States React to the "Nebraska Compromise"

A number of states are pushing back against the deal that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson secured for his state that would permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs with the tab being picked up the Federal government. Connecticut's Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, has asked her state's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, to file a lawsuit against the Federal government should Nebraska receive additional monies to finance the expansion of Medicare in the final version of the healthcare bill. From the New Haven Register:

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell has asked the state attorney general to sue the federal government if Nebraska receives extra Medicaid money in the final version of federal health care reform legislation.

In order to secure the support of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson for the bill, Senate Democrats included a controversial provision that allows the federal government to pick up 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion in his state.

Rell, a Republican, says the inequity of that provision is "astonishing," and that Connecticut is traditionally reimbursed at a 50 percent rate for Medicaid expenses.

Medicaid is a government health care program, administered by states, for low-income people.

Rell says if Connecticut got the same deal as Nebraska, it could reap up to $262 million annually.

Beyond Connecticut, seven other states are also pushing back on the "Nebraska Compromise" which is frankly more like a "Nebraska Purchase." The Miami Herald reports that top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of the political deal.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn't sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Tennessee's Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey called for his state's attorney general to investigate the deal.

Ramsey, McMaster and Michigan's Mike Cox are running for governor in their states.

"Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption," McMaster said. The negotiations "on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers," he said.

McMaster is encouraging a South Carolina citizen to step forward to sue to challenge the measure if it is signed into law. "We'll assist anyone to the extent that we're able," McMaster said.

Frankly, I am not surprised by this and I wouldn't be surprised if more states take similar action. The solution is really to federalize Medicare. Since 1988, the Federal government has increasingly passed on to the states the responsibility to cover the cost-sharing burdens of many low-income Medicare beneficiaries. It's time to unburden the states especially given the incredible budgetary constraints faced by numerous states at this time.

Tags: Connecticut, Governor Jodi Rell, Medicare, Nebraska, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, The Nebraska Compromise (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Re: States React to the "Nebraska Co

And if that part is stripped by the courts afterward, then Nelson gets screwed as well.    

I like the federalize Medicaid solution, but I'm not sure that's going to happen, given the cost to do so would be pretty big.

by FUJA 2009-12-24 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: States React to the "Nebraska Co

I like letting a bill get through conference, pass both houses, get signed...and then let the courts screw Nelson. That guy ranks up there as biggest jerk-off in the Senate as far as I am concerned.

by JDF 2009-12-24 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

I'm seriously trying to follow the logic, here, so bear with me. Others who oppose the Bill just passed are strenuously arguing that there are no enforcement provisions in it. That the courts suck at doing what (I always thought) was their job, and worked, for instance, to enforce Integration of Public Schools after Brown v BOE. But if the courts are lame, how does this threat to use them to correct the 'sweetheart deals' all of a sudden grow big hairy teeth?

School me.

by QTG 2009-12-24 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

Well theres....  Ok but they....   And then there is.....

I got nothing.

by FUJA 2009-12-24 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

A good question. I don't know. I doubt that much will come of this.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-24 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

I guess there are 3 possible outcomes..

1) There is some kind of compromise that provides Medicaid for all in the Conf Bill.   Best case scenario.

2)  Nebraska loses this perk via the courts after passage...  

3)  Nothing happens.

by FUJA 2009-12-24 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

there's a big difference between states challenging the Constitutionality of a one-time Federal Bill, and millions of people, many poor and sick, trying to enforce their rights in courts against rich Insurance Companies and their armies of lawyers.

I'm really not sure why you don't see the difference.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

OK. I ain't a lawyer, so cut me some slack as I ask this...

 Assume any or all private provider(s) fail(s) to comply with particular provision(s) in the Bill, say 'no recision' or 'no denial for pre-existing..' or 'no caps', and they continue(s) to thumb its/their nose(s) at the victim(s) who report(s) said violation(s), and further, treat(s) the toothless bureaucrat's summer intern(s) who call(s) up to ask 'what's up with dat?" with similar dismissive disdain.

Your argument is that the victim(s) have no individual (or class) action available to them to remedy the situation?

Pardon me, but that seems incredible - in the literal sense of the word.

by QTG 2009-12-24 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

they have individual causes of action.

What happens is that the Insurance Companies have a right to contest each one in court. In CA, that's been hundreds of thousands over the last few years.

The Insurance companies typically claim fraud on the part of the sick person. They then wear the sick people down over the course of the case, and meanwhile, the person doesn't just stop being sick while the case is pending.

There are a few reasons why enforcing it through the courts is not a real solution. First, most people don't have the resources to find an attorney and sue. This is especially true for the sick and the poor. telling most people to sue is like telling them to "just eat cake", as the famous statement goes. In reality, most people don't end up suing.  

Second, it's incredibly cruel to have people deal with this over the course of years while they are sick and dying. Remember, Insurance companies rescind the policies of the very sick. That's who they target with this.

Finally, where there are fines for insurance companies doing this, the insurance companies avoid the fines when they are finally about to lose a case by settling with the sick person (if they are still alive and fighting it by that point) and getting them to stipulate to fraud. This allows the company to avoid any fines for this behavior, and it is what has been happening in states like CA.

Because of these reasons, it still ends up being in the Insurance Company's financial interest to rescind policies of the very sick.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

This is true until somebody does to the Insurance Companies what was done to the Tobacco Companies. A Class Action Suit, not long after this bill is implemented would be a massively effective way to scare them into compliance. Not to mention the possibility of the Government itself bringing suit against the industry.

I personally feel that if you believe that a law being passed doesn't matter because it won't be enforced then you need to remove yourself from the system; because if that is what you believe then you don't simply lack faith in the bill, or the various branches of government. You believe the entire system is broken beyond repair- and if that is what you believe then why bother stressing about it?

by JDF 2009-12-24 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

the problem is that the law is that the Insurance Companies can rescind policies due to fraud. This Bill doesn't change that. The Insurance Companies have a right to contest each and every one.

Here's some info about what's been going on in the nation's largest states:

http://cbs5.com/business/anthem.blue.cro ss.2.763636.html

The department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press on Thursday that, when it comes to rescissions, the agency has had success in forcing smaller insurers to reinstate illegally canceled policies and pay fines, but Blue Cross is too powerful to take on.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, (Blue Cross has) the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," Ehnes said of the approximately 1,770 Blue Cross rescissions between Jan. 1, 2004, and now.

"They have the largest number of rescissions, so as a practical matter for the department it does present some practical challenges that are different from a Health Net (of California) or a PacifiCare," referring to providers who, along with Kaiser Permanente, have made settlements with the state to reinstate health care coverage.

That means that although Anthem Blue Cross has the highest number of alleged illegal rescissions, it may face the least regulatory consequence simply because of its sheer size, and aggressive legal defense....

The agency had warning of what it was up against when it issued a $200,000 fine against Anthem Blue Cross for a single rescission in 2006. Dobberteen said the insurer engaged in an exhausting back-and-forth that made it clear that addressing the larger number of rescissions would mean "a very large fight."

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

You seem to be getting an awful lot of mileage out of that one news story.  In fact it seems to have made you positively omniscient concerning the evildoings of the insurance industry.

Let's focus on the remedy a little more.  Should insurance companies NOT be able to rescind policies in the event of fraud?  How would your dream statute be written?

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

Steve, do you think the story is incorrect? What is your evidence for that?

And yes, the insurance companies probably should be able to rescind policies due to fraud. It's one of the reasons why this is inherently difficult to regulate away.

You know what would work better? Lets see, what if there was some sort of government program, lets call it a "public option" that people could go to instead of private insurance if the private insurance keeps victimizing people. I know, it's a crazy idea that I just came up with all by myself.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

I think it's one fucking story and yet you've been going around all week using that one story to educate everyone on the abuses of the insurance industry as if you're imparting wisdom from on high.

There are state insurance regulators kicking the crap out of insurance companies every day of the week.  There are also insurance companies getting away with murder every day of the week.  These two things are not mutually exclusive.  But the truth is more complicated than what you'll read at the Huffington Post.

If your position were something more rational than "this bill is utter garbage because it lacks a magical enforcement pony" we could probably have a better discussion.  Since it isn't, I'll ask again, what exactly does your pony look like?  Is it really just a matter of spending more money on enforcement and suddenly every adverse coverage decision gets reversed by a benevolent regulator within the space of 24 hours?

There sure was lots and lots and lots of discrimination and segregation even after the Civil Rights Act was passed.  Guess we should have thrown out that garbage bill with its ineffective enforcement provisions, right?  Or maybe, just maybe, it represented a solid step forward even if it wasn't going to make all of the problems magically disappear the next day.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

First of all, I would appreciate it if you didn't swear at me on here. I have not done anything like that in my discussions with you.

Second of all, if you think the story is incorrect, then by all means, please give me the evidence. I welcome any you can give me about it.

Third of all, I have at least given some evidence. Most posts on here don't do that. But for some reason, this is really getting to you. I suspect that you simply don't want to believe that this flaw is in the bill, so you are lashing out at me.

And again, I'm pretty sick of people using the Civil Rights Act as an analogy. This bill further entrenches the for-profit insurance industry as the core of our system. The Civil Right's Act didn't strive to keep segregation having a central role in society.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

Over and over, I explain to you that the plural of anecdote is not data, and you come back with, "But my anecdote is true!!!!!!" That is why I feel like swearing.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

The article has data.

It has the number of recissions since the ban started in CA, for instance. It has the amount of fines the state has tried to levy against the big insurers. It has the outcomes of them trying to do that. It has the top officials of the state saying why they have been largely unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, you have not given even one iota of counter evidence.

It's like you are trying to will it to not be the case. You are believing zero evidence instead of the evidence you don't want to believe. And you are swearing at me for daring to question whether the Bill properly protects people from companies we know screw people over in search of greater profits.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

The article sets forth a single example of a single state which lacks the resources to go after a single insurance company.  You've been using that single anecdote all week to lecture everyone about how insurance companies (plural) get away with so much stuff and how states (plural) can't afford to enforce the laws and so on.

I'll give you yet another chance to explain what your magical enforcement scheme looks like and why it will work so much better that it's worth passing no reform bill at all until we can get that superior enforcement scheme.  So far all I've heard is that if we spent more money, we could go after more bad guys, which is not really that insightful.  So tell me, what does "real enforcement" look like?

by Steve M 2009-12-24 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

And on that note, I don't understand why a lot of you are fighting the notion that this bill doesn't adequately enforce some of the better provisions in it.

Nobody has been able to give me any evidence that this bill enforces these provisions. I've given evidence that it does not.

Yet people keep fighting the notion that this bill absolutely needs to be improved big-time in this area.  It like you guys think that if you just wish is so, it is so.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

You say: "Remember, Insurance companies rescind the policies of the very sick."

That's true today because it's legal.

Even the Senate made that illegal.

by QTG 2009-12-24 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

no, it is currently illegal in many states, including the nation's largest state, but they haven't been able to enforce it on the bigger insurance companies.

http://cbs5.com/business/anthem.blue.cro ss.2.763636.html

"The department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press on Thursday that, when it comes to rescissions, the agency has had success in forcing smaller insurers to reinstate illegally canceled policies and pay fines, but Blue Cross is too powerful to take on.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, (Blue Cross has) the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," Ehnes said of the approximately 1,770 Blue Cross rescissions between Jan. 1, 2004, and now.

"They have the largest number of rescissions, so as a practical matter for the department it does present some practical challenges that are different from a Health Net (of California) or a PacifiCare," referring to providers who, along with Kaiser Permanente, have made settlements with the state to reinstate health care coverage.

That means that although Anthem Blue Cross has the highest number of alleged illegal rescissions, it may face the least regulatory consequence simply because of its sheer size, and aggressive legal defense...

The agency had warning of what it was up against when it issued a $200,000 fine against Anthem Blue Cross for a single rescission in 2006. Dobberteen said the insurer engaged in an exhausting back-and-forth that made it clear that addressing the larger number of rescissions would mean "a very large fight."

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

And there are a limited number of schools, and even fewer that had to be forced to integrate, and if it took a few years of court time, people were not going bankrupt and dying.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

Um... actually quite a few people died.  Not more than would in the HCR case, but a lot of people gave their lives for that and other civil rights causes.

by FUJA 2009-12-24 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

Since deaths continued even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bottom line following that same line of reasoning would be that the Act was a failure and should have been killed until it could be passed in perfect form.

I'm beginning to get it.

by QTG 2009-12-24 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Lawsuits

if the Civil Rights Act further entrenched segregation into our system, then yes, it would have been bad.

That's what's happening here. The problem is the for-profit industry leaching money from the sick.

This bill encourages the permanent entrenchment of the corrupt private health insurance corporation as the nexus of the American health care system.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 07:38AM | 0 recs
Yes, federalize Medicaid

And pay for it by removing the cap on the Social Security tax, adding a surtax on the wealthy (above $250,000 income), and adding a 0.5% tax on securities and other financial transactions. There is no reason that middle-class people should have a larger overall tax rate than the rich and the superrich. And I'd love to see an annual wealth tax on total wealth of $5 million or more. The ill-gotten gains accumulated from the slave trade, robber baron manipulation, dot com and housing speculation bubbles, and financial manipulation should be whittled away, not allowed to continue to distort our economy.

by RandomNonviolence 2009-12-24 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Very reasonable

and realistic. Mojo'd

by QTG 2009-12-24 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

Agreed.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

Not everyone who has more than $5 Million has "ill-gotten gain."

Personally, I am tired of the hatred of the wealthy, simply for being wealthy.

It reminds me of the West Wing Episode where Sam says "I pay my fair share, and I pay 27 other peoples fair share as well. I am happy to do it because that is the only way the system can work, but don't call me names while I am doing it."

by JDF 2009-12-24 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

Then get the wealthy to stop bitching about it.  They want to be seen as benevolent by paying their fair share, then PAY the FAIR share and smile while they do it.  What the rich are right now is pissed that they do not get the "sweetheart" deals the poor do, missing the whole point that to get the deal you have to be POOR.  I deal with this stuff on a day-to-day basis from both sides.  The wealthy are by far more of the problem than the poor in that they have the ability to effect the problem 1000+ times more than anyone who is in poverty yet they only want to do a "equal" share.  I say that they should then be "equally" poor.

There are exceptions to the rule, but by and far the wealthy are absolutely blind to what they have and how far up they are from the bottom.

You know what, I think I will write my first Diary on this...

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

Right because further spreading hatred simply because people have more than you is going to get us somewhere...

by JDF 2009-12-24 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

I would disagree that my comments "further spread hatred".  I am not about hating the wealthy, I am about rebuffing the constant whining I hear about how the wealthy are so put upon.  I advocate that if you have more, and can do more, then MORE is expected of you.  If you cannot handle it, let someone else give it a try, don't just piss/moan and keep it to yourself.

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

Really? Because I have a lot of friends who are rather well off. They donate time and money to causes they believe in and fight hard for the progressive movement in this country. I have never once heard them whine about feeling put upon.

So I don't know where the constant whining you hear is coming from, other than Tea Baggers and other idiots (most of whom probably aren't even that wealthy.)

I also think that your generalization that anyone who has significant financial resources is out of touch with reality is patently absurd. There are plenty out there who are that way yes, but there are also plenty who are not.

by JDF 2009-12-24 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, federalize Medicaid

I have plenty of well off friends as well.  They do a lot of volunteering and philanthropy.  And whining.  Maybe that is the wrong word...bitching might be more appropriate.  

They generally resent the fact that they are expected to give more than people who make, say, $50,000/yr.  They resent that they have to pay into Social Security when they can (and do) do better themselves.  They feel bad about the poor, but often catch themselves speaking of the "lazy poor" and "Welfare queens"; they jusy cannot seem to sypathize.  They tend to admonish people who have "made bad decisions" in their life, not realizing that they could have just as easily been in that position and that maybe those people HAVE made the best decisions available to them.

They just do not seem to understand the advantage of access that wealth has imparted on them and they think that ANYONE could do what they have done if they just tried.  I disagree.

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: States React

This seems to be 95% political posturing by Republicans (I can't see a valid legal argument in there anywhere, but hey, you never know) but it actually can't lead anyplace bad.  If we somehow end up losing Nelson's sweetheart deal, who cares, it will be way too late for him to pull his support.  And if we end up having to federalize Medicaid for more states, that sounds like an improvement over the status quo.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 07:03AM | 0 recs
Thank You Ben Nelson!!

By all means Federalize Medicaid for all states.

Ideologically, I'm happy to do anything to expand the social net. The slippery slope to Single Payer gets steeper and slipperier with each expansion to new segments of the population, and the more we get federal involvement. There are a number of great reasons to push on this.

(1) The Federal Tax code is more progressive than most states. Federalizing Medicaid shifts more of the tax burden to the wealthy taxpayers.

(2) Having the Feds regulate medicaid insurance helps define a guaranteed minimum to health care benefits, which will secure the floor of for all other plans. Presently, Medicaid benefits can be variable depending on each state's budget or opposition to providing welfare to its citizens.

(3) Yeah, there is the little thing of Taxes vs Debt, but the economy could certainly use additional stimulus money. Providing medical care to people has a very high stimulative effect. The recession is killing state budgets everywhere as they are prohibited from running debt. Federalizing Medicaid would provide a huge kick in the stimulus package.

(4) Medicaid doesn't have the famous 20-30% cost hit from private insurance. To the extent that more people are served by an insurance program with 5-10% overhead, national health expenditures will go down.

(5) Cost Control. Medicaid health delivery is frequently offered through FQHCs (Federally Qualified Health Centers) which are much more efficient at delivering cost effective health care than big, for-profit hospitals.

The cost savings of FQHCs doesn't get the attention it deserves. Why are they so efficient? First, primary care delivery, is inexpensive and has a huge impact on health costs down the road. Most important: FQHCs are required to provide cost transparency, while for-profit hospitals hide costs and do a lot of cost shifting, i.e. those $10 aspirins and $100 crutches.

by MetaData 2009-12-24 07:29AM | 0 recs
Oh, and Thank You Bernie Sanders

The Sanders amendment provides funding for clinics and FQHCs.

Again, the more we shore up the bottom of the safety net, the more people get health care and the whole system becomes more secure.

This HCR bill is a mix of Insurance Reform and Health Care reform. Expansion of Medicaid and funding for FQHCs addresses more directly the Health Care side.

by MetaData 2009-12-24 07:52AM | 0 recs
"Nebraska Compromise"

Maybe Governor Rell should have asked the senator she help elect to sneak in a similar proposition for Connecticut instead of running his mouth on TV, especially when he was able to hold the bill hostage for a week by himself...

It's funny that the Attorney General is Lieberman foe Dick Blumenthal; he could use a few more days of great press before Dodd retires and he's elected in 2010...

by ctman1638 2009-12-24 07:41AM | 0 recs
listen

I know that you all don't want to believe that this bill is lacking in enforcement for things like the ban on recissions.  

But the problem is that it doesn't set up enforcement mechanisms.

This is a problem that absolutely HAS to be addressed, and hiding our heads in the sand and pretending this Bill is acceptable is not going to get it done.  

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: listen

Then how about this...instead of it needing to be enforced at the state level, now the FEDS can step in.  So that the pressure of a rival Health Insurance business in another part of the country wanting to come into California and compete, and sway the heavily impressionable judiciary (in your opinion), might just be enough impetus to get ALL companies to start straightening up and flying right.

And by the way, while some may accuse you of sounding GOP-ish, you definately sound more libertarian...the Federal Govt. is incompetant, cannot do anything to protect us from corporations that want to fleece us, and we are all doomed if we accept this bill.

For counterpoint I offer mandated car insurance, which has not panned out to be the huge give away to insurance providers that was so bemoaned about.  Apples vs. Oranges, sure, but both are insurance mandates.  And we seem to have survived one...

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: listen

1) The Senate Bill leaves it to the states, and the Senate Leadership has even told reporters that it is to be enforced by the states.

2) The Senate Bill does not give the power to any part of the Executive Branch to enforce it (like the Bill does with giving the power to the IRS to enforce the Mandate)

3) so we are down to the Federal Courts, and I've already explained why that it a horrible, horrible way to enforce it for the average person.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: listen

1.The Seante leadership runs the Senate, not the country.  What they say most often does not carry any weight BEYOND the Senate.

2.  That part of the Senate bill can be changed in committee without loosing votes, SFAIK.

3.  Maybe we need to go the horrible way first to prove it is horrible.  Not my first choice, but then again, I do not represent this country very well.  In the meantime, with this bill, we can start giving people insurance and let them start getting used to it.

Maybe we need to do this is much smaller steps so that ALL of the country can accept it at once.  Bludgeoning people with "socalism that is for your own good" is a great way to make people hate getting help.  Give them this minimal approach we seem to have crafted, (but make it as strong as we can in conference), let them make their OWN choices, let them get used to it, and then work on making it better.  Too much of a good thing can be just as bad as too much of a bad thing.

Sorry this country is not taking bigger steps forward, I hate it too.  But this is what we have.  I have seen far too many people who are self-destructive just because they hate to take help from others that has been pushed on them.

I guess the question is, can you help people on THIER terms?  If not, then maybe this is not your fight.

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: listen

1) it was in response to reporters asking about how the Senate Bill enforces the provisions.

2) It really should be changed. Agreed. Lets all push for it instead of hiding our heads int he sand and assuming there's no problem.  

3) What part of "everybody has to get a lawyer and put up with crap from the insurance lawyers and spend time and money while being sick and not being covered" do you not understand?

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: listen

3. I do not understand the part that says "everybody has to get a lawyer and put up with crap from the insurance lawyers and spend time and money while being sick and not being covered".  Unless you have access to some alternate universe where this has already happened and can prove it, it is just a fear that you have, not a proven fact that it WILL happen.  Not that many providers will not do some tremendously stupid stuff, but it has not come to pass yet.  Innocent till proven guilty and all that.

by Hammer1001 2009-12-24 11:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads