5 comments

  1. commonsense says:

    Have you looked at what Cagle has called for in healthcare? Just like the GOP last session he is against mandates of coverage. What does that mean? No manditory breast care screening.

    The GOP must be so mad about the ads that they are going to push the same plan again.

  2. RuralDem says:

    Um, wow? I mean it shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone that Richardson won, ethics in question or not.

    I think the important think you missed (and quite frankly I’m surprised you didn’t jump on the opportunity to bring it up) is the fact that a few Democrats voted for Richardson over Porter.

  3. elephantgirl says:

    I have not seen what Cagle is calling for you but I can tell you that the legislation you are referring to from last year, which has really been around for quite some time, does not universally remove breast cancer screenings or any other screenings. The legislation they have been trying to pass for years is to help small businesses offer insurance that otherwise would not be able to offer their employees coverage because it is so damn expensive. For example–say you have a small business that only employees middle aged, non married men. Do those men need an insurance plan that covers prenatal care—NO. Do they need breast cancer screenings–NO. These plans are made to offer the things that specific individuals/businesses need so that they are able to offer some insurance. Some insurance is better than none.

    The spin the Democrats have put on this is ridiculous.

  4. commonsense says:

    Unless I am misreading the code the company in your example would not have to provide coverage.

    § 33-29-3.2
    (2) “Mammogram” means any low-dose radiologic screening procedure for the early detection of breast cancer provided to a woman
    See what these mandates do is provide a basic level of care and also ephasise prememptive care. …

    Any procedure that is gender specific is described that way in the code already.

    This type of legislation would allow current employers to offer less coverage. The people pushing this are the bussiness lobby and they’re not pushing it to offer more coverage. “Choice” is a nice way of saying less coverage. That is what nationally and locally the GOP is arguing, you need less coverage.

    And as far as it reducing cost…anyone notice what happened to insurance rates when malpractice caps were put in place? Other than the one company that promised to freeze rates everyone has rasised their rates.

  5. elephantgirl says:

    I cannot argue about what the current legislation says because I am not as informed on this issue as I use to be, but when this bill was first drafted many years ago, it was designed to help small businesses offer coverage when they otherwise could not offer it.

Comments are closed.