of legislation.
Unfortunately, oftentimes the resulting law is more about rhetoric
than it is about reality.

And so it is with the recent Patients’ Bill of Rights
debate in the House of Representatives. Upon first glance, it looks
as though the Republicans took the bull by the horns. Congressman
Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., said the bill “was something that the
President would sign”.

Norwood’s last minute deal with President George W. Bush
changed the entire debate of the bill and changed the fundamental
rights that the bill had set out to advance.

In 1996, the Democratic minority in both houses of Congress
proposed the original Patients’ Bill of Rights in a move that
many figured to be unfeasible. Now, in 2001, there has been a
chance for change. Democrats are part of a slim minority in the
House and a slim majority in the Senate.

With the help of moderate Republicans in Congress, such as Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz., and Norwood, a real Patients’ Bill of
Rights had a valid chance of passing its way to the desk of
President. The Senate version passed, and by all estimates, the
original Patients’ Bill of Rights would have done the same in
the House.

And then the political game began. President Bush had stated on
many occasions that he would veto this bill, despite intense public
support and proven success stories of patients’ rights in
states such as New Jersey and California. So by all accounts,
a veto of this bill would be a public relations nightmare for the
President.

Norwood decided to intervene. The night before the bill was to
be voted on, he essentially decided to put his party above his
patients. With his “compromise” amendment to the
Patients’ Bill of Rights, he could get the President’s
support and conversely the support of House Republicans. His
bill-changing amendment was agreed on by a vote of 218-213,
essentially divided by party, and the final Patients’ Bill of
Rights passed with the support of 220 Republicans and five
Democrats.

So what is the big deal ““ a compromise will at least get
something done, right? Wrong. The Democratic Whip, Rep. David
Bonior, D-Mich., called the amendment a “poison pill”
““ an addition to the bill that fundamentally destroys its
original intent.

The bill that passed the House creates problems that endanger
the sovereignty of existing programs. This bill undermines the
existing laws in California, as well as those in any other states,
to favor a national federal policy.

This “poison” now limits the rights of California
patients to collect money from insurance companies, and limits the
amount a patient can sue for in a malpractice dispute.

The idea of uniform national policy is not necessarily a
problem, but making federal changes that decrease patients’
rights is like taking steps backward. But the most disturbing
aspect of the game is all those who will be affected by it. That
means you and me, our families and friends ““ everybody.

The bill does, in fact, have positive results for one group: the
insurance companies. They are still given a level of
protection from private lawsuits, a right that very few
corporations are given.

The bill was supported by the members of Congress who for years
have preached of the dangers of patient protection laws. They would
like to have you believe that Republicans are supporters of the
Patients’ Bill of Rights.

Do not be fooled! The losers are the American people and the
winners are President Bush, Charlie Norwood, the Republican Party
and the health maintenance organizations.

Fortunately for all of us, the passage of the House bill is by
no means the end of the story. The Senate version heralds much
stronger protection for patients. When the Senate and the
House conference over the bill, deciding what will be sent to the
President, another battle will be at hand.

The real Patients’ Bill of Rights isn’t lost quite
yet. Hopefully, in the end, the well-being of the people will
be victorious over the insurance companies’ money.