For at least several weeks Sen. Kerry has been publicly floating the theme that he and running mate John Edwards can achieve medical malpractice reform in the same way that Republican Richard Nixon could achieve rapprochement with China, presumably because their ticket would have the sort of credibility with the litigation lobby that the late GOP president had with dedicated anti-communists. The trope appeared in a Cape Canaveral, Fla. speech in late July (see National Public Radio audio coverage, Jul. 26) and more recently in response to a question in Grand Rapids, Mich. (Unofficial Kerry for President blog, Aug. 2; similarly (and by same writer), Doctors and Nurses for John Kerry site; Robert S. Greenburger, “Doctors Diagnose Kerry as High Risk”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 5 (sub); see also Joel B. Finkelstein, “Edwards’ trial lawyer past raises red flags for doctors”, American Medical News (AMA), Jul. 2).

We reported on the controversy last week (Aug. 5). Martin Grace has several follow-up comments (Aug. 6) on the breeziness of the Kerry proposals toward federalism, as well as on the apparently incurable Democratic tendency to blame the whole problem on insurance providers, even though “the largest med mal providers in a given state tend to be owned by the docs” who have no very obvious incentives to self-gouge (more, more). And George Wallace at Decs & Excs (Aug. 5) has more about Edwards’ enthusiasm for curtailing the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which leaves insurance regulation to the states. (Update: David Giacalone, Martin Grace and Wallace have much more on this, follow the links).

A reader on Capitol Hill writes to say that from the appearance of things, the Kerry proposals appear to differ little if at all from proposals repeatedly put forth by congressional Democrats as alternatives to GOP-sponsored medical malpractice reform. Those proposals (the correspondent adds) have been at best weak as a way of curtailing litigation, and in some instances would actually encourage it. For example, the Democratic alternative Rep. Conyers offered to H.R. 4280 can be examined in the Congressional Record dated May 12, 2004. It includes a (toothless) mandate for nonbinding mediation of state court malpractice cases, and takes care to specify that this mandate will pre-empt and invalidate all otherwise prescribed forms of alternative dispute resolution — including those currently required in some states which do much more to curb litigation — as well as all contractual barriers to suit. Having looked through this Conyers amendment, however, I should probably retract my hasty assumption (voiced last week) that the Democrats on the Hill had been big defenders of federalism on this issue — their bill seems just as willing as the Republicans’ to dictate to state courts, it just wants to dictate different things.

Filed under: federalism, John Edwards, politics