Q&A With Morgan Carroll

We're happy to have Democratic State Representative Morgan Carroll with us today to answer your questions. Carroll just finished her freshman legislative session as a newly elected representative from Aurora, and she was at the center of several high-profile bills -- from HOA reform to workers' compensation.

Ms. Carroll has graciously agreed to take time out of her day to answer your questions, so please be respectful in your questions and comments. You don't have to agree with her, but you can certainly disagree in a respectful manner.

If you'd like to ask a question, do it in the COMMENTS section below. If you'd like to discuss something Ms. Carroll said, or if you want to talk about other topics, save that for the Tuesday Open Thread above. Please reserve the COMMENTS section below for questions only.

And with that, click below to read our 11 Questions with Rep. Morgan Carroll. And make sure to check back on Thursday, when Representative Terrance Carroll will be answering your questions.

1.    How do you feel about how the Democrats finished the session?

I feel good about the fact that we were able to achieve a bipartisan solution to Colorado’s Budget crisis under the leadership of Romanoff-Fitzgerald-Owens.  I feel like we still need to do more for higher education, economic development, and meaningful insurance reform.  K-12 education finished strong (on funding, though obviously not on our drop-out problem).  Medicaid coverage improved, particularly with pre-natal care.  Capitol construction / maintenance funding improved.  Seniors are still overdue for reform / restoration of senior property tax exemption.  Democrats did fairly well, particularly in light of the fact that we had little notice or preparation for switching into the majority party and the leadership that goes with it.  Yet, I think we can do better next year.

2.    What surprised you about your freshman experience in the legislature?

I was surprised by how few people read their bills.  I was (naively) surprised by how many extraneous factors went into decisions and votes (other than public policy).  I was surprised by the degree of legislative dependence on the lobby corps for information.  I was surprised by how many “facts” we received which were carelessly wrong.  I was surprised to find more bi-partisan cooperation than I expected.  I was surprised that legislators didn’t think, draft and write their own bills but instead typically “carry” them for various interests.  I was surprised by the lack of “pre-coordination” of bills.  I was (pleasantly) surprised that I grew to like and respect as many colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as I do on my own.

3.   What do you think the Republicans did right and  wrong?

It seemed at times like the Republicans spent more of their session preparing tactically for how to take back the majority in the next election, watching us, tallying our votes, preparing future campaign ideas and holding prayer sessions at the capitol than they did focusing on general public policy.  However,  to their credit, they (as did we) ran mostly moderate, common sense legislation that passed with bipartisan support.  I think there were some moments of unnecessary rancor in order to expose fangs and perhaps boost morale for the minority party.  Republicans are reputed to have tighter party discipline, but I think at times, harsh chastising of independent-minded Republicans risks back-firing.  Overall, I think most of them worked fairly well with us and many have truly earned my respect.

4.  You received a lot of publicity early in the session for a bill that would change rules for homeowners associations, which ultimately made it all the way to the governor. Why was this an issue that served as the basis for one of your first pieces of legislation?

The purchase of a home is the single most significant investment most people will ever make.  Homeowners should neither be trapped, surprised, abused or required to waive constitutional speech and political rights in order to buy a home. I chose this issue because the protection of property rights was one of the core values upon which this country was founded. Further, it became apparent when walking my district that there was an alarming frequency of outright abuse of power and abuse of homeowners in some associations. I had no intention of pursuing HOA reform, but probably one out of every four people I met had some concern or complaint about their HOA – and some of these problems were egregious. It became very clear that people’s basic property rights were often being trampled with the unchecked growth and power of HOAs, and we could either sit back and watch those rights further erode under the fiefdoms of some abusive HOAs, or we could ensure basic due process and transparency. HOAs are quasi-governmental in powers (seizure, foreclosure, levy assessments, fines, change character and use of property, voting) but did not have the corresponding accountability that goes with that. HOHOddI am a strong supporter of accountable power, due process rights, informed consent and transparency. 

5.   You sponsored two workers compensation bills that were strongly supported by labor unions that ultimately failed. What happened with those bills?

I want to clarify that I did not carry any of my comp reform bills for labor or for anyone else.  Colorado has one of the most draconian workers comp systems for employees in the Union. If one simply gave pure license to the insurance industry to write their own comp laws they would look a lot like Colorado’s – oh wait…

HB 1112 on WC would have converted scheduled (extremity) permanent impairment ratings into whole person impairment ratings when the work injury was so severe as to preclude a worker from ever returning back to usual work. The schedule ratings in Colorado can come in with absurd results where amputees are often compensated less than people with back sprains because of the math formulas involved. Of course the insurance industry opposed it, but I PI’d it because my bills were bringing in such a heavy response from the lobby I was afraid there was a risk I would lose them all…and if I had to prioritize I could think of no more basic right than allowing a patient to have some say and choice in their medical treatment…

On worker’s choice of doctor (HB 1018), I was out-lobbied. The lobby lobbied the lobby, the legislature, the fiscal note analysts, etc.  The message was nothing short of apocalyptic doom if we let a patient have any say so over their own body in their own medical treatment in workers compensation. Misinformation spread like a cancer. There is no patient’s lobby. Both Republicans and Democrats get hurt on the job. Both prefer to either pick their own docs or at least be able to escape if they are being subjected to substandard medical care. This never should have been a partisan issue. Patient choice is the law in 37 other states (many of them “red”, many of them passed with the support of the business community). The lobbyists for the business community tried to (explicitly or implicitly) threaten support for budget reform if we did not marry their agenda. Despite the 250 lobbyists registering on the bill, it almost passed. And some of the strange procedural history of the bill was my refusal to let this bill or this issue die quickly or quietly under the weight of the lobby.

I sat down with some 25 different stake-holders, listened to their concerns, and made amendments to the bill to address each and every remotely bona fide concern. Each lobbyist I worked with went on to continue their opposition no matter what the content of the bill was. Furthermore, it was difficult to finding very many who had even read the Workers Compensation Act we were amending or were familiar with the Medical Treatment Guidelines or the Fee Schedule. 

The bill had two trips to Business committee, three amended fiscal notes (none with a fiscal cost by the way), passed on second reading, died on an amendment to the committee of the whole report due to a mistaken vote.

6.   Democrats seem to be making a conscious effort to be seen as more pro-business, with some of your bills at the forefront of the discussion. Critics would say that shift comes at the expense of other ideals. What is your take?

Responsible corporate citizenship is not anti-business. Democrats are pro-business. I, like so many others of both parties, own a business, have a background in retail management, have employees, make payroll, pay taxes, pay health insurance, pay WC insurance, pay business property tax. The state’s entire economic engine would obviously shut down without it. But I also think it’s a bit of a vapid slogan to rely on labels (pro-business / anti-business) as a substitute for analysis. Nonetheless, I do think bills did die under the fear or threat of this label.

I think it would serve us well to remember that the business community is NOT like some uniform Borg. Studies in economics, marketing, and management will show that there are clearly several different ideas and theories about how to stimulate job growth, retain and grow strong stock value, increase productivity, decrease turn-over, maximize profit, reduce shrink, and become more efficient. Allowing a small subset of business lobbyists to define the entire business climate in the state would be a mistake.

The narrow business lobby version of “bad for business” means anything that requires them to do or be accountable for anything. It measures short-term cost instead of long-term yield or value. It measures all worth on short-term ledgers and none by way of human capital. Some of the most successful Fortune 500 business have realized that they can profit more by paying a decent living wage, providing vacation and sick leave, investing in training and professional development than they can by simply exploit ting their work force and throwing them away when sick, dead or injured, perfecting tax evasion, and side-stepping safety or environmental concerns. Responsible corporate citizenship is not anti-business.

7.   At the end of the session, The Rocky Mountain News wrote that you “frustrated lobbyists (read: potential campaign donors) by not mingling as much as they'd like.” The general criticism deals with the charge that you do not respond to lobbyists in the same manner as most legislators. How do you respond to those comments?

TRUE: I do not accept cards from lobbyist while I am voting on the floor. Period. It is distracting. I know this has been to the great consternation of lobbyists (and my own party) because it is inconvenient to talk to me another time or another place. It’s not a personal attack on them. I am not trying to declare war. It’s just my own comfort level. Votes are missed on 2^nd reading because people are out talking to lobbyists. And while sometimes dry and less than elucidating, key points can be missed in debate. I don’t feel comfortable multi-tasking the act of voting on one piece of legislation while someone is trying to give me a self-interested pitch on some unrelated bill.

RUMOR: That I am inaccessible and refuse to talk to lobbyists. Not true. I will talk to anyone who wants to talk to me (even lobbyists) any other hour or location of the day – just not lobbyists while voting on the floor. My home, cell, capitol and work numbers are everywhere. I can be reached in person, by text, email, or phone. Most don’t, however. My approach is resented because it is different.

THE THREAT: If a legislator does not take their cards during votes, they can expect to be the subject or orchestrating rumor mills, threats regarding funding and campaign finance, and black-listing ability to pass future bills. I guess we’ll see.

TRUE: Most of the lobbyists are very smart and hard-working. Some lobbyists are very professional and know their subject matter and are careful to be accurate in the “facts” or information presented. Some are not. It’s not that I think I know better. It’s that I feel I have a duty to be a critical, independent thinker and not just accept whatever a lobbyist tells me as the gospel truth.

8.  You finished the session with a reputation for being firmly on the left side of the Democratic Party. As a freshman legislator, what did you learn in terms of balancing your ideals with trying to find compromises in order to get things done?

It’s a fair question, but I find that frustrating. Maybe I don’t understand what “left” is…

Is thinking a patient should have a right to have a voice in their own treatment, “left”? (HB 1018)

Is a bipartisan bill providing financial assistance to Guard and Reserves experiencing financial hardship as a result of deployment “left”? (SB 52)

Is creating a homeowners bill of rights to protect property rights, due process and the constitution “left”? (SB 100)

Is making the insurance industry place by the same rules as every other individual and business “left”? Is removing special interest legislation mandating secrecy for the insurance industry in our Court system “left”? (HB 1094)

Is thinking an amputee might require higher compensation than someone with a back sprain “left”? (HB 1112)

Is working to create the ability to de-clutter our State Constitution “left”? (HCR 1001)

Likewise, I broke ranks with my own party on several bills where my Libertarian leanings prevented me from supporting the AWOL ban bill, the seatbelt bills, the smoking ban, and criminalizing the sale of cold medicine.

I guess if that’s left, then I’m “left.” If anything, I think the fact that I am out-spoken and rather intense can sometimes be confused with “left”. I look at problems and solutions and I’m not proprietary or ashamed to support good Republican ideas when I see it or defeat bad Democratic ideas when I see it. We just aren’t that binary.

I have definitely had to learn to compromise. I think I still have a lot more to learn.

9.   What will be different when Democrats approach the 2006 legislative session? What are you already thinking about in terms of your own legislation for the next session?

Most importantly, I hope we approach the next session with Ref. C passed and the ability to bring our state out of the Dark Ages.  I think we will approach the 2006 session better prepared, more coordinated on platform issues. I am considering from some of  the following:

Notice to patients impacted by Colorado’s Government Immunity

Insurance Reform: Better Consumer Protections in Price, Practice and Product

Insurance Reform: Workers’ Choice of Doctor

Constitutional Clean-Up: Defining Single Subject Rational Unity

Restoration of Senior Personal Property Tax Exemption

Repeal or roll-back of Business Personal Property Tax

REPEAL of Current Law Making it a CRIME for medical facilities to waive co-pays or deductibles

Sentencing Reform

Return to No-Fault (Modified) Auto Insurance

10.   You were rumored to have had interest in running for congress in CD-7. What’s next for you in the 2006 election cycle and beyond?

I will be running for re-election in HD 36 in 2006. Beyond? I’m not sure. I still have a lot to learn. I have made certain promises to myself before running for office. If or when I get too cynical to care about doing the right thing, it’s time for me to step down. If I ever care more about getting re-elected than doing the right thing, it’s time for me to step down. For now, I love what I am doing. 

11.   What is it with the last name Carroll (you and Terrance Carroll) that makes it easier to get elected to the state legislature?

I was elected on the coat tails of the more Honorable Terrance Carroll. You may not know that Rep. Mike Cerbo is also a Carroll.  His mom is a Carroll and therefore there are 3 of us. Yeah, I think everyone in the legislature should change his or her last name to Carroll.

The Carrolls (O’Cairbhall) were one of the 15 ruling native clans of Ireland and held out against the Viking invasions, the Anglo-Norman invasion, and were the second to the last family to finally fall under British occupation. The Carrolls were ordered to convert and swear loyalty to the Crown or else die or leave. Some died. Some left. Some stayed and continued fighting for independence. Daniel Carroll fought in American Revolution and was signer to the Declaration of Independence. Charles Carroll (his grandson) went on to be signer to the U.S. Constitution for State of Maryland. My dad, John S. Carroll, served in the Colorado House (Adams County) for ten years. I think it’s a recessive genetic defect, or something.

Comments

[peterco]

With respect to #7, how many lobbyists are on the floor at any given time? Or is it because they are targeting you specifically?

[Morgan]

Peterco:

The lobbyists gather right outside the floor behind the glass doors. At any given time there is probably 20 - 50 lobbyists outside the door, sending cards, trying to pull legislators off of the floor. They are in relatively constant rotation so it is not always the same lobbyists out there. They are not targeting me specifically. They are targeting all of us. However, many of them were targeting my bills (to kill them) specifically because of the nature of what I introduced. Throughout the corridors of the entire capitol there are probably 50 - 300 lobbyists in the capitol on a given day. A very large number of these lobbyists represent the insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, commerce, for-profit health industry.

[Ter Ducken]

What sort of legislative plan of attack do you expect from Republicans in 2006. It seems to me that they played all defense this year and will need to at least try to pass something meaningful next year.

Thanks for making yourself available today.

[Susan B]

Are you still considering running for congress in 7 and was that ever a serious consideration for you? Thanks.

[Dan]

I understand that you are a trial lawyer that has represented worker's comp cases against employers and insurance companies. By pushing the worker's comp bills this session will this help or inhibit your trade outside of the capitol?

[Morgan]

Ter Ducken:

I think their tactic in part can be to let us do the heavy lifting, and then merely add their names as sponsors to bills for which they would like to take political credit. I agree they will try to run some other "significant accomplishment". If they are smart, they will stay away from making that issue: the privitization of k-12, higher ed, gay marriage, or criminalizing abortion. They would do well (as would we) to revitalize some very good pieces of economic recovery legislation that died this session due to lack of funds. (e.g. investing in Colorado's tourism industry).

[Morgan]

Susan B:

I am not running for CD 7. I WAS seriously considering it. Not so much because I felt was ready or that the timing was right for me personally but more because I felt there was no excuse for us not to win this seat. The only reason I was remotely tempted is because I feel that we are in one of the phases of history where moral intervention is needed -- now. I grew up in my family with the lessons of the Holocaust ever present and always wondered when I looked at some of the greatest atrocities of history -- "What were they thinking?" "Where was everybody?" We are now facing an outright attack on separation of church and state, secret trials, censorship of media, detaining people without trials or charges, preventative round-ups based on race, ethnicity and religion, blocking access to attorneys, unprecedented historic surveillance by the U.S. govt on our own citizens, attack on the 4th amendment, record deficit spending for wars on multiple fronts without any clear plan for how we "win", "draw" or "retreat". And lest it sound like I am bashing Republicans, I am MOST disappointed with the Dems in Congress who rolled. Ds and Rs went along with one of the most epic roll backs of American rights and liberties. In a race so clearly targeted, it is an unquestioned opportunity to share a message with the entire nation. I hope we do it.

[Morgan]

Dan:

Most of my clients don't actually pay any attention to what we do at the legislature. However, among my colleagues in similar practice, they will have an understanding of exactly what the problem is and why I am trying to address it. As a lawyer who represents ordinary people, it is tough to look someone in the eye and say "oh, I'm sorry there is nothing I can do for you because that's just the way the law is." People are often surprised by the rights they DON'T have. The legislators often don't have to face the human beings their policies hurt. I do. In one sense it would help my trade, because it would be nice for me as a lawyer for the little guy to have the tools once in awhile to help people (i.e.have some rights to enforce.)

[Joe]

if tabor reforms don't pass in november, what do you think you will do in the next session to address the budget? thank you

[Jim]

You have been pretty hard on lobbyists in the papers, do you expect to get any lobbyist support in your next campaign?

[Bob]

Do you favor giving in-state tuition or Colorado Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens?

[Vladimir]

1. You are the number one target of the Republicans -- as quoted here they are not going to run a menopausal Jesus Freak against you this time -- are you worried that your lefty rhetoric may not play so well against a real opponent?
2. Will you support Alice Madden if she challenges Andrew Romanoff for Speaker
3. Did Anne McGihon lie to the people of Colorado when she claimed that she mistakenly voted against your bill on worker's comp?
or
4. Is Anne McGihon not a liar and merely stupid or inattentive when taking care of the people's business?
You should run for Congress -- not gonna be any tougher than what you are gonna face for reeelction

[Morgan]

Joe:

If TABOR reform and Referenda C doesn't pass, I will have no choice but to be part of the necessary evil of joining the budget-chopping to state services. Because of our other constitutional budget constraints, higher ed closures and privatization would be inevitable, possible court closures, no transportation, no economic development investments, no building maintenance again. The only real policy choice we will be left with is to decide how much to cut from which services, who is in a relatively better position to absorb those cuts, and which cuts would effect other budget issues (like federal matching funds).

[Cleophus]

Representative Carroll-

Why do you think you recieved such widespread support for the 7th CD after only a few weeks under your belt in the legislature?

Has Romanoff recieved the credit he deserves this session?

Thanks for all of your hard work.

p.s. I hope the Republican party spends a heep load of money on you because it will be money they waste in a defeat!

[Morgan]

Jim:

I don't think I've been hard on the lobbyists. I have merely told the truth and been willing to discuss and expose to the public the role they play and how it works. If I review my prior campaign donation list, the overwhelming number of contributions came from private individuals who know me and are likely to help again. The groups that supported me previously are likely to do so again. However, there are some groups that did not support me before (because I was new and in an open seat or because I was a Democrat) that MIGHT have given to me for tactical reasons (i.e. I hold a seat) that will not contribute because I have not played by the usual rules. I can't know for sure until the next election, but if we all did whatever the lobbyists wanted for fear of losing money, we'd be completely beholden to them and never try anything that might incur their retribution and never get anything done. I guess it's a risk I am willing to take. It's a good question.

[P]

Your campaign material never mentioned that two of the first five bills that you introduced would be Workers Choice of Doctor legislation, and HOA legislation. Why did you not bring these up in your campaign that they were major issues of yours? Did your constituents drive this legislation? It appears to me that you have a personal agenda that you never told anyone about.

[Morgan]

Bob:

I, like many lawmakers, am still struggling with immigration policy. Clearly we do not want to create incentives for people to ignore our laws. Clearly, we have split families, where parents are illegal, children are U.S. citizens. These children are now "us" and part of our society and responsibility. Clearly, these folks are human beings who are generally just trying to improve their lot and take care of their families. Further, I think we have a heightened obligation in this national security climate to deal with the porousness of our borders and to KNOW who is in our country (driving "illegals" further underground could backfire). I also believe this country was founded on innovation, pioneers and immigrants. Some of the xenophobic rhetoric on immigration reforms makes me queasy. While we might be able to do a super border crack-down (and of course not all undocumented workers are coming from Mexico or Canada), I think we will deplete a ton of federal resources without making much head-way if we don't address the motivation and incentives in place to cross or stay illegally. We need to get to the underlying cause (i.e. employers who hire undocumented workers, the severe disparity between the economy of the 2 nations, the bureaucatic red tape that makes enforcement of our existing laws slow and ineffective).

I lean toward supporting driver's licenses because it provides a method of identifying, tracking people, and is used by employer's, law enforcement and others. We should just understand that mere possession of a driver's license does not provide proof of immigration status.

As for in-state tuition, I guess the answer to that depends on whether the REASON we give in-state tuition is because of citizenship or resident alien status or because of the assumption that in-state residents have contributed to the tax-base and therefore should catch a break on in-state tuition at a public university. (Many undocumented folks are paying taxes).

Until we find the right solutions to this the states and feds might both be smart to figure out how we can at least ensure we are capturing associated tax revenues (we know we are from sales, gas, sin taxes) but perhaps not from income taxes. Providing some public services to people who are paying for them might be less objectionable to some. In the meantime, it is really the job of the I.N.S. to figure out how to enforce our current laws. I would like to hear from them as to what they think they need and why.

[Ed]

Morgan - who will you support in the CD7 race?

[Morgan]

Vladimir:

I think running a moderate Republican candidate against me would definitely give me a more difficult race. (My opponent last time was actually relatively moderate). I have always been plain-spoken and rather direct and "political advisors" have always worried that might hurt me. But I was that same person when campaigning in 2004 in a 52% Republican performing district last cycle and it didn't stop me from taking 55% of the vote in my first-ever election. My personality is not new, and my approach did not hurt me with the voters, because at least they knew where I stood, they respected my passion and knew that I wasn't fake.

I support both Alice Madden and Andrew Romanoff and hadn't really thought about splitting them or that they might run for different leadership positions. Sounds like a political Hobson's choice, to me.

It never occurred to me to question Rep. McGihon about the mistaken vote.

The Congressional candidates we have now for CD 7 are coming in better-known, and better-funded. I was willing to take this on (Beauprez or not) if we needed a candidate. Looks to me like we're covered.

[bob]

Your response to the in-state tuition question seems slippery. I can pay income, sales and property taxes in multiple states, but not be able to take advantage of their in-state tuition, because I'm not a resident.

If you believe that someone is a "resident" whether they are here legally or not, that's fine.

I can choose to not carry auto insurance but still be a "driver". However, I suspect that the State of Colorado would frown on granting me any favors underwritten by the taxpayers.

Did you, or will you support Rep. Vigil's bill on in-state tuition for illegals?

[Morgan]

Cleophus:

I am not really sure why I got so much attention on the possibility of a CD 7 run. In most respects, I would be a very unexpected candidate. I was actually approached to run for that seat by several people (including some trips from DC by Emily's List) before I even won the HD 36 house seat. I think the fact that I live in the district, am an obsessive workaholic, and willing to fight may have played into it.

I don't think Speaker Romanoff has gotten the credit he deserves. The position did not come with a manual and we really did not have the luxury of anticipation to prepare for our new role. Under his leadership, we did achieve results on the single most important issue facing the state. Education fared very well.

I think the Republicans have enough races to worry about holding, let alone taking, my race and my seat would be a poor tactical move. No matter how much some may dislike me, I don't think they are stupid in how they spend their money.

[Vladimir]

So, if Anne McGihon did not lie --
How can we tolerate an elected official who is so inattentive on such a critical vote?
You mock Republicans by questioning their intellect how can you be a hypocrite and defend McGihon -- you want to take the party in a progressive direction -- how do you do so by allowing someone to either lie or be ignorant with nary a word of complaint?

[Morgan]

P:

I didn't know what my first five bills were going to be when I was campaigning so I didn't list them. In fact I didn't even know that our deadline to introduce our 1st 5 bills would be BEFORE session even started. The HOAs were a surprise. I didn't campaign on it because I was unaware that there was a problem and the nature and extent of that problem until I had the vantage point of having walked (and learned) from the whole district.

I campaigned on health care and insurance reform. I ran bills on health care and insurance reform. No secret there.

Colorado's workers comp medical delivery system is the worst medical care in the state. (Ask anyone who's had to go through it). The only people who don't think there is a problem are people who have not had to live through it. Nowhere else do you have a state-mandated, no free-market choice monopoly coercing patients into the office of a biased insurance doc with total control over your job, your body, your treatment, your recovery or lack thereof... Even under auto, private health, Medicaid, sliding scale clinic a patient has some right to some say in who treats them. A doctor under this system has no accountability to their own patient, but rather a direct financial incentive to suck up the insurance company that selected them so they can continue to receive lucrative insurance contract benefits for their non-treatment of patients. Real people in the real working world are needlessly hurt.

I will tell anyone about my "agenda" anytime they want to know. Secrecy is not my style.

[Morgan]

P:

I didn't know what my first five bills were going to be when I was campaigning so I didn't list them. In fact I didn't even know that our deadline to introduce our 1st 5 bills would be BEFORE session even started. The HOAs were a surprise. I didn't campaign on it because I was unaware that there was a problem and the nature and extent of that problem until I had the vantage point of having walked (and learned) from the whole district.

I campaigned on health care and insurance reform. I ran bills on health care and insurance reform. No secret there.

Colorado's workers comp medical delivery system is the worst medical care in the state. (Ask anyone who's had to go through it). The only people who don't think there is a problem are people who have not had to live through it. Nowhere else do you have a state-mandated, no free-market choice monopoly coercing patients into the office of a biased insurance doc with total control over your job, your body, your treatment, your recovery or lack thereof... Even under auto, private health, Medicaid, sliding scale clinic a patient has some right to some say in who treats them. A doctor under this system has no accountability to their own patient, but rather a direct financial incentive to suck up the insurance company that selected them so they can continue to receive lucrative insurance contract benefits for their non-treatment of patients. Real people in the real working world are needlessly hurt.

I will tell anyone about my "agenda" anytime they want to know. Secrecy is not my style.

[Morgan]

Ed:

I do not know yet.