Lary Coppola has made it perfectly clear that when it comes to Tort Reform, his objective requires no objectivity.
Debating an issue requires more than offering your own opinion — it is a two-way street requiring the exchange of ideas. Contrary to his previous statements, I, in fact, led the public debate on this issue last year by calling for an exceptional three-hour hearing on ESSB 5728. Mr. Coppola doesn’t seem to believe that actions occur if they run counter to his opinion. In case you missed it, it was the hearing doctors attended wearing their white coats and stethoscopes.

I welcomed their input in our discussion that day. As a legislator, I have learned that compromise is an art that requires much and careful attention.

Personal vendettas run counter-productive to this notion.

By focusing on results rather than rhetoric, House Democrats continue to offer up a plan that provides true reform measures to satisfy all parties involved. I do not consider a cap on non-economic damages real reform. Real reforms provide solutions — caps do nothing to address the real problems behind medical malpractice. They only punish patients for being a victim of negligence. Last year’s legislation ESHB 5728 was not a compromise. If Mr. Coppola agrees that the bill was not perfect, then working to pass another more complete solution is the only possible course of action. That is the course I chose as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Each legislator who sits as Chair of a committee is given the authority to decide which bills will and will not have a hearing. Hundred of bills each year do not get hearings. I must make informed decisions as to what bills I hear and whether they have the votes to pass out of my committee. That is my task. And that is what the people elected me to do - not just pass any legislation, but the best legislation possible. ESHB did not have the votes; in fact, it would have failed by a 6 to 3 vote.

The people who elected me are asking for real solutions. Sometimes, those solutions don’t come as easily as we would like, but they are always worth waiting for. Take for example, the state legislatures across the country that gave in to the political pressure from the powerful insurance lobbyists.

They bought into the same rhetoric that’s been printed here. Then they passed what those corporate lobbyists asked for. And in return? In Texas, four of the five biggest insurance companies are either increasing or maintaining their rates for medical-malpractice insurance after they enacted caps last September.

And California, where they’ve had a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages for nearly thirty years? Guess what — doctors there are still paying more for insurance than doctors in our state.

The fact is, in states with caps, the average medical malpractice premium is higher than in states without caps, according to the Medical Liability Monitor, an insurance industry publication. Both the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office found that in states with caps, premiums rose at least as fast as states without caps. California, with caps, is 25th in medical-malpractice premiums, and Washington, without caps, is 31st.

If truly discussing this issue was Mr. Coppola’s goal, his last column of 936 words would have devoted more than 24 of them to the massive package of reforms under scrutiny in the House. Nor would he have followed those 24 with comments from some mysterious unnamed opponents of the package. Let’s raise the level of debate in the public forum. Rather than focusing on a personal vendetta and agenda, Mr. Coppola could serve his readers more effectively by offering an objective and in-depth look into the complexities of the med-mal issue.

Then the debate could focus on how he could say he believes victims “deserve to be compensated fully,” as long as it doesn’t go over a certain amount. I guess we’ll work out the logic of that statement in the public debate.

Pat Lantz, State Representative
26th District