Quote

Medical liability reform is not a Republican or Democrat issue or even a doctor versus lawyer issue. It is a patient issue.

The high price of health care in this country is a serious issue that demands serious attention. Putting limits on damages have little or no effect on skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates.

It is critical that we pass legislation to dramatically reform our health insurance system, and this reform should include a genuine public option, universal coverage, an end to insurance policy rescissions, and no restrictions against covering people with pre-existing conditions.

The fact of the matter is right now politicians and insurance companies are making decisions. We're saying we want doctors to be making decisions. And I think that will lead to a higher-quality, lower-cost system over time.

The goal of real healthcare reform must be high-quality, universal coverage in a cost-effective way.

I basically believe the medical insurance industry should be nonprofit, not profit-making. There is no way a health reform plan will work when it is implemented by an industry that seeks to return money to shareholders instead of using that money to provide health care.

If medical doctors can be sued for malpractice, shouldn't financial professionals practice under the same safeguard?

Many of us are alarmed at the skyrocketing cost of medical care, including patients, who are the consumers. However, medical malpractice is not the reason for these increasing costs.

To make a coverage decision, doesn't one have to make a medical judgment?