The truth is that Ganske fought hard to enact a Patients’ Bill

[ahbappy852]

LIES AND DISTORTIONS ABOUT GANSKE

A recent attack ad by the Iowa Democratic Party leaves the strong impression that Representative Greg Ganske (R) worked to weaken patients’ rights. The TV ad encourages viewers to visit www.ganskefacts.com. At the site, the account of Ganske’s actions on the Patients’ Bill of Rights falls under the heading “Protecting Patients.” Here are some key passages:

A Patients' Bill of Rights would give patients and doctors -- rather than insurance company buraucrats [sic] -- the right to determine medical treatments and hold insurance companies accountable when their actions harm their customers [i.e., give trial lawyers the ability to sue the pants off insurance companies.]. HMOs and insurance companies have been working to dilute the measure and pass a weaker version supported by Georgia Rep. Charlie Norwood.

On August 2, 2001, after speaking out against the weaker Patients’ Bill of Rights, Ganske voted for it anyway….

The final vote on the Norwood proposal came on August 2, 2001. Despite telegram data opposing the proposal earlier, Rep. Ganske voted for it. [[HR2653, 8/2/2001, House Vote #332]

Rights that gave patients an unlimited ability to sue. He had worked closely with Representative Charlie Norwood (R) to pass such a bill. But as the vote in the House of Representatives neared in late July of 2001, the Bush Administration exerted pressure on Norwood for a compromise. Eventually, Norwood compromised with Bush and offered an amendment to the Patient’s Bill of Rights that would limit the amount of medical damages—medical, not economic damages—a person could sue an insurance company for at $1.5 million. In other words, it put a cap on trial lawyers’ fees, something which displeased the Democrats considerably. Ultimately, the Norwood Amendment passed the House by a narrow margin.

However, Ganske actually voted against the Norwood Amendment. In fact, he was one of only six Republicans to do so. (If anything, Ganske should be criticized for not doing more to limit the fees of trial lawyers, not for weakening patient protections.