I have seen the different types of coverage that employees have had because during my work period I can remember when an employee would have an illness or a need to have surgery. There was never any question about the services to be rendered to that individual by the coverage the company afforded them. There never was a question about whether or not it was legitimate or not. It was assumed that if the employee was determined to have a need, that need would be filled by the provider. Well, things have changed. And through the years, we see that the companies have put in place deterrents for people to get the type of care that they are entitled to, because the insurance company provides it for them and they determine that they are the ones who are going to determine whether or not it is going to be treatable. Well, that affects us all.
Grace Napolitano: “I have seen the different types of coverage that employees have had because during my work period I can remember when an…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing changes in employee health coverage and access to care over the years.
Share
More from Grace Napolitano
I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, noes 205, not voting 14, as follows: [Roll No. 101] AYES--213…
I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
To me, the answer is clear. We should recognize the familiarity and workability of the historic Clean Water Act.
I believe that every-State-go-it-alone approach is inconsistent with congressional intent on the Clean Water Act.





