Sep
16
It was scheduled for noon from what I read, but this just in from the Washington Post:
Baucus Proposes 10-Year, $856 Billion Health-Care Bill
He must have just started – that’s all the news they have. It was epected to happen today – curious what’s all in there. The Wall Street Journal wrote about him not getting any support for his bill but he is still unveiling it. ABC writes that nobody likes the bill more then Baucus himself.
Yahoo writes this here.
- requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine
- prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems
- Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange.
- Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients’ yearly health care costs.
- The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama‘s aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country
LINK: Chairman’s Mark – America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009
Comparison between the Senate and House Bills already introduced
Share on Facebook
Posted in Health Care, Legislation
Aug
29
Under HB 139, a cover-all-kids program will be established, allowing parents to pay a monthly premium of approximately $170 per child plus administrative costs, which will provide the same level of coverage the child would receive under CHIP or Medicaid. Since the parents will bear the cost of the premium, it will cost the state nothing to implement the program.
I am very supportive of the legislation and it was a good start – the best we could get this year with the budget the way it is, $170 per child plus administrative costs will probably get it up to $200. It”s still a lot of money but better then paying the bills when you don’t have insurance and your child needs meds and care above and beyond an annual check up.
This is for children in families that are above 200% of the poverty level. Don’t know if your income is within or above?
2008 Countable Income Limits
200% FPL
| Family Size |
Gross Annual Income* |
Gross Monthly Income* |
| 1 |
20,800 |
1,734 |
| 2 |
28,000 |
2,334 |
| 3 |
35,200 |
2,934 |
| 4 |
42,400 |
3,534 |
| 5 |
49,600 |
4,134 |
| 6 |
56,800 |
4,734 |
| 7 |
64,000 |
5,334 |
| 8 |
71,200 |
5,934 |
| 9 |
78,400 |
6,534 |
| 10 |
85,600 |
7,134 |
This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2010.
Share on Facebook
Posted in Delaware, Health Care, Jack Markell, Legislation
May
04
Lt. Governor Matt Denn held a press conference outlining a proposed bill that would allow parents to buy into the SCHIP program if their income is above 200 percent of the poverty level. I absolutely agree with that bill, because health insurance coverage for kids is much too expensive. During my previous employment my health insurance cost went up by about 300 dollars a month just because I had to add my son to the insurance. I didn’t make a lot of money but was above the 200% of FPL mark – being able to buy into the State’s Children’s health Insurance Program would have been invaluable to me – it would have saved me $200 a month (if the buy in cost was about $100 per month), it would have left my son with all the doctors he already had, because they were in that network, and his coverage would have continued seamlessly even if I lost my job. It’s a win-win situation for he kids and parents and after the last bill died that would have covered more kids (it would have increased the level from 200% of FPL to 300%), I hope this bill pases because the fiscal impact would be offset by the parents paying the premium.
Now if only Delaware would have more good doctors in Sussex County and more Dentists altogether, it would be even better. I am trying to find a good Dermatologist (not the quack I went to last time) – and the only good references I get are from doctors up north in Wilmington – that’s close to a 2 hour drive for me! Anybody know a good Dermatologist in Sussex or even Kent?
Share on Facebook
Posted in Delaware, Legislation, Matt Denn
Jan
15
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION.
Synopsis: This Act amends the State Employee Merit Rules to prohibit an employee from being granted a leave of absence to serve a prison sentence or term of incarceration.
I think it is sad that we even need the piece of legislation. A leave of absence should be for important things, such as family illness, education, etc. I believe that IMPRISONMENT should definitly not be an excuse for taking a leave of absence. ESPECIALLY not if you are in prison for felonies that would often keep you from getting a state job in the first place — such as CHILD MOLESTATION or HOMICIDE of any kind!
Of course, nobody is probbaly surprised that the agency that caused this legislation is DNREC!
- Gene M. Pettingill, 79, of Bear, recently spent nearly three months in prison after pleading guilty in June to two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual contact, a felony. According to court records, a 7-year-old girl said the the Caravel Farms man forced her to touch his genitals about 20 times in 2007.
- Robert A. Dick , 55, of Dover, spent a year in prison in 2003 and 2004 after pleading no contest to a reduced charge of four counts of third-degree unlawful sexual conduct and other offenses — all misdemeanors — for his crimes against a 14-year-old girl. A grand jury had indicted Dick for first-degree rape and other felonies, charging he had intercourse and other forms of sex with the girl. In April 2003, police charged Dick with more felony charges, including five counts of rape and one count of continuous sexual abuse. Last year, Dick spent another 15 days in prison for violating his probation on the sex crime.
- Sandi R. Carney, an underground storage tank inspector, is serving one year in prison for second-degree vehicular homicide. After a night of drinking in October 2007, Carney rear-ended a truck, killing Jason Crump, a 29-year-old friend who was in her car’s back seat.
If you aren’t outraged that these guys got to keep their jobs, what makes me even more angry is the fact that the person charged with vehicular homicide received the same sentence as a repeated child rapist. And the three months for Pettingill are a joke at best and a slap in the face of every victim of child sexual abuse out there.
Or how about:
While Gov. Ruth Ann Minner’s budget office did not support Hughes, the governor said in a statement that she understood criticisms of his decisions but would not second-guess him. “Secretary Hughes struggled with these decisions and after an honest and thoughtful deliberation process, he made a tough call,’’ Minner said.
The News Journal later wrote:
In an interview, Markell said that when he read that Hughes held jobs for inmates, he was “shocked and determined that I would not allow my administration to do the same thing.”
Markell, who takes office Jan. 20, said he did not know whether he would seek to change the state’s merit system rules to forbid such leaves for violent offenses and sex crimes.
“All I can say is that it isn’t going to happen, however I have to get it done,” Markell said.
Share on Facebook
Posted in Delaware, Delaware politics, Jack Markell, Legislation
Jan
14
Introduced on : 01/14/2009
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO RULES OF THE ROAD.
Synopsis: This Bill enhances driving safety by establishing distracted driving standards and allowing mobile telephones to be used while operating a moving motor vehicle only when equipped with built-in speakers or a hands-free accessory; to prohibit placing or receiving text messages, sending or receiving e-mails on mobile telephones or other electronic devices, to require the State Police Department to include on motor vehicle accident reports information about the use of mobile telephones or other distractions by drivers involved in an accident; and to establish penalties for a violation of this Act. This is a civil violation with a $50 assessment. It also preempts municipalities from passing any ordinances to the contrary, including greater penalties or violations, regarding the use of a cell phone or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle.
The wording of this bill bothers me. My telephone receives text mesages without my doing anything. Sure, I can turn my cellphone off, but I don’t like doing that in case there is an emergency and my son needs to get in touch with me.
While I can not control when someone sends me a text message, I can control if I read them – so the wording should actually be to send or READ text messages – don’t you think?
CLARIFICATION: The actual bill reads “‘Use’ means talking, placing, or receiving a call, or attempting to place or receive a call, or texting or attempting to send a text, or email on a mobile telephone or other electronic devices”
Share on Facebook
Posted in Delaware, Legislation
