Waxman Refuses Vote to Revoke Immunity for Insurance Companies in Health Care Bill
August 2, 2009 at 7:21 pm
by: Allison Bricker
Members of Congress Free to Sue Insurance Companies if harmed, the Public Cannot.
WASHINGTON D.C. – Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), refused to allow a vote on an amendment to H.R. 3200 designed to strip Tort immunity granted to insurance companies in cases of injury or wrongful death. During the fifth and final day of debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Waxman in his role as Chairman, cited a “jurisdictional” point of order, despite several colleagues and parliamentarians advising to the contrary.
The amendment, authored by Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ/3), sought to remove what he referred to as a “stealth provision” in the bill. Specifically, Section 151 of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″ (H.R. 3200) extends immunity to all health insurance policies under the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974″ (ERISA) which result in injury or death due to a denial of coverage. The main point of contention arises due to the fact that plans under ERISA, prevent injured parties from recovering any type of damages via the courts. One notable exception to ERISA is members of Congress and their families, who are free to pursue damages unabated.
Currently, plans fall under the jurisdiction of ERISA if offered as a benefit of employment or are a negotiated provision under a union contract. However, insurance plans purchased by an individual for themselves or family from the private sector offer no such civil immunity to the insurance companies.
Representative Frank Pallone Junior (D-NJ/6) who in his career has received millions in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries originally raised the point of order. Thus consequently, the bill passed out of committee by a vote of 31 to 28 with the tort immunity in tact. The full house will have a chance to vote on the bill upon returning from their August recess.
If this provision of the bill remains unchanged, all Americans will be unable to seek any remedy for a denial of care, whether experienced due to the fiduciary constraints of all “fixed cost” systems or from health care bureaucrats determining a procedure is unnecessary.
That is, unless they become a member of Congress first.
Other Related Material
|
|
 |
|
| Committee Hearing over Amendment to HR 3200 (7/31/2009)
|
|
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I’m not quite sure how to feel about this, but I do know one thing; if we do not give immunity to insurance companies then everyone will sue them to hell. They will have to spend more money on lawyers and settlements than they will on insuring patients.
[Reply]
Allison Bricker Reply:
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
No individual or industry deserves to be immune from the law for acts of negligence.
[Reply]
September 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
My daughter was made paraplegic by our insurer as if her spinal cord was severed with a knife. They refused to allow her to return to the one physician out of many who had treated her successfully.
They were protected from litigation by ERISA. We had to go to a local doctor who refused to even speak with the first one.
[Reply]
September 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Russell — I understand your perspective but I do not think everyone will sue them to hell. If they know they might be sued then they’ll be more likely to behave themselves. And the immunity they have now is not just from liability for simple errors or negligence; they are also immune from liability for bad faith and even outright fraud. No industry should need immunity from fraud liability to be able to conduct its business. If you are interested please see my ERISA-reofrm blog; <a href=http://problemiserisa.blogspot.com/2009/09/rising-judicial-chorus-judge-young.html
“>this entry</a> in particular might give some insight into the nature of the problem:
[Reply]