Ganske voted against an amendment that limited patients

[ahbappy852]

It is true, as the Democrat ad points out, that Ganske did ultimately vote for the Patients’ Bill of Rights that contained the Norwood Amendment. Yet Ganske did this not because he favored the Norwood Amendment, but because the Patients’ Bill of Rights contained many things that he did favor, like guaranteeing emergency room treatment, and requiring insurance companies to offer clients an appeals process for when they deny them coverage for a particular ailment. Ganske also hoped that the House-Senate Conference Committee would be able to work out a better bill, as the website does mention. That would not have been possible if the Patients’ Bill of Rights was defeated in the House. And the final vote was close, 226-203. Ganske probably feared that if he voted against the bill, it might fail.

Thus, ability to sue, and voted for a bill that in many ways expanded patient telegram data protection. But Iowa Democrats suggest that Ganske voted to weaken patient protections—a blatant distortion. What makes this even more duplicitous is that Democrats almost surely know that Ganske acted this way. In the passage quoted from the Democrats’ website, you’ll notice that they have listed the vote on the Patients’ Bill of Rights as House Vote #332. They likely obtained that information from Congressional Quarterly. The vote on the Norwood Amendment (Vote #329) is on the same page of Congressional Quarterly as Vote #332. Unless the Democrats behind the website are incredibly lazy, they must surely know that Ganske voted against the Norwood Amendment.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Leave it to Democrats to engage in distortions. They should consider giving the website a new address.


(Note: This was written by my colleague John Sandell. He and his lovely wife Judy were gracious enough to invite me over to their house for a barbeque Wednesday evening. John, the chicken was delicious! But, anyway, let’s get to your blog.)

Iowa Agriculture Secretary, Patty Judge, doesn’t like furloughs. In fact, she dislikes them so much she wants to show us all just how bad they are for “her” employees. First, she furloughs the meat inspectors on the Friday before Mother’s Day in hopes that mothers and grandmothers across the state will have a little less to eat at the local buffet on their special day. And now, she furloughs those same inspectors on the Friday before the kick-off of the Summer Barbeque season. Another furlough is announced for early June, also on a Friday.