"

President Barack Obama wants a bipartisan deal on health reform, but trial lawyers don’t want him to deal on a top Republican priority: tort reform. (Emphasis added)

Trial lawyers defeated President George W. Bush’s push for medical liability reform and successfully lobbied to water down tort reform provisions in healthcare reform bills this Congress. But the battle is far from over.

And in an odd twist, a longtime ally of the trial lawyers could be the one to resurrect the idea -- President Barack Obama.

“I would hope this would be an area we just don’t go,” said Linda Lipsen, vice president for public affairs at the American Association for Justice, the trade group for trial attorneys.

Lipsen said. “The last thing Congress should be doing is eliminating people’s rights when the real issue is safety in hospitals.”

Obama’s hints that he is willing to make a deal with Republicans on medical malpractice reform has got physicians and trial lawyers scratching their heads.

As recently as Tuesday, Obama floated the possibility of offering an olive branch to Republicans on malpractice reform as a gesture of bipartisanship. “I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that,” Obama remarked during a press briefing.

Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has recently indicated he is open to a healthcare compromise, stressing the need for malpractice reform to be included. (Emphasis added)

The White House announced on Friday that it will post a detailed health reform proposal online before the Feb. 25 bipartisan health summit, which Gregg was not invited to. It is unclear if that plan will be Obama’s own proposal or a merged version of the House and Senate-passed bills.  (Emphasis added)

[SNIP]

The House and Senate bills each contain provisions aiming to improve patient safety and offering grants to states that develop alternate ways to resolve disputes over medical errors. Proponents of broader malpractice reforms dismiss these proposals as inadequate while trial lawyers have rejected another possible compromise, the creation of special “health courts” that would hear cases and medical errors and malpractice. (Emphasis added)

Moving toward the middle on medical malpractice reform is no guarantee of winning GOP support, however. Any concession that Republicans would view as meaningful would prompt an outcry from Democratic lawmakers and the trial bar, a close ally of the party. (Emphasis added)

“I don’t see that as a credible place to go if the object is to pass the bill,” said Lipsen, noting that legislation to enact malpractice award caps could even not advance through the Republican-controlled Senate several times in the last decade.

Moreover, Republicans have stood so strongly opposed to the Democratic healthcare bills that even full capitulation on medical malpractice reform would not produce instant bipartisanship, Rickard noted. “There are so many issues that are in dispute in this bill,” she said, “that malpractice reform in and of itself isn’t going to overcome them.”

"

Full article.

===========================

Recall, he got the most contributions from lawyers.  I had summarized and posted it in HCF and later in HV.

Recall also that Sen.Judd Gregg is the person that Pres.Obama wanted to bring in as the lead finance person for his administration; he had initially said yes, and later withdrawn his assent.

Bipartisanship is not assured even if the bill moves to the center on the matter of tort reform. So, it is back to reconciliation.  So, why would the WH agree to shift? I don't see it happening.

-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 16th of February 2010 11:03:42 AM