Well, I would assume that they will try to go into their interpretation of the Constitution and avoid the very difficult argument of forcing or eliminating the Patient's Bill of Rights and allowing the insurance companies to engage in gross discrimination based upon sex. Clearly, women are discriminated against by the health insurance companies unless the Patient's Bill of Rights is there to protect them. Similarly, the two examples that you gave, pre-existing conditions, I cannot imagine that they would even attempt to successfully or even would be unsuccessful to argue that somehow these protections for the individual are not worth having. I think they will go into some obscure interpretation of the Constitution. We'll see. There's going to be a debate on the floor. Unfortunately, there will be no hearings to precede that, and there will not be a discussion of the details.
Share & report
More from John Garamendi
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing us this opportunity. Is it really true, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps Mr. Larson has told me that the Republicans intend to put together some sort of a fiscal commission specifically designed to go after Social…
Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, I think I will take a deep breath. I was a little wound up a few moments ago. If the opposition to this amendment would like to go through that process of an additional 5 minutes, we will play that game, and I would actually…
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a critical amendment to pause wasteful and unnecessary spending at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility. This is a responsible measure. It will pause the development of this nuclear facility…





