Senate candidates clash on health care, child safety

Monday, Oct. 16, 2000 | 11:06 a.m.

The only remaining televised joint appearance scheduled for Senate candidates John Ensign and Ed Bernstein is scheduled at 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 5 on KLAS Channel 8.

Clashes over suing employers for denial of health care, mandating child safety locks on firearms and taking special interest campaign money highlighted the second televised debate between U.S. Senate foes Ed Bernstein and John Ensign.

The hourlong debate at UNLV Sunday evening on KLVX Channel 10, also aired in Northern Nevada, had Democrat Bernstein and Republican Ensign solidifying many differences they had previously addressed, such as on education and Social Security.

Bernstein, a personal injury attorney, argued that in addition to suing health maintenance organizations for denial of health care, consumers ought to be able to sue self-insured employers if they deny treatment. He said that if employers were not held accountable, about half of all Nevadans would not be covered under a patients' bill of rights.

"I am standing up with doctors, with the American Medical Association, with attorneys, with patients, with all of the people who believe in the right to sue," Bernstein said. "The only people who don't, really, are the HMOs.

"Now John is going to tell you he doesn't believe in suing employers. But when that employer acts as a person, that gatekeeper who is going to stop my family from getting care, you better be sure that that person needs to be held accountable."

Ensign, a veterinarian, said the right to sue is about the only major difference between competing patients' bill of rights legislation pushed by Republicans and Democrats. But the former congressman said he did not believe consumers should have the right to sue employers over denial of health care.

"The biggest problem we have in this country is the number of uninsured," Ensign said. "Nevada leads the nation in the number of uninsured. If you allow employers to be able to be sued, a lot of employers are going to start dropping their health insurance or giving vouchers to their employees and say, 'You go buy your own plan.'

"We're going to dramatically increase the number of uninsured in this country. And then it's going to drive up the cost of insurance for all the rest of us. We need a right to sue the HMO. We need a right to sue the third-party administrator that the employer hires, but not the employer."

Both candidates, who will meet in the Nov. 7 general election, believe in the constitutional right to bear arms but differ on child safety locks for firearms.

Ensign, who has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, said he supports safety locks but does not believe they should be mandated. He said he recognizes the danger of guns in the hands of children, because when his uncle was 12 years old, he was killed by his best friend with a shotgun.

"I do oppose mandating them because criminals are not going to put them on, but I think that we should make them available," Ensign said of safety locks. "I don't believe children and guns mix, and we need to keep them away.

"Every single responsible parent should have a safety lock on their guns. But as far as mandating them out there, it is very difficult to do that. And I don't like to enact laws that, frankly, don't work."

But Bernstein, a gun owner, argued for mandatory child safety locks on firearms. He said that would save hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries annually.

"We mandate (medicine) bottles have these child-proof locks," Bernstein said. "Accidents happen. Children are killing each other. Our schools are ridden with gun violence, John.

"You don't have the guts to take a stand for our kids because you're kowtowing to some other special interest, and that's just wrong."

Bernstein also took Ensign to task for favoring repeal of the ban on assault weapons, which was instituted as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. But Ensign said the law drove up the price and demand for assault weapons and was ineffective.

They also criticized each other's sources of special interest campaign money. Ensign, who repeatedly has tried to increase Bernstein's negative ratings by attacking his opponent's profession, once again blasted the Democrat for taking money from trial attorneys.

Bernstein made no apology for taking money from people "who want to hold HMOs accountable.

"You've been standing up with the HMOs," Bernstein said. "I haven't taken a penny from the HMOs. You were the largest recipient of HMO money in Congress when you were there."

Bernstein also blasted Ensign for also taking money from "polluters" and the pharmaceutical industry. Ensign countered that 12,000 to 13,000 people have given him contributions of $5 to $2,000, not counting political action committees. He boasted that he has had far more Nevadans contributing to him than Bernstein.

"When it comes to voting, I vote my conscience, period," Ensign said. "The pharmaceutical companies had one issue while I was in Congress. Their number one issue was a tax break that they got for having their companies down in Puerto Rico. I voted against the drug companies, and it eliminated a $10 billion tax break for the pharmaceutical companies."

Bernstein could not let that comment go. He said that the vote actually favored the pharmaceutical companies, because the tax break was to be phased out over a number of years, rather than immediately, as the companies opposed.