Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed

Mar 21, 201410:21 AMBlaska's Bring It!

with David Blaska

Republicans love cancer?

(page 1 of 2)

For two weeks, Democrats and their news media allies tried to portray Republicans as villains opposed to affordable oral cancer chemotherapy.

RightWisconsin quoted one state legislator to say that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had “moved beyond advocacy journalism to outright lobbying.”

“[The newspaper] seems really bent out of shape on this bill, but they have never reported the fact that Obamacare raises taxes on the sick,” said Rep. Dale Kooyenga. “This is a classic case of making news and legislation as opposed to reporting the news.”

The Appleton Post-Crescent wrote, “Thumbs-down to state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, for blocking a bill that would help cancer patients.”

Fitzgerald was supposed to be in thrall to Big Pharma. Yet the upper house, Fitzgerald included, voted 30-2 Tuesday in favor of complete insurance coverage.

As co-chair of the powerful Joint Finance Committee, Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) is a major power in the Republican caucus. She is a breast cancer survivor and was lead sponsor of the measure in her house. You really think Fitzgerald would fracture his delicate, 17-16 majority? (I’m counting Dale Schultz as a Democrat.)

Ultra-progressive Mike McCabe of true Wisconsin Democracy Campaign posted this canard on Facebook: “The cancer drug bill is being blocked in the state Assembly … Assembly Republicans have received nearly $287,000 in political donations from interests opposing the legislation.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “reported” that “a vote was scheduled for Thursday in the Assembly, where Republicans could still make changes that could kill the measure.” Is anything lower than politicizing cancer? Maybe the newspaper should PolitiFact itself.

Instead, the supposedly rogue, bought-and-paid-for Assembly, controlled by the GOP 60-39, approved Senate Bill 300, adding only a $100 co-pay. Cancer survivors and patient advocates (pictured here with Speaker Vos, center right) praised the bill. (Photo provided by the speaker’s office.)

Health insurance typically is structured to cover chemotherapy administered at a hospital or clinic as part of a health plan’s standard medical coverage with no additional cost after the deductible is reached. But oral chemotherapy was covered under prescription drug plans that have high co-payments.

(Continued)

Old to new | New to old
Comments, page 1 of 2 1 2 Next »
Mar 21, 2014 10:44 am
 Posted by  Anonymous

Actually you are totally wrong again Blaska.

the republican held assembly and senate only passed this bill because of public opinion.

If they had their way they would not have passed anything.

vos and fitzgerald are no heroes by any means.

Actually they are both losers in a state that tolerates them.

Mar 21, 2014 05:49 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

Dave, you conveniently omit Mr. Fitz's machinations to prevent a vote.

Also explain this attribution ...

Vos said last week that he had strong concerns with the proposal and did not think it has enough votes to pass the Assembly.

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_06ebaa75-c25b-53a4-96ab-3ceab2fa3c44.html

With this

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which polled all 132 state lawmakers, found that 89 of them — majorities in both the Senate and Assembly — voiced support for the bill.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/senate-to-vote-on-bill-to-make-oral-chemotherapy-drugs/article_ea8d165e-05b8-5228-91d9-412f02fe18be.html


Looks like some people wanted the bill to go awayh

Mar 21, 2014 07:33 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

Anon 10:44:

Yes, public opinion swayed the Republicans. Heartless bastards! Funny how public opinion didn't sway them to undo Act 10.

Mar 22, 2014 09:58 am
 Posted by  David Blaska

I thought the Republican-held Assembly and Senate didn't listen to public opinion. Isn't that what you said about Act 10?

Mar 22, 2014 03:51 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

Seriously, Dave? Does the term "poison pill" in the legislative context mean anything to you? I'll bet it does. Be honest and treat your readers with a little more respect.
AnonyBob

Mar 23, 2014 09:58 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

If Dear Leader Comrade Obama wanted you to have oral chemotherapy, he would have said so in his three dozen Imperial decrees changing the Obamacare law so far.

Through the mercy and wise compassion of Dear Leader Obama, you now have been liberated from the burden of caring for grandparents, as the death panels are real and cancer treatments will be withheld from the elderly. Long live the glorious Progressive movement.

Mar 24, 2014 07:43 am
 Posted by  Anonymous

Dave Blaska is so intellectually dishonest he makes the Mar 23, 2014 09:58PM post look sane.

Mar 24, 2014 07:50 am
 Posted by  David Blaska

Anon at March 21, 05:49 p.m. asks, "Dave, you conveniently omit Mr. Fitz's machinations to prevent a vote. ... explain this attribution: 'Vos said last week that he had strong concerns with the proposal and did not think it has enough votes to pass the Assembly.'"

That's why the Assembly added the $100 co-pay.

Mar 24, 2014 08:31 am
 Posted by  Anonymous

Dave, you think a $100 copay makes any real difference to the insurance companies? You know enough to know it was a cynical parliamentary maneuver done for one reason only; to force it to another vote in the Senate on the hectic last day they meet, which will conveniently not happen. "Darn, we just ran out of time." But the GOP can now campaign on supporting it ("See; I voted for it!") while not interrupting that fat flow of campaign money from their insurance industry overlords. Legalized bribery. Vos could have passed a clean version of the bill (the Senate didn't seem to see a need for a $100 copay), but didn't. It's a disgusting manipulation, all too typical of legislative Republicans.
AnonyBob

Mar 24, 2014 08:36 am
 Posted by  Anonymous

Annoying Bob dissembles: Seriously, Dave? Does the term "poison pill" in the legislative context mean anything to you? I'll bet it does. Be honest and treat your readers with a little more respect.-- AnonyBob

While The Squire educates: A poison pill is that portion which defeats the whole. The Senate will concur with the Assembly version, which requires a co-pay smaller than that imposed by the Democrat(ic) regime in California. Perforce, the Assembly's co-pay is not a poison pill.

Comments, page 1 of 2 1 2 Next »
Add your comment:
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed
Edit Module

About This Blog

Raised on a farm near Sun Prairie, David Blaska is a recovering liberal who spent 18 years in daily newspapers, including 12 at The Capital Times in Madison as a reporter and editor. He served Gov. Tommy Thompson as acting press secretary in 1998 and is a veteran and survivor of 19 years in state government. He served 12 years on the Dane County Board of Supervisors. From December 2007 to November 2011 he wrote the consistently popular "Blaska's Blog" for Isthmus online's "The Daily Page" until, he says, the intolerant liberals ran him off. He blogs from Madison.

Recent Posts

Archives

Feed

Atom Feed Subscribe to the Blaska's Bring It! Feed »

Edit Module