Here's some interesting tidbits from Monday's action on the Senate floor prior to Bill Frist being handed two major defeats in cloture votes on two of his big medical-malpractice bills.

Here's Harry Reid (D-NV) on the fact that Frist brought these pieces of legislation directly to the floor via a technical loophole that allowed him to bypass the appropriate committees.

"The majority leader used a procedural technique called rule XIV that brings these bills straight to the Senate floor to avoid consideration of these bills by either the Judiciary Committee or the Health Committee. There has not been a single committee hearing, not a single witness, not a single opportunity to amend, not a single opportunity to compromise or negotiate. With this insurance industry legislation before this body, every step of the legislative process has been abandoned.

"Why has the majority proceeded in this manner? Because this is not a serious exercise in legislating. It is a political stunt being performed for the sole purpose of allowing Republicans to go back to their special interest friends led by the insurance industry and say: Look what we have tried to do to help, even though they should not be fooled by these transparent theatrics because that is all it is."

Reid then has an excellent observation about how the GOP bills -- which were largely written to benefit the insurance industry -- unfairly discriminate against women.

"These bills discriminate against women in more ways than that. By capping pain and suffering while simultaneously preserving full compensation for lost wages and salary, these bills devalue the worth of homemakers and stay-at-home parents. For instance, a homemaker whose reproductive system is destroyed by negligent treatment would suffer only noneconomic losses which are arbitrarily capped by this bill.

"At the same time, the bills limit punitive damages, a change which disproportionally affects women patients. Punitive damages are very rare in malpractice cases, but the cases where they do occur often involve sexual abuse of a female patient. Punitives would be virtually impossible to receive under this legislation"

Here's Christopher Dodd (D-CT) refuting the bogus notion that having caps on malpractice liability awards has anything to do with lowering malpractice premiums and, thus, the overall cost of health care.

"The fact is that those States which have adopted caps have seen greater increases in premiums than States without caps. Let me repeat that. In those States which adopted caps, they have seen a greater increase in premiums than States without caps. Seven of the 10 States with the highest premiums already have caps. In 2003, premiums actually increased by 17.1 percent for OB/GYNs in States with caps, compared to a 16.6-percent increase in States without caps on these awards. In 2004, the average premium for physicians in States with caps was $46,733. The average premium in States without caps was $42,563. So, if anything, the evidence suggests the caps on patient damages actually correspond to higher insurance premiums for doctors."

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) with more facts showing that, even taken at face value, these bills will not accomplish what Frist and the GOP claim.

"The average liability premium in 2005 for doctors practicing internal medicine was more--18.7 percent more--for doctors in States with caps on malpractice damages--$16,212--than in States without caps on damages--$13,658. Internists actually pay more for malpractice insurance in States that have caps.

"The average liability premium in 2005 for general surgeons was more--19.4 percent more--for doctors in States with caps--$57,662--than States without caps--$48,267. Surgeons are paying more for malpractice insurance in the States that have caps.

"The average liability premium for OB/GYN physicians in 2005 in States with caps--$80,341--was also more than for doctors in States without caps--$75,233. OB/GYNs in States with caps paid slightly more--7 percent more--than in States without caps.

"Clearly, a State's tort laws do not determine that State's medical malpractice insurance rates."

More Kennedy on the fundamental lack of fairness and common sense in these measures…

"They are the paralyzed, the brain-injured, and the blinded. They are the ones who have lost limbs, organs, reproductive capacity, and in some cases even years of life. These are life-altering conditions which deprive a person of the ability to engage in many of the normal activities of day to day living. It would be terribly wrong to take their rights away. The Bush administration talks about deterring frivolous cases, but caps by their nature apply only to the most serious cases which have been proven in court.

"A person with a severe injury is not made whole merely by receiving reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Noneconomic damages compensate victims for the very real loss in quality of life that results from a serious, permanent injury. It is absurd to suggest that $250,000 is fair compensation for a person paralyzed for life.

"Caps discriminate against younger victims. A young person with a severe injury such as paralysis must endure it for many more years than an older person with the same injury. Yet that young person is prohibited from receiving greater compensation for the many more years he will be disabled. Is that fair?

"Women who are homemakers and caregivers for their families sustain no lost wages when they are injured, so they only receive minimal economic damages. Should a woman working in the home receive less compensation for the same injury than a woman working outside the home? Is that just?"

Finally, from our they-have-no-shame file, here's Byron Dorgan (D-ND) discussing tactics used by Republicans to smear him in his last campaign -- check out the description of the television commercial they aired to scare voters about Dorgan's support of stem cell research.

"The last campaign I ran for office, the first two television commercials that were run by my opponent--the first was about gay marriage, that I voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. I can hardly think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Mason and Madison, as they looked at what they had created as a Constitution, would think: What have we missed here? We need to put something in about gay marriage. I don't think that belongs in the Constitution.

"The first commercial was of two men kissing, with the message you would expect from the extremists. The second commercial was about a campfire leader sitting around a campfire at night with little kids sitting around gathered in front of him. 'Tell us a scary story,' the little kid said. Then the campfire leader said, 'Well, there is a man named Byron' --referring to me, I guess-- 'and he has a plan to implant embryos into mommies' uteruses, wombs, and harvest them later for body parts.'

"That is an unbelievably ignorant television commercial, but that commercial was born of an attempt to distort my position on the issue of stem cell research"

You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com