Deal reached on health care for poor

Bob K.
Atwater, MN     03/07/2010 8:39 PM

Rick C., I believe you have to sign a contract with the Minnesota DHS to provide services. So you have the choice to or not to but you would be crazy not to.

Report a Violation

Bob K.
Atwater, MN     03/07/2010 8:36 PM

Ben C., I did not state all of what Harold was saying was correct. The mudslinging came out of nowhere and is unfounded, I agree. But then again to say two signs said so was a little presumptious, wouldn't you agree? That is like saying someone is mudslinging but you have better mud.

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/07/2010 7:21 PM

Bob K if they can refuse to take new medicare patients, why wouldn't they be able to refuse to take new GMAC patients?

Report a Violation

Harold R.
03/07/2010 7:01 PM

k t so the sky is falling, doom and gloom. if you feel so, am sure your right. K. T. do give full credit for your grief to the DFLers. After all, those DFLers have owned the Minnesota Senate for over 40 years and the House for some time now. Can it get much worse? sure will, till this Nov.. Big Change a coming. Wash D.C. too. k t see if you can hang on for a while yet.The DFLers ruination here in Mn. (Wash D.C too), will soon be what is called a /Has-been/ just wait and see. .

Report a Violation

Karen T.
Willmar, MN     03/07/2010 6:43 PM

In my opinion, the message on this Sunday evening in Minnesota is: if you are poor, do not get sick. If you are poor and already sick, hope and pray you do not need a lot of care! But, if you are poor and currently very sick, hope and pray AND HOPE AND PRAY some more that the closest medical facility will take you and treat you and that you will not have to be transported to another facility. After all, it doesn't cost much to transport anyone to another care facility...right?

Report a Violation

Ben C.
03/07/2010 6:00 PM

Bob do you really thing that was Harolds point? Can you show me where I was mud slinging as he claims after I simply pointed out that two Republicans said they would vote (which has not happened yet on the compromise) in favor of this? My point to Harold is he seems to always want to blame the Democrats for everything, and with regards to this compromise that makes no sense. The Republican Governor spoke in favor and like I said so did some local Republican lawmakers.

Report a Violation

Bob K.
Atwater, MN     03/07/2010 4:15 PM

Ben C., the original GAMC bill was passed both by the State House and by the State Senate - so technically Harold is right - the original GAMC bill passed the Senate and passed onto the Governor for signature. Governor Pawlenty vetoed it from Washington(governors national meeting in D.C).. The GAMC bill was brought back to the House but could not override the veto. The Senate could override the veto but(but since the House couldn't) opted for negotiations with the Governor. There will be a new GAMC bill coming which must pass both the House and Senate and then onto the Governor. So, the original GAMC bill passed and vetoed and a new negotiated GAMC bill is now in the works. Senator Berglin has to have a hearing on the new GAMC bill and get it voted out of committee onto the floor for discussion and passage( this will allow any additions to the negotiated bill) onto the House which either could be voted to the House Health Committee for discussion and then onto the floor for passage or a waiver of the House rules for immediate floor discussion and passage. A vote of the House will determine the which rules rules will apply or for a waiver of the rules of the House, as to which path it goes

Report a Violation

Bob K.
Atwater, MN     03/07/2010 3:51 PM

Rick C. the government has already siad you hve to accept the patient for treatment - you might transport them to another facility but they will be treated.

Report a Violation

Ben C.
03/07/2010 1:57 PM

Hold it right there Bob go back and read Harold's comments first before you point your finger please.

Report a Violation

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/07/2010 11:40 AM

Bob K, "the "paying for" is being done by lower reimbursement payments to the providers. Locally, it will be a hit to the revenues of rural hospitals, clinics, and doctors which will be hard to absorb in these economic times.", any idea why the state of fed governments think they can unilaterally reduce reimbursements to providers? If the health care industry says they will stop accepting these patients it won't do anyone any good.

Report a Violation