Update:Lose Your Healthcare Bill (S1955) WILL GO TO the SENATE FLOOR

[caligirl]

next week. I just called Sen Kennedy's office and was told it will be going to the floor next week. I asked if he had heard of any political maneuvering(rule changing) by Frist and he said he had not.


I asked if he knew how many Republican senators are leaning against this bill. He said several were, mentioned Sen Snow of Maine.
I asked who would be good ones to call, he mentioned Chaffee.

The moderate republicans need to be targeted for phone calls/letters to defeat this bill. There are other better options for the small business community. This is what I have said when I called: This bill is about deregulating the health insurance industry. The only people who will do well if it passes is the National Federation of Independent Business who is really behind this bill for the $100 Million dollars in revenue they may reap through selling these policies. (I site the WallStreet Journal as the source for that)I then say, and this is really the kicker I most often say: 200 Million Americans will see their health care insurance benefits evaporate in the vain attempt to provide shoddy coverage to fewer than a million of the 46 million that need real health insurance.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Senator Chaffee (R- Rhode Island)
[phone]

Senator Collins (R-Maine)
[phone]

Senator Arlen Spector(R-Pe)
[phone]

Senator Snowe(R-Maine)
[phone]

Senator Hagel (R- Ne)
[phone]

Senator Voinovich(R-Oh)
202) 224-3353

Senator McCain(R-Az)
[phone]

[caligirl]

1. thanks for that first vote, any seconds?

[blondeatlast]

2. WANNA DEFEAT BIG INSURANCE?

this is the bill to do it!

So far it's party line but moderate Republicans may capitulate.

This is absolutely a GIVEAWAY to BIG I and coupled with some local legislation such as Mitt Romney's sham health bill in MA, it will be devastating to people with chronic illness.

[caligirl]

6. It offers a couple of choices, stillbad for the healthy to>>>>>>>

the bill guarantees two bad choices:


1 a low cost, stripped down policy designed by the insurer
2. may cost less up front , they leave people uninsured for major medical.
The so called Enhanced option( thats the second plan a person would need to buy according to Enzi for chronic conditions etc, has NO LIMITS on Cost-Sharing, allows for extremely high deductibles and coinsurance.


The bill explicitly preempts state laws.
removes insurance from state regulated with consumer protections, to the largely unregulated federal level. The Bush Labor Department is not on the consumers side here folks. They want their good business $$$ pals to profit.

If their good business buddies profit off this by selling these policies, where do you think much of that profit is likely to end up?

Republican hands. It's a vicious circle, GOP legislates for the NFIB a bill that will make money for them, and what do you know,the GOP gets richer to.

[AzDar]

3. Important stuff. K &R.... n/t

[caligirl]

4. Hey 4 VOTES. Thank you DU'rs

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Ian David]

5. Let's also contact the NFIB and tell them what we think of them

you can call us at 1-800-NFIB-NOW (615-872-5800 in the Nashville, TN area), Monday-Thursday, 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. CST and Fridays 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. CST.

You can also get additional contact info here:

http://www.nfib.com/page/stateLeadership.html


For example, here in Massachusetts their local parasite is a guy named "Bill Vernon" which must be Latin for "I didn't doctor this photo, that's his real hairpiece."



10 High Street
Suite 401
Boston MA 02110
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Andi Shea
Grassroots Coordinator
http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_19330.html


Jim Jennings
Regional Media Communications Manager - Northeast
http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_23934.html

Laurie Klotzbach Curtis
NFIB/Massachusetts Assistant State Director
http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_15802.html



Also, who do we need to boycott?

Who are their members?

[caligirl]

7. their Washington numbers here, but please call the Senators first.

Washington, D.C. Headquarters
Located just a few blocks from the Capitol, NFIB’s Washington office is the policy hub of NFIB. Departments housed here include:

Federal Public Policy Media Relations
Political Grassroots President’s Office
State Public Policy NFIB Legal Foundation
NFIB Research Foundation NFIB Young Entrepreneur Foundation

NFIB
1201 F. Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20004
1-800-552-6342 or [phone]

[caligirl]

8. WOW 9 votes, Thank you for the 9 votes, this is wonderful.

[caligirl]

9. Moderates to call also include Specter, Hagel, Voinovich, and

I will have to take an acid bath for saying this, but McCain

From Kos I found this:
Republican Senators -- McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins, and even Hagel and Voinovich -- who are still willing to stray from the party lines over particular matters of conscience.

[blondeatlast]

35. I think McCain will vote NO on the bill.

Especially if pressured--please call McCain!

[caligirl]

10. 10 Votes, holy moly this is moving faster, thanks!

[caligirl]

11. Hey whoever put that 11th vote in, thank you!

[realFedUp]

12. I posted a thread with some info also...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2580449

Call Senator Boxer if you live in CA...she
hasn't made an official statement on this one yet.

[caligirl]

15. Feinstein hasn't either. I was told moments ago Chafee is leaning

against the bill. Office person said when I called.

[realFedUp]

16. I called DiFi's office this morning...she is opposed to it.

[caligirl]

17. Good, thats news. I called last week and yesterday and they still couldn't

say then.

I called McCain's office, ugh, they won't say which way yet. so Chaffee and Snowe are so far the only two I can find that are leaning against. Though supposedly there are several.

[skyblue]

13. American Diabetes Association, AARP opposes S1955

See: http://advocacy.diabetes.org as does AARP http://www.aarp.org/issues/advocacy/older_workers_healthcare_in_jeopardy.html

Thanks for the info on this important legislation!

[blondeatlast]

19. American Cancer society, too:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/041206_enzi.html

[pookieblue]

34. The National MS Society as well is against this...

http://capwiz.com/nmss/issues/alert/?alertid=8703136

[caligirl]

14. A big argument the bill supporters use is the Mercer Study, they lie

about what it really says.

They want to claim the bill will decrease the uninsured by 8%. The Mercer study doesn't even mention the older, sicker individuals who would be priced out of coverage. Mercer doesn't mention millions of Americans who would become underinsured as a result of S1955 eliminating state requirements that health insurance cover basic services. (chemo,hospital care after a mastectomy, diabetes care, mental health care and rehab after accidents and more.) Any gains made by the young, healthy and male will be at the expense of those needing health coverage the most.

Newly covered individuals will be at risk if they buy inadequate insurance. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. All American with state regulated coverage would find their insurance less secure.

The 8% figure the Mercer study sites is only based on a subset of the uninsured.

They will claim premiums will drop by 12%, a savings of $1000 per employee they say.
The actual study never made any such claim. The Mercer study presents its findings in the aggregate, such a way that it is deceptive and masks the real negative impact of the bill. The Mercer study states "magnitude of decreases will vary significantly by state. The premium decreases will be modest in states that already have adopted rating regulations equal to or broader than those contained in the proposed legislation".

So states with stronger protections for consumers who are older,those facing complex health conditions,women of childbearing age, or very small busineses, premiums will go up. The savings would only be seen in businesses that employ younger and healthy workers.and are located in states that have always protected the most vulnerable but won't be able to enforce those protections under S1955. Some will see lower premiums, but those really needing health coverage the most will see their rates rise.

[caligirl]

18. I am so overwhelmed with the number of votes Du'ers have given this page

Now at 13 votes, its gratifying to see so many appreciate the gravity of the situation should this bill pass.

[caligirl]

20. Another false claim: The GAO says state mandated benefits

add between 5 and 22 percent to the cost of healthcare.

No one at the DU will buy that one.
the 1996 GAO report sited by supportes of S1955, looked at the impact of state benefit requirements on total claims, not on the impact the requirements have on premiums. Elimination of the state benefit protections would lead to one time savings of 5%, according to the new Mercer Study touted by the bills own sponsors. The bulk of those savings come from eliminating benefits like maternity care and mental health benefits. These very small savings won't make a dent in the double digit premium increases seen over the past half decade.

[xxqqqzme]

21. in case they ask....zip codes

Chaffee - Newport, RI 02840

Collins - Augusta, ME 04330

Specter - Erie, PA 16501

Snowe - Bangor, ME 04401

Hagel - Lincoln, NE 68508

Voinovich - Cincinnati, OH 45202

mccain - Tucson, AZ 85701

[caligirl]

22. 14 votes for greatest page! I just love DU! Thanks for the boost!

[caligirl]

23. Supporters want to claim no adverse selections like other AHP's

Not true.

S1955 Title I segments insurance markets by allowing associations to create separate risk pools and cherry pick. The healthy in group A the ones with nearly any health care need into group b. Premiums in the rest of the state based small group market go substantially higher as healthy people are pulled out of the that market by AHP's

Title II allows all insurers in the small group market to charge different premiums to all small groups based on the health care needs of their workers and dependents and other factors.
Surcharges are permitted under this too, for age, gender, geography, group size and other factors. So older, females with a chronic health condition are really in trouble here.

Allows insurers to cherry pick through benefit design. They can make it so that the plans are only attractive to those who presently have no health care needs.
They say two policies must be offered: but there is NO requirement that they be comprehensive. And even if they were, sicker individuals will gravitate toward the higher level coverage raising the cost beyond what is affordable. Priced out of the market is where that leads because insurers cannot sustain policies offering greater coverage if only sick people buy them.

Starting to see the need for National health care here?

[caligirl]

24. Newswire: Bill Subverts Massachusetts' Attempt at Universal Health Care

WASHINGTON, April 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The viability of Massachusetts' closely-watched attempt to insure nearly all of the state's residents depends on state requirements for health insurers to take all applicants, a consumer protection that would be eliminated by legislation the U.S. Senate is expected to take a final vote on next week. Massachusetts lawmakers may vote as early as today on whether to override Gov. Romney's veto of employer responsibility and patient protection rules.

Massachusetts law requires insurance companies to offer insurance to all applicants (known as the "take all comers" rule), neither denying coverage nor pricing it entirely out of reach for those who are ill or at risk. S. 1955 (Enzi - Wyoming), would override these "community rating" laws and allow any health insurer or HMO to charge patients more because of their age, health or gender.

"This junk insurance bill is being peddled to the public as a way to cover more uninsured people, yet its chief effect would be to strip away state rate protections like Massachusetts', as well as Patients' Bills of Rights across the country," said Judy Dugan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). "To pass such a bill during the Senate's Health Week even as Massachusetts struggles with how to enact its plan, is cynical and deceptive." Read more about the legislation here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/?postId=6148



http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=64549

[OzarkDem]

25. Our breast cancer group is opposed to it also

It could remove coverage for breast cancer screening, chemotherapy and breast reconstruction. It could also mean that survivors could lose their health insurance or pay much higher rates.

[caligirl]

26. and how about length of stays after a mastectomy? I remeber that

fight. They were sending women home before they could care for themselves, some had to be rehospitalized with complications caused just by that.

[OzarkDem]

28. That one is urban legend

Doctors are usually in charge of that and don't let insurance companies dictate. They finally gave up on a bill because it was kind of silly and no one had ever known of a reported case of it.

Like any other surgery, doctors try to get women home as early as possible because it lowers the risk of infection and patients also heal faster. In the case of single infirm or elderly breast cancer patients they are usually transferred to a nursing facility until they can be at home alone.

[caligirl]

29. This was hapening out here, may have been kaiser in the bay area

Iam not sure. But somehow I think this did happen, but perhaps it was a specific case I recall. I worked Kaiser phone advice and recall the other nurses and i talking about it in relation to one of them experiencing this. She was both employed and insured with Kaiser. And a very good advice nurse.

[nickinSTL]

27. really happy to see this on DU

my list for people with PKU (a metabolic disorder) mentioned it - naturally, they're very much opposed to it.

[caligirl]

30. good news, sorry about the PKU though.

[nickinSTL]

31. well, mine's mild...

so it isn't that big a deal. I eat a low protein diet and take amino acid supplements (which are REALLY expensive) - but not a big deal for me.

[caligirl]

32. My large health care provider here in the bay area had to settle a case

involving PKU and an infant. Negligence. So your post caught my eye.

[nickinSTL]

33. yeah, if it's not caught and treated early and consistently...

serious damage can occur. I hope if the doc was negligent, they nail his ass.

I'm lucky, mild and treated appropriately.

[OzarkDem]

45. This is about hospital stays after surgery

it doesn't really pertain to catching breast cancer early since its dealing with patient care after "treatment" has begun, ie surgery.

The only way length of hospital stay could affect timing or length of other adjuvant therapy would be if the patient catches an infection while they're in the hospital, thereby delaying chemotherapy or radiation treatment.

Early detection doesn't necessarily reduce breast cancer mortality and regular mammography screening doesn't prevent it. All breast cancers are different, some can be detected early and some can't. Some that are detected early won't spread or come back, others that are detected early will spread, no matter what you do. Some tumors grow in "sheets" of cells instead of palpable tumors, which means they can't be detected on mammograms or breast self exams.

The reason I mention this is because women who get breast cancer are often made to feel guilty, as if there was something they could have done to prevent it or made it easier to treat. That's wrong. Most tumors have been growing 6 to 7 years before they're large enough to be detected by mammography. "Early detection" only means you may have more treatment options.

To learn a more about quality public policy and legislative advocacy regarding breast cancer, you may want to get involved with this group:

http://www.stopbreastcancer.org/

On edit - this was in response to the thread above about hospital stays after mastectomy, oops!

[caligirl]

49. wrong place OOps!

[blondeatlast]

36. The best solution for small business, big business, and the American

people is simply a universal single payer opt-out plan.

Radically dilute the risk pool and prices go down while care goes up.

S. 1055 is a GIVEAWAY to Big Insurance.

[blondeatlast]

37. Cali, are you aware of any Dems planning to vote YES?

My info indicates that the Dems will universally toe the line here, but you may have more recent info.

Thanks--we WILL defeat this hideous giveaway to Big Insurance!

[caligirl]

38. Good thing to start looking at and I am only aware of one

Nelson of Nebraska. He signed on as a cosponsor. And he is a former insurance commissioner. That group, the insurance commissioners, are against this bill but not Nelson.

[caligirl]

39. FIVE PAGES of names of organizations opposed to this bill pdf file

Who opposes this bill is lengthy and has grown dramatically since March 17 when I first began posting about the bill. organizations from across the nation oppose this bill. 39attorneys general have written a letter of opposition to this bill.

List appears to be current to April 20,2006


http://www.nationalpartnership.org/portals/p3/library/TheUninsured/S1955/OpposedtoS1955.pdf

[OzarkDem]

40. Kick - this is important

[caligirl]

41. Still no numbers on dems for or against, just Nelson of Ne is for it.

Too early still after they just got back from two weeks off. Despite that I know opponents and supporters were actively visiting senators in their home states over the break. Patty Murray is against the bill. Chaffee is leaning against it. I'm betting Boxer will be too. Feinstein said she is against it.

[blm]

42. Thanks for staying on top of this, caligirl. Media ignoring it

and no doubt, intentionally.

[depakid]

44. No doubt INTENTIONALLY is right

Just like the Food Safety Bill.

If the Dems ever regain power- their very first order of business needs to be media divestment and re-regulation. Pull out all the stops (just like Republicans do) with the FCC and twist whatever procedural rules are available to get legislation through Congress.

[caligirl]

50. I hope this is the first theing they do too, they are going to be busy

impeaching Bush and repealing this stuff.

[caligirl]

47. Good news, I wrote to a writer at the San Francisco Chronicle and she

is writing a story about this. She also exressed a bit of disappointment that the Washington office of the paper hadn't done so. She said she had started to write the article and will finish it. Her name Is Victoria Colliver and she had a nice health insurance issues article in the paper today. It was a nice peice in that it educated the public on the worsening problem.

Here is the email response first and my email second complete with wrong words and a misspelling or two.(contraction, freud!)

Thank you for writing. I agree with you - I'm working on a story about the Enzi bill! I've had a ton of deadlines lately and just haven't been able to get it done yet. I wished our Washington bureau would have done something, but they haven't. I've got a different story to write today, but I'll get that other one done ... Victoria

To: Colliver, Victoria
Subject: the Lose Your Health Care Bill goes to the senate floor next week for final vote


While I enjoyed your article it says nothing of the disaster about to unfold next week for the 200+ million who have insurance who would be harmed in a vain attempt to help one million of the 46 million who need real health insurance.

The bill(Enzi s1955) would make matters even worse for the 4,350 people surveyed as mentioned in your artcle. HIMMAA is about stripped down policies covering little if anything for preventive care and nothing for major medical. Its insurance for only the young and healthy and even they could be left with inadequate coverage increasing the likely hood of future bankruptcy for them. By design policies would be less attractive to those needing it the most and women of child bearing age. More than 150 organizations like the ADA,AARP, American Nurses Association, American Pediatric Association and mental health professional organizations and dozens of others including 39 state Attorney Generals oppose the bill. The bill does nothing for those with chronic health conditions as insurers are not going to cover those needs out of the goodness of their hearts.The enhancement option would be the second policy for that and it has no limits on cost sharing or premiums. HIMMAA is devastating to womens health care as well. As maternity care, contraction, cancer screening, and mastectomy hospital care would not be covered. Nor would wellbaby checks and immunizations.

Mandated health benefits and the rights of states and individuals to sue would be stripped. The National Federation of Independent Business is behind this and has had the goal of ending all mandated health coverage for years. In 1993 they launched a huge battle for that purpose. They stand to make $100 million in revenue selling these policies through this legislation. Small business can already pool to offer health insurance. There are better amendments out there like the Lincoln Durbin bill which is being recieved well by many organizations opposed to the Lose your Helath Care Bill. S1955(HIMMAA) bill will be on the senate floor for a vote next week May 1-5. The house already passed a similar bill. If it passes the senate it is likely to go to conference committee for both houses as the House would not even hold debate on S1955 and certainly not a vote.

I am astounded that a bill undermining health care for so many and offering such shoddy coverage to so few and offering nothing to the 45 million remaining who need real health coverage isn't even getting a tiny article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

[caligirl]

43. NFIB is delivering 450,000 signatures for this bill, Kansas AG support

The federation, which has about 6,000 members in Kansas, including 473 in Sedgwick County, has garnered almost half a million petition signatures in support of the Enzi bill and plans to deliver them today to every Senate office. About 5,000 Kansas employers signed.

This is a really misleadingt story by this news paper.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/14429972.htm

Came out today.

[OzarkDem]

46. NFIB getting a lot of media play in Ohio, too

I heard there are Directors of Insurance from 36 (?) states who are on record opposing S. 1955.

[caligirl]

48. The NAIC is against it, except for former member Nelson(Ne)

Here is a statement they made in the 2003 GAO report from a print out I made, sorry no link unless I search again and find it.

" NAIC agreed with our finding that the costs associated with benefit and provider mandates over what business would normally incur are estimated to be relatively small. NAIC also commented that mandates provide important protections for consumers and help prevent insurers from limiting their risk by denying coverage for certain benefits or limiting access to certain providers. NAIC further noted that such mandates have been carefully considered and adopted by state legislatures... Finally, NAIC highlighted the states' long standing role in providing consumer protections for health insurance, such as small group market reforms for premium rates and eligibility practices...."

[blondeatlast]

52. Shit--Sedgwick Cty is my birthplace. That breals my heart.

:cry:

How COULD they?

[caligirl]

51. Kent Hoover got it wrong,Another case of journalistic bad judgement

Well partially wrong on the single most important issue: regulation
Last four paragraphs of the page linked below:
Health care issue 'has ripened'

Small business groups already have compromised on association health plans. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill requires these plans to be regulated by the states. These plans, however, would be exempt from state coverage mandates if they also offer a rich benefits package as an option. Insurance companies also would be allowed to offer these plans. http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/extraedge/washingtonbureau/archive/2006/04/24/bureau1.html?market=eastbay


I called the East Bay Business Journal paper and hopefully the editor did indeed call Kent and speak with him about this glaring error. Kent needs to actually read the bill before writng the story. Title I and Title III specifically. THEY PREEMPT STATE INSURANCE LAWS.

This is what really happens Kent: An appointed board that includes the Insurance industry but NOT consumer groups would establish federal standards in the areas of regulation of coverage and benefits. The Federal Government would have no capacity to enforce these new standards. Instead the states would supposedly be allowed to enforce the new fed. standards, BUT WAIT, S1955 authorizes insurance companies to SUE STATES in federal court IF THEY DON'T LIKE STATE ENFORCEMENT.

[blondeatlast]

53. Up, up, UP!

:kick:

[caligirl]

54. KPFA radio has a program on the bill you can listen to Guests are

The Morning Show
>> This show is now archived: Listen http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=157.22.130.4&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20060425-Tue0700.mp3

Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act SB 1955, (HIMMA) sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi of Wyoming - Carmen Balber, Consumer Advocate with The Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer rights, consumerwatchdog.org; Jane Loewenson, Directory of Health Policy for the National Partnership for Women and Families, nationalpartnership.org

http://www.kpfa.org/highlights/index.php?airdate=2006-04-25

[caligirl]

55. link to full page ad appearing in Cleve. Plain D. from ADA,ACS,AARP

There was a request on the blog recently to obtain a copy of the most recent print advertisement sponsored by the American Diabetes Association, AARP, and the American Cancer Society expressing their opposition to Senate Bill1955.

Larger version of the file is available over at my flickr account for sharing or download.

?v=0


thanks to the http://diabetesadvocacy.blogspot.com/ for the ad picture. This is a nice blog site for information on the Enzi bill, easy to find things and easy to use. And if you have a blog site you can link it there, I think. There is a place in the comments registration for it anyway.

[caligirl]

56. Congressional Diabetes Caucus refuses to take a stand on S1955

"The Congressional Diabetes Caucus is a bipartisan group of Congress with over 275 members, committed to improving the lives of the nearly 21 million Americans with diabetes. The Caucus is also dedicated to supporting important research funding into diabetes and diabetes-related complications. As a standing policy, the House Diabetes Caucus does not take positions on general legislation such as S. 1955, the "Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act."

http://www.dlife.com/blog/archives/2006/03/the_plot_thicke.html


Simply astounding, the congressional diabetes caucus knows what will happen to diabetics if this bill passes, and they turn their backs on them.

Members can be located by clicking on your state herehttp://www.house.gov/degette/diabetes/members_map.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. What is the bill number?

[caligirl]

58. Just saw your post, sorry for the long delay, Its S1955.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=senate_calendar&docid=sc001

Rollcall.com

PENDING BUSINESS

MOTION TO PROCEED TO S. 22 (ORDER NO. 422)

Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 22, a bill to improve
patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care
by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the
health care delivery system. (May 5, 2006.)

(Unanimous Consent Agreements on P. 2)



________________________________________________________________________

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EMILY J. REYNOLDS,
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

By David J. Tinsley, Legislative Clerk

========================================================================

<[Page 2>]



UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS

S. 22 (ORDER NO. 422)

1.--Ordered, That on Monday, May 8, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., the Senate
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 22, a bill to
improve patient access to health care services and provide improved
medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system
places on the health care delivery system; provided that the time for
debate be divided as follows: the time from 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. under the
control of the Minority, the time from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. under the
control of the Majority; further, that the time rotate in this format
with the final time from 5:00 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. under the control of the
Majority; provided further, notwithstanding Rule XXII, at 5:15 p.m. the
Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to the bill.
Ordered further, That relative to the cloture motion filed on the
motion to proceed to S. 22, the mandatory quorum required under Rule
XXII be waived. (May 5, 2006.)

S. 23 (ORDER NO. 423)

2.--Ordered, That on Monday, May 8, 2006, if cloture is not invoked
on the motion to proceed to S. 22, the Senate immediately proceed to a
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 23,
a bill to improve women's access to health care services and provide
improved medical care by reducing the excessive burder the liability
system places on the delivery of obstetrical and gynecological services.
Ordered further, That relative to the cloture motion filed on the
motion to proceed to S. 23, the mandatory quorum required under Rule
XXII be waived. (May 5, 2006.)

S. 1955 (ORDER NO. 417)

3.--Ordered, That with respect to S. 1955, a bill to amend Title I
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health
Service Act to expand health care access and reduce costs through the
creation of small business health plans and through modernization of the
health insurance marketplace; provided that relative to the cloture
motion filed on the motion to proceed to S. 1955, the mandatory quorum
required under Rule XXII be wiaved. (May 5, 2006.)