Do we really want to re-elect these people? |
SENATOR DAVID L. THOMAS introduced H3996 which among other bills, set out to repeal Section 38-71-120 which took away any protection South Carolinians would have had regarding payment of a hospital bill. In a nutshell, if you paid your bill (assuming you are one of the 47 million Americans who are uninsured) within 7 days of receipt of your hospital bill, you would be entitled to the same discount allowed to any insurer. Did our legislators give us anything to replace that protection......A BIG FAT NO! Who do you think benefitted? Not me or anyone else who is uninsured. I'll bet the hospitals were glad to see that. Oh, and by the way, if I was an illegal alien, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
This bill was repealed and signed into law by Govenor Sanford. Would somebody, preferably Govenor Sanford, please explain why they repealed this law. I suspect I won't get anything but a politically correct answer. Personally I think the hospitals are lining some legislative pockets. I can only hope that come the next election, we let our legislators know we're fed up and kick 'em to the curb!
|
Co-Sponsors of this Bill also include: |
South Carolina Representative HARRY F. CATO South Carolina Representative DANIEL L. TRIPP South Carolina Representative CONVERSE A. CHELLIS, III (Now our Treasurer) South Carolina Representative WALLACE B. SCARBOROUGH South Carolina Representative ALAN D. CLEMMONS |
Other legislators I've contacted who have done NOTHING: |
| SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM responded to a letter that I wrote him. Click here to see his politically correct response. You will also note that he says "Unfortunately, changes in South Carolina Code is a state issue and not under federal jurisdiction." I didn't know that South Carolina was the only state that faced hospital price gouging. And doesn't he represent the people of South Carolina? Just in case it he's missed the national news, price gouging of the uninsured is a nationwide problem which does fall under his federal jurisdiction.
|
REPRESENTATIVE LEON HOWARD is quite a piece of work. As you will see on the video or print article reported by Carrie Davis of News Channel 7 (WSPA), Representative Howard states "I don't think there are a large number of hospitals that are overcharging, that has not been brought to my attention." Is he for real? There were about 35 hospitals in the state of South Carolina that were named in the Class Action lawsuit, and he didn't know? He's the CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE MEDICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE!! How could he not know? After Carrie Davis told me she had done the interview with Representative Howard and encouraged me to call him, I got an entirely different story. To paraphrase what he told me, he said, I've got hundreds of people in my jurisdiction that have the same problem as you do. Ok, then why hasn't he done anything about it? He also states in the newscast that he needs to here from us, the taxpayer, about our experiences with overcharging. Ok, I called him, I told him, and he referred me back to my local representatives. So why does he want us to call him if he just passes the buck? Here's another example of what Representative Howard apparently didn't know. A Bill,
S.53, Section 44-7-55 was introduced to the South Carolina General Assembly on January 9, 2007 which essentially gives back some protections that were repealed by our legislators in June, 2006. The Senate referred this bill to the COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL AFFAIRS.......and its STILL THERE! Yes, still just sitting there gathering dust. The Bill is still on his desk but he doesn't know there are a large number of hospitals that are overcharging? I think Representative Howard needs to spend less time making videos for YouTube and MySpace and more time in the office handling the issues in our state!
|
Okay Representative Howard, you stated that public hearings should be held to determine the extent of hospital overcharging (price gouging) of the uninsured. I (and the 600+ other people in the Anderson area the AnMed has sued in the past 3 years) challenge you to hold public hearings. I'll take bets that won't happen!
|
CONGRESSMAN J. GRESHAM BARRETT I sent a certified letter to Congressman Barrett on October 19, 2006 seeking his help in terms of possible legislation and to make him aware of what his constituents are faced with on an all too often basis. On
November 21, 2006 I received a response from Congressman Barrett along with a letter written to him by Jerry Parrish, CFO at AnMed. I'll comment on Mr. Parrish's letter later. Back to Congressman Barrett's response. Ok, thank you for taking the time to write to me and tell me that you'll be glad to assist me. But my question to him is, what is he doing/going to do about it? I really had my heart set on a response that had some substance, not the "canned answer" that I got. Should I just take a face-value what Mr. Parrish said and assume AnMed will do the right thing? NOT A CHANCE!
|
If you noticed in the response AnMed wrote to Congressman Barrett, Mr. Parrish told him, "We will repeat our offer to discount their bill by 30% - a percentage that exceeds the best discount we offer our largest insurance provider (not) for this particular procedure - if full payment is received within the next 60 days." That letter was written on November 16, 2006, so by my calculation, that would have made my payment due around January 16, 2006. I was breathing somewhat easier as this gave us additional time to try to negotiate the bill down to a more reasonable level.
|
Much to my surprise, on November 22, 2006, Mr. Parrish wrote me a letter stating that I only had until December 31, 2007 to pay the bill in full. Six days earlier, according to his letter to Congressman Barrett, I had until the middle of January. Sounds to me like someone that talks out of both sides of their mouth. Incidentially, in his letter dated November 22, 2006, Mr. Parrish states that he never received my letter of September 22, 2006 because it had "300 North Fant" not 800 North Fant. While it was true that the actual letterhead had 300, I caught it and made sure the envelope and certified mail receipt had the correct address. This letter was received and signed for by AnMed on September 26, 2006.
|
Knowing that I owed AnMed something, I in no way asked for a free ride, on November 27, 2006 I sent AnMed a check in the amount of $11,463.44 in good faith, which represented the undisputed portion of my bill. Since I had until December 31 or the middle of January (depending on which letter you pick) I had plenty of time to continue to try to negotiate. Much to my surprise, the December 31st date was bogus and the middle of January date was bogus as well. On
December 14, 2006, AnMed filed suit against me and returned my check. |
Knowing that Congressman Barrett was on top of this issue and working diligently to introduce legislation to protect the uninsured, I faxed him a copy of the letter and the lawsuit that I received on
December 19, 2006. He has NEVER responded. I certainly know who I'm not voting for next time. |
| I just figured it out! Silly me. We have a crisis in baseball with the use of steroids! Congress and our Congressmen are busy with the hearings and trying to weed out the liars and sinners (certainly there aren't any in Congress). Yes, hearings by Congress! I'm sorry, what government agency regulates baseball? How much of my tax dollars goes to supporting baseball? Oh yes, let's not forget that we have now enlisted the FBI to investigate who's lying. Talk about a waste of resources. I'll bet I could save the Congress a lot of precious time.....let the baseball Commissioner do his job! And a real simple solution? Random, mandatory drug testing.....you get caught, you're out. No if's, and's or bats! See how easy that was. |
| So Senator Bryant, its now been since I began trying to get you to do something. The clock keeps ticking. |
| SENATOR BILLY O'DELL While Senator O'Dell is the ONLY legislator who took the time to meet with me, I'm not sure he is willing to do anything either. In all fairness to Senator O'Dell, when I met with him on October 31, 2007, he was seemingly interested in the documentation and facts that were provided him. |