Advertisement

Archive for Monday, March 1, 2010

Kansas House committee to vote next week on ‘Health Care Freedom Amendment’

March 1, 2010, 8:17 a.m. Updated March 1, 2010, 10:35 a.m.

Advertisement

— A Kansas House committee may vote this week on a proposed "Health Care Freedom Amendment" to the state constitution.

The Health and Human Services Committee has a discussion of the measure on its agenda for Tuesday.

The amendment would add a provision to the constitution prohibiting the state from requiring any individual or business to buy health insurance. It also would prevent the state from requiring anyone to participate in a particular health care plan.

Its lead sponsor in the House is health committee Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican.

She and other supporters say the constitutional change would preserve Kansans' right to make health care decisions. Critics say it's designed to block federal health reforms in Kansas.

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

I can't believe we're at a point where our government may force us to buy a product or service.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

[QUOTE] SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says... I can't believe we're at a point where our government may force us to buy a product or service. [END QUOTE]

You'd be pretty pissed off if someone slammed in to your car and they had no auto insurance wouldn't you? The govenment requires all drivers to carry auto insurance so what's the difference? It's not a new concept.

chocolateplease 4 years, 11 months ago

Uninsured individuals will use public health services (taxpayer funded) and go to the emergency room (on taxpayer money) when preventative healthcare would have made it unnecessary. So if you don't require people (who can afford it) to buy health insurance, or otherwise provide them with healthcare, you, the taxpayer, are paying for more inefficient and expensive healthcare.

This is a junk piece of legislation which I sincerely hope goes into the trash bin where it belongs.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

[QUOTE] TaintYourWagon (anonymous) says... Supremacy Clause, anyone? [END QUOTE]

Santa's evil cousin?

SnakeFist 4 years, 11 months ago

Bartstop said: "The govenment requires all drivers to carry auto insurance so what's the difference?" The difference is that I can choose not to drive a car, and thereby avoid having to purchase car insurance; however, as I understand it, there would be no way to avoid purchasing health insurance.

The only reason to accept the social contract is because doing so provides greater advantages than not doing so. As such, society must ensure that everyone has access to the most essential services, which includes healthcare. But forcing everyone to buy it is not the way to accomplish that goal. First, it gives too much power to private businesses - why would health insurance providers ever lower their costs if the law requires us to purchase their product regardless of the cost? Second, the Supreme Court will never approve it (regardless of its constitutionality). But most importantly, its a complete sham - will we next ensure that everyone gets a college education by forcing each person to pay tuition, or ensure that everyone has housing by forcing each person to buy a house?

UlyssesPro 4 years, 11 months ago

@bartstop

bart, driving is a privilege; living is a right. Only someone from the burbs who takes driving for granted could possibly think forcing drivers to buy auto insurance is the same as forcing everyone to buy health insurance. I think you're right to be up auto insurance though: imagine if the Fed. Gov. decided to make everyone buy auto insurance regardless of whether they drive. That would make a lot of sense would it not?

This amendment is more show than tell though. Even if it passes, it won't really prevent the Fed from saying . . . take our health care policy or lose school/highway/job grant money.

TaintYourWagon 4 years, 11 months ago

The mandate is necessary because, for whatever reason, Americans freak out when someone proposes a single payer system. So, if we are going to stick with private health insurance, we cannot eliminate restrictions for preexisting conditions without the mandate. Without everyone in the pool, insurance companies simply couldn't stay afloat while covering only the sickest. You may not like the mandate, but blame on it American's knee-jerk distaste for anything that might be labeled "socialist".

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

bartstop (anonymous) says...

"You'd be pretty pissed off if someone slammed in to your car and they had no auto insurance wouldn't you? The govenment requires all drivers to carry auto insurance so what's the difference? It's not a new concept."

Nobody is required to carry car insurance to protect against a loss to themselves, you only have to carry liability insurance to protect against damages you cause someone else. Why can't some of you people understand the difference?


chocolateplease (anonymous) says...

"Uninsured individuals will use public health services (taxpayer funded) and go to the emergency room (on taxpayer money) when preventative healthcare would have made it unnecessary. So if you don't require people (who can afford it) to buy health insurance, or otherwise provide them with healthcare, you, the taxpayer, are paying for more inefficient and expensive healthcare."

Has it ever occurred to you that some people actually do take personal responsibility and pay their own bills? That argument - that uninsured people will leave the taxpayers holding the bag - is based on a fundamental belief that people don't take personal responsibility, and it doesn't speak highly of those who use that argument.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

[QUOTE] The difference is that I can choose not to drive a car, and thereby avoid having to purchase car insurance; however, as I understand it, there would be no way to avoid purchasing health insurance. [END QUOTE]

That's true, but you can't choose to never see a doctor. (oops double negative) Eventually something will happen. You are forced to pay property taxes right? Even if you rent you are paying property taxes via the landlord. Being forced to pay something isn't anything new. I don't like it anymore than the next guy but we have a serious problem that needs fixed. I personally think we should have medicare for all.

Jimo 4 years, 11 months ago

"I can't believe we're at a point where our government may force us to buy a product or service."

"you only have to carry liability insurance to protect against damages you cause someone else."

I'm tired of being your 'lender of last resort.' When you fail to insure yourself, you put me and everyone else at financial risk for your negligence. There is no such things as "personal responsibility" for bills that can easily pass into the millions of dollars (unless you fall into the upper 3% of Americans who can afford to pay out a couple million and still have money left over to live on). In reality, you'll try to game the system, buying insurance only when you think (or know) you're sick.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

[QUOTE] notajayhawk (anonymous) says... Has it ever occurred to you that some people actually do take personal responsibility and pay their own bills? That argument - that uninsured people will leave the taxpayers holding the bag - is based on a fundamental belief that people don't take personal responsibility, and it doesn't speak highly of those who use that argument. [END QUOTE]

That's right, SOME PEOPLE take responsibility. Most do not. I've been a landlord for a couple of years now. EVERY applicant I have done a background check on has medical collections. EVERY SINGLE ONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PERIOD. Just because you are resposible doesn't mean anything. The vast majority of uninsured won't be able to pay the bill when they go to the ER. The insured pay it, and it's not right.

If we had very basic, basic coverage that was provided through the government, via some kind of tax (medicare?) and the ability to buy private suplemental coverage would help tremendously.

SnakeFist 4 years, 11 months ago

"...you can't choose to never see a doctor." - Of course you can.

"You are forced to pay property taxes right?" - This is a somewhat better example because, admittedly, landlords include their property taxes in what they charge for rent. But, by that logic, you could say, for example, that we all pay college tuition because we all pay for services provided by college graduates, and the amount we pay includes their salaries which they set based on their bills which include their student loan payments. Its much more indirect than requiring individuals to actively and directly purchase a particular product.

I'm all for universal healthcare, I just don't think requiring everyone to purchase health insurance is the way to accomplish it. If we're going to require people to pay for essential services, then let's start with police protection insurance, and fire department insurance, and national defense insurance.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

bartstop (anonymous) says...

"That's true, but you can't choose to never see a doctor."

You can, however, choose how you pay for it.

"That's right, some people take responsibility. Most do not. I've been a landlord for a couple of years now. EVERY applicant I have done a background check on has medical collections. every single one, without exception, period."

Hmmm. Says something about your customer base.

BTW, bartstop - how long have you been cheating on your taxes? After all, we all know some people do it, so that must mean everyone does ...

TaintYourWagon 4 years, 11 months ago

People already pay for police, firemen, and national defense through their taxes. Ideally we could provide everyone with health care through a single-payer, tax-funded system, but we can't have that because of the subsequent bleating howls of "OMG socialism!!" that would erupt. So, again, if we are to limit ourselves to private insurance, I'm curious how one would go about achieving universal coverage without a mandate?

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

Taint,

It isn't the federal government's responsibility or right to tax and spend on anything other than what private citizens cannot reasonably provide for themselves. That is why government support for police and fire departments, courts, jails, infrastructure and a military are all legitimate. Funding for the arts, recreation programs, socialized medicine and the like are not any of the government's business.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

@notajayhawk

So what are you going to do if you come down with cancer, a serious heart condition, or one of the thousands of other potentially fatal diseases? I know exactly what you'll do. You will go to the hospital and get treated. You will see specialists, you will take extremely expensive prescriptions, you will get better health care than most of the rest of the world. And then, when you get a bill for $750,000, are you going to pay it? Even if you made monthly payments for the next 20 years, with no interest or penalties, it would cost you $3125 per month. You wouldn't pay it, you will file for bankruptcy and walk away. Those of us that truly take on "personal responsibility" (your own words) will have to pay higher premiums, co pays and deductibles to cover your irresponsibility. By not having health insurance, you are in fact playing the system. You are the problem.

It's no wonder hospitals have to charge $1000 for a toothbrush. They have to make up for people like you that won't buy coverage.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/03/01/cohen.health.care.bills.cnn

SnakeFist 4 years, 11 months ago

Taint: Exactly - we pay for essential services through our taxes; is healthcare any less essential than police or fire protection? I've never called the police or fire department, but I have been to a doctor.

Universal coverage can be achieved by either raising taxes or cutting spending on other programs, e.g., national defense (who exactly are we defending ourselves against other than a couple of guys too incompetent to successfully light their own shoes and underwear on fire?).

The cries of "socialism" reflect a misunderstanding of our own system. We are not a capitalist system - unemployment, welfare, medicare, public education, public utilities, even public police and fire departments are all examples of anti-free market programs - we are simply less socialist than all other developed countries.

SnakeFist 4 years, 11 months ago

Bart: The insurance premiums an individual pays would never cover a $750,000 bill; so by requiring mandatory health insurance you still haven't accomplished anything other than shifting most of the cost to others (who are more healthy), which you could have done through taxation.

At the end of the day, the point is moot. The Supremes will never approve this a law that requires people to buy health insurance.

chocolateplease 4 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk: Sure, people can pay some of their own medical bills, but try doing that with a triple bypass heart surgery. Also, people at the lower to mid-level of the american payscale are in no position to pay for many of the more basic healthcare needs they have out of their own pockets.

The single payer system will save citizens a BUNDLE; it's the only way to go. The insurance industry, in combination with big pharma, etc., has done a good job of misleading the public.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

bartstop (anonymous) says...

"You will go to the hospital and get treated. You will see specialists, you will take extremely expensive prescriptions, you will get better health care than most of the rest of the world. And then, when you get a bill for $750,000, are you going to pay it?"

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that the $750,000 bill is the problem, not how we choose to pay for it? Or that utilizing third party payers, whether it's through taxes or insurance premiums, and believing that's what it cost to provide those sevices, is what perpetuates the problem?

Sorry, bart, but you are not taking personal responsibility, and it's people like you that created the problem. You're not looking for a way to make healthcare affordable - you're looking for a way to make it affordable for YOU, i.e. to have someone else pay your bills. The very fact that you believe you will eventually have an illness that you can't pay for and your insurance premiums certainly haven't covered illustrates that quite nicely.


SnakeFist (anonymous) says...

"by requiring mandatory health insurance you still haven't accomplished anything other than shifting most of the cost to others (who are more healthy), which you could have done through taxation."

That's how Medicare works.

How's that working out?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

chocolateplease (anonymous) says...

"Also, people at the lower to mid-level of the american payscale are in no position to pay for many of the more basic healthcare needs they have out of their own pockets."

Again, THAT is the problem, not getting someone else to pay for it.

"The single payer system will save citizens a BUNDLE; it's the only way to go."

Ah, yes, the new math - add more people to the claims pool and somehow we'll spend less.

chocolateplease 4 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk, it's not new math when you take insurance companies out of the equation. We're not even re-inventing the wheel here, just look at the rest of the developed world and you can see solutions.

preebo 4 years, 11 months ago

I think everyone on this thread and throughout the state should contact your Representatives in the State Legislature and THANK them for acting on your behalf. They are saying that those without health care do not need it, while providing no state solution for the issue

31.4% of Kansans are uninsured. Republicans in the State Legislature have provided no solution to this issue, and balk at any federal attempt to address their failing.

For those who do not believe my numbers, here is a link to enlightenment...

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/americans-at-risk/kansas.pdf

In a time when your efforts could be used on more pressing budgetary issues, you should be ashamed of yourself for creating such an obvious diversionary tactic.

For once, I agree with my Republican friends, VOTE THE BUMS OUT!

SnakeFist 4 years, 11 months ago

Notajayhawk said: "That's how Medicare works. How's that working out?"

Apparently pretty well; given how concerned seniors are that universal healthcare will cut into their medicare benefits, they must be pretty happy with those benefits.

If your point is that medicare is underfunded, I say stop spending trillions on, for example, "freeing" the people of Iraq or defending the South Koreans, and start spending money on your own people here at home.

David Albertson 4 years, 11 months ago

@notajayhawk "I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that the $750,000 bill is the problem"

The bill wouldn't be $750,000 if every patient was covered. They have to charge me double to make up for people like you that they can't get a penny from. You can try to justify your irrespossibility all you want. The facts are the facts.

To say that I'm not taking personal responsibility is rediculous. I have my whole family covered. We pay our fair share. I actually have to pay more than my fair share to make up for you. No one else is paying for the cost of my medical bills. My premiums are higher than my actual medical costs. I am the one paying for others. Who will be paying for your triple heart bypass (or whatever)? Certainly not you. Maybe they should stop requiring hospitals to treat people that can't pay? How would you feel about that? You would die in the waiting room.

If it wasn't for those of us that have insurance, that hospital wouldn't even exist. If all of us decided to be like you and go without insurance, the hospitals would be bankrupt within weeks.

You either have a serious lack of intelligence or you are trying to stir the pot and get people fired up. In either case, I'm done with this conversation.

orbiter 4 years, 11 months ago

All these legislators wasting their time with this need to put their money where their mouths are and take up a national campaign to kill medicare, medicaid and social security. A good first step would be to push for Kansas to stop dispensing medicaid funds. Give all the money taxed for these purposes back the people from where in came and let them decide whether or not they want to help someone they don't know on the other side of the state because this person has no money or family left to help them. Luckily, they won't know this person exists, so really it will be like this person doesn't exist. Thank God it won't have to be a moral issue!

It's a win-win! We can end the tyranny of socialized medicine AND fertilize our agricultural lands with the aged that once toiled in it. (Children receiving Medicaid can be trained and harnessed to help them learn to pay their own way. Freaking orphans do make this a bit more difficult morally, but whatever, who ever sees an orphan anyway?)

Because we in Kansans think that socialized medicine is tyranny let's show the country what this means: if you can't afford care=tough, and no exceptions!

This house committee should be heroic in their opposition. They should go to the numerous nursing homes on the outskirts of rural towns themselves and wheel those freeloaders out to the fields and let them work off their debts. They obviously didn't work hard enough in their younger years, which is why they rely on medicaid, so let them work a bit more. When they die the coyotes and buzzards will clean up the mess and redeposit these commies into the soil. We will be able to taste the freedom in our loafs of bread.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

preebo, I'm as likely to believe Families USA data as you are to believe Focus on the Family data. Please find a less biased source.

Snake, Let's get out of costly and irrational foreign wars AND provide tax relief for all wage earners AND stop this nonsense about creating new and bigger government bureacracies.

TaintYourWagon 4 years, 11 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight: I think you'd be hard pressed to find many constitutional scholars who would agree with your characterization of the role of US government. That said, even if we accept your statement as true, it is absolutely the case that health care is something that a great many Americans cannot "reasonably provide for themselves", given the astronomical cost.

Regarding the points raised by notajayhawk:

The argument seems to be that the problem is the cost of health care services, not the lack of insurance. I agree that the price of health care is out of control. For example, an uninsured friend was recently charged $17,000 for Rabies shots after he was bitten by a bat he was trying to escort out of his apartment. The fact is that doctors, hospitals, and drug makers are overpayed. However, doctors, hospitals, and (to a lesser extent) pharmaceutical companies are popular, so going after them is bad politics. Hence the focus on insurance reform.

That said, it is implied here that the solution to high health care costs is do away with insurance altogether and have people pay for medical services as they would for a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread. While this sounds like a nice, simple fix, it simply won't work. For one, modern health care is complex and expensive by nature. Think about the infrastructure required for a successful open-heart surgery: surgeons, cardiac specialists, nurses, lab and radiology technicians, well-kept hospital facilities, etc... All these people need to be paid, but how much someone making a median income reasonably be expected to pay for this? Unless it is being suggested that anyone who needs surgery should be expected to go into very deep debt or possible bankruptcy, doctors, nurses, and hospitals are going have to take a very substantial pay cut, one that I doubt many of them would be willing to accept.

The other major problem is that health care is not a commodity for which free market principles apply. This was demonstrated pretty conclusively in the 1960s by Stanford economist Kenneth Arrow in his paper, "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care". Health care is sufficiently different from other commodities (you don't know if or when you'll need it, comparison shopping is difficult if not impossible, etc...) that you can't really get a functioning market for health care services like you can for shoes or bread. And I think experience has shown us this, which is why there is not one example of a free-market health care system in the developed world.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

chocolateplease (anonymous) says...

"notajayhawk, it's not new math when you take insurance companies out of the equation. We're not even re-inventing the wheel here, just look at the rest of the developed world and you can see solutions."

Um, what would you call a single-payer system if it's not 'insurance'? Same game, just different (and less efficient) players. Go ahead, take out the 3.4% profit health insurance plans make - then add in the 10% of the population (particularly those with pre-existing conditions) who don't have insurance now.

Do the math.

What works in other countries isn't necessarily going to work here. For one thing, doctors get paid a lot more here. Do you seriously think every physician in the United States is going to take a 50% pay cut to make your pipe dream work?

And by the way - if it's a choice between having such things as better cancer survival rates, lower waiting times, and services available here that you can't get elsewhere, thanks, I'd rather pay more than pay less and die.


SnakeFist (anonymous) says...

"If your point is that medicare is underfunded, I say stop spending trillions on, for example, "freeing" the people of Iraq or defending the South Koreans, and start spending money on your own people here at home."

Regardless of how much was raided from the fund, eventually Medicare and Social Security in general would go bankrupt. It was an unsustainable ponzi scheme from the beginning. Unless the COST of healthcare is reduced - and make no mistake about it, the Democrats' proposals will actually have the opposite effect - you simply can't keep raising taxes on those who pay in to cover an ever increasing amount of claims on the others.


preebo (anonymous) says...

"31.4% of Kansans are uninsured."

You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension. The page you linked to makes no such claim. It says that 31.4% of Kansans, at some point during the years 2007 or 2008, went without insurance. Those people may have been between jobs, temporarily without jobs, temporarily without insurance for some other reason. It does not say 31.4% are without insurance now, or that there were that many without insurance all at the same time during the studied period.

And that's not even taking into account the number who have access to health insurance and choose not to avail themselves of it, not to mention the number of non-citizens.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

bartstop (anonymous) says...

"The bill wouldn't be $750,000 if every patient was covered."

Wow - you're serious, aren't you?

If someone else paid for everyone's food, bart, what do you think would happen to the price?

Do you really think that people with insurance don't get charged a heck of a lot more, for no other reason than they can get it? If you have insurance, go to the ER some time, and count the number of tests and services you receive. Then go to another ER and tell them you don't have insurance - see if they do all the same things. Studies have shown that as much as 40% of our healthcare dollars get spent on things that do absolutely nothing to improve our health. If providers didn't have insurance companies to gouge, much of that would dry up fast. If everyone had insurance, it would get worse, not better.

"If it wasn't for those of us that have insurance, that hospital wouldn't even exist."

Gee - I wasn't aware that hospitals weren't being built in this country until after enough people had health insurance. Thanks for the history lesson.

This is, sadly, a major part of the problem - people that think healthcare doesn't exist without insurance. People that think they pay their own way in their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Get a clue - seriously.

You readily admit you believe the purpose of insurance is to pay for care you would have absolutely no possibility of paying for on your own - in other words, to get someone else to pay your bills. You readily admit that all you want is for me to carry insurance - whether I need to or not - to make it cheaper for you. And I'M the irresponsible one? That's pretty rich, bart.

mommie2boogie 4 years, 11 months ago

I am just curious to those who are apposed to healthcare reform or any type, i would like to ask

what are people supposed to do who are not offered health insurance through their employer, can not afford it privately due to pre-existing or it just be outright expensive, and also do not qualify for state medicaid as they make too much?

What are those in that category supposed to do? Just curious...

somedude20 4 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

"All told, then, tax dollars already pay for at least $1.2 trillion in annual U.S. health care expenses."

Keep in mind the $1.2 trillion health insurance dollars flowing into the health insurance industry could cover all of us under IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for All.

By Joel A. Harrison

Paying through the Taxman

The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein.

Tax dollars pay for Medicare and Medicaid, for the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service. Tax dollars pay for health coverage for federal, state, and municipal government employees and their families, as well as for many employees of private companies working on government contracts.

Less visible but no less important, the tax deduction for employer-paid health insurance, along with other health care-related tax deductions, also represents a form of government spending on health care.

It makes little difference whether the government gives taxpayers (or their employers) a deduction for their health care spending, on the one hand, or collects their taxes then pays for their health care, either directly or via a voucher, on the other.

Moreover, tax dollars also pay for critical elements of the health care system apart from direct care—Medicare funds much of the expensive equipment hospitals use, for instance, along with all medical residencies.

All told, then, tax dollars already pay for at least $1.2 trillion in annual U.S. health care expenses. Since federal, state, and local governments collected approximately $3.5 trillion in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate—in 2006, that means that more than one third of the aggregate tax revenues collected in the United States that year went to pay for health care.

Recognizing these hidden costs that U.S. households pay for health care today makes it far easier to see how a universal single-payer system—with all of its obvious advantages—can cost most Americans less than the one we have today.

Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.

More on this matter: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

mommie2boogie 4 years, 11 months ago

anyone? if anyone has any idea i would really like to know!! thanks.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

mommie2boogie (anonymous) says...

"I am just curious to those who are apposed to healthcare reform or any type, i would like to ask ..."

Maybe you'd get more answers if you asked someone who actually was opposed to healthcare reform of any type. I haven't seen anyone on these message boards who meets that description.

BorderRuffian 4 years, 11 months ago

None of you really get it, do you? This is all about a bill that will force us to pour uncountable millions of dollars into the pockets of the insurance companies. State/Federal subsidy of the insurance companies. I wonder who has a powerful lobby?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Absolutely correct, BorderRuffian. But it's even worse than that. If the Democrats' proposals pass, it will create a dynamic where the only way insurance companies can maintain or increase their profits would be to keep inflating the cost of healthcare delivery (which is ridiculously easy for them to do, since all they have to do is raise their reimbursement rates).

TaintYourWagon 4 years, 11 months ago

BorderRuffian,

Yes, the bill will put more money in the pockets of big insurance companies, which is not something that liberals wanted. Unfortunately, conservatives screamed bloody murder at the mere mention of a government health insurance option (which would have been non-profit and directly accountable to taxpayers/voters), so Democrats compromised the public option away to prevent a freak-out of epic proportions. Without single-payer or a public option, the only way to achieve universal coverage is through a mandate. It's not the best solution, but lives are on the line, and the current bill is better than nothing.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.