the crossover where you have to have the bills oh if you want to take enough in the senate so there's a fury of activity after all the bills come out of committee just before that magical crossover date and then always right after that is when the money builds come out of committee so this is the week that it's a little slower and in the house side of it it's a little slower and so it you know feels like a little break actually and so obviously there's a lot there's a lot of talk about that way that the you in the up but i don't have anything else i feel relaxed for  for a week we had a tough the last week we were we were really out straight my committee to to finish up a couple bills and then there was a busy week after you do what i mean to take up all the built and then the the week of the money bill so and today was the last money bill which was the capital bill and it sailed through that to use a fish filled legislative term there was minimal for the last two years and you know this is basically taking out your mortgage rate i mean this is for building construction for that sort of thing and basically money that's good for but they can they've gone to a two year capital bill which makes infinitely more sense to you know to look a little further down the line that's just for the next fiscal year for these kind of projects and i think that i think that really helps helps the process and medical society is on this i was not happy with them back in zero three or whatever when they you know i felt like they were taking leadership but as you get a little closer to this and just crossed how emotional the our discussion the argument is that if that if the medical society keeps on either way for so many people this is such an important gut wrenching issue that if they came down one way they were those members here is looking down the other side they would lose members here and you know their job is to try to represent us so i appreciate their you know their position of we're not taking the we don't want legislation one way or the other on this subject but you know  minority would be willing to participate and some of the comments that came with a really interesting and i you know i'd certainly if this bill does come up on the house side i would try to get some of this in but one of them was look the medical school to assist with death and i don't want to be painted with that so put a special certification on people's licenses that would go along with extra  continuing medical education training and habit of care pain management stuff and you know that but if you want to participate you would have to have a special certification for your license just like if you want to prescribe narcotics you need can't just do that by having them your medical license you've got to have a d e a certificate this would be this would be sort of similar to that and i really hope that that you know if it comes up that that that people will accept that i think they think i'm wasting your time i agree i mean i think i don't think the house leadership is interested in this kind of emotional pain for the visit of the bait if the senate isn't going to go along with the original language and so you know i don't know how it's going to play together i really don't you have a feeling well it is true that the house leadership would like to ensure that there are the sixteen votes in the in the senate and you know it is important that if you want to passed that you know you if you're a favor you want to pass them then you want the senate to agree with the version of the bill that comes back from the house because it's not good i can prove we can pretty well guarantee you that the house is not going to agree with the senate language standing all right but since he is in addition to so if it goes to a conference committee i mean that's basically what killed the would kill it because we know how the conference committee gets created and who would be on it and how they feel so so unless unless there can be you know the  sixteen votes to you know which is one over half of the of those of the senators that they don't want to take it up now it there's no way of knowing that because you don't know that until the senators vote and you know when the last time there was a little surprise right at the end but right now the house human services committee where the bill currently hangs on the wall which is the committee i'm on is scheduled to take it up starting sometime next week subject to change of course it's not on the agenda yet this is just you know the feel and we are going to take probably about two weeks of testimony and send it to the judiciary committee and they are going to take a week or so of testimony that's the general feel of it so in other words and all of that timing is only based on you know the date that the that this speaker wants everything to be done so you there is time to do so but anyway that's just a broad feeling so if you're really interested  you just need to watch the calendar or the agenda for the human services committee you know which is posted online and it comes up usually either late friday afternoon or early or sometime monday but it does change regularly during the week so right now it's not on the agenda so that's that's all i know we've talked about what we're doing next week and this is definitely not on tuesday and the rest of the agenda hasn't been been fixed but that this is not uncommon for agendas to be really in flux specially this time of the year because we have senate bills we want to finish there's a couple house built we want to take up and so just trying to get those and so that's that's where it stands you know speculation who knows who knows i'm almost positive it will come out of the human services committee the way it is now they'll be an amendment exactly what that is we have it those of us who favor it have been talking about what what to do for amendment if if we go back to the original or make some other changes or stuff so you know and it went into went to introduce it  and if you you know it doesn't take rocket science to to look at my committee and to committee vote and you know i mean everyone on my committee has a position buying in the small group market so employers less than fifty so they're the only people you know in some of the state program people on catamount health people want to be happy if those people the only ones secretary yes he's the one that's going to deal with this he's the one that was dealing with this well sort of the numbers of the numbers that i saw online i was assured whether those actuary value means when the actuary sits down produce out how much the plans need to charge people they decide they look at a percentage of over the whole population if it's actually value is sixty percent meaning the insurers will pay sixty percent of the the cost and the insured will pay forty percent of the cost that would be an actuarial value of sixty percent and that would be a bronze plan so if a plan would be seventy percent so across the whole population who buys those plans seventy percent of the the cost of the care would be by the me and thirty percent by the person and then you know eighty twenty for the golden ninety ten for the platinum plan so there are there are you know you know there's a base where the percentage of co pay yeah across but it's not for any one individual because you don't know how many services one individual is going to use it's across the whole population  twenty seventeen if this i hate the word single payer system ever happens i don't believe it can but if that ever happens that's that's really where we're talking about this kind of this kind of thing so submissions for the rates are already pretty sure as a couple you know the the insurers have their their panels they have their contracts you know with docs and all that so so none of that's going to change at this point so so people the earliest anything like this would be even the issue is twenty seventeen because the meantime you know you're still in i'm still getting my insurance from you know blue cross or vermont health partnership or m v p he whoever whoever i'm getting my shuras from and they have their contracts with the with the providers that pay the providers whatever so so there is a bill the purpose of browning put on the wall to talk about this stuff because it is an important thing to me that it's not simple and straightforward it's it's partially about what we call concierge practices so the concierge practice the doc says i'm going to take really good care of you and you've got to pay me twelve hundred dollars just to be part of my practice ok and so and that's aside from any insurance reimbursement that's aside from any decision about whether he's accepting your insurance or whether he or she is accepting your insurance or whether he's you're paying them and then billing your insurance yourself to siphon all that so it's partially about this you know i mean that's there's there's there's some messiness there in terms of two tiered levels of health care and those sort of things that the bill you're quire some some testimony some thought so what this was was an amendment to a bill on the floor for cable interest and it was maybe marginally germane to it but but when you do an amendment to the bill on the floor untoward things that might happen with it and you know i mean the sad thing is that we're going to talk about that there in our committee we're going to talk about it this year in our committee and but to to throw this on the floor is absolutely the wrong way to try and make policy i mean you don't want to make a policy without serious discussion about especially on something this important and that might have whole lot of unintended consequences but that's that's that was the issue and it was you know it is it should have been soundly defeated on the floor because the process was just wrong for the issue telling people which doctor they needed to see in my care board doesn't have the authority to see if you really need to be cautious about this and then and then there was a psychiatry's yesterday with a press conference at the state house he said with this absolutely amazing statement that two weeks ago the house announced its  plan to get rid of private practice in vermont which is just ludicrous and it's not remotely accurate and so there you know there's the problem there's been a perfectly about this and talking to the docs who were at that afterwards when they said well we need we need specific legislation statutory language to say that they're not going to get rid of private private practice well they don't into private practice you know you get out of residency and to find out that medicare sets the upper limit of what i can charge for any services whether no not from medicare from any service i cannot charge more than usual and customary that they set the upper limit of what i can charge for services that aren't covered by medicare and then most people don't realize that that there's already a governmental organization you're all just for some reason or like the canary in the the mine there are there are the first ones and they have a significant number of you all just have left the state already it's going to be the first big problem is going to be specialists more than primary care folks because as you know as the system isn't visioned in at the end of the health care reform it's going to be much more focused on primary care and in things like the blueprint for health we've wards primary care more than traditionally they have been financially rewarded but you know i mean i brought this up back in whenever we passed that forty eight that this could be a significant problem you know some people don't believe it and you know my opinion we're going to have to and certainly business people don't like uncertainty you know i mean and there's no way to get around the and certainly that's coming with this concept of two thousand and seventeen in the green mountain care but there's no way around that we can at least do a couple things and we've been talking about it actually today one of the things that makes docs crazy is prior authorizations where if you're going to have a certain kind of extra c t scan or an m r i or a certain drug you know if you're on this list of one hundred fifty drugs you have to get prior authorization from the insurance company for a person to get their prescription or get their test or to get their surgery that sort of thing makes docs crazy of primary care docs say they spend on average eleven hours a week dealing with this i mean that's a lot of time and you know so we're talking about ok how can we fix that i mean do we do we just tell insurers in vermont you are going to do this you know you're not going to be able to to require these things or you know but we have to do that we have to do something about the ministry of burden we have to do something about the  tort system the malpractise stuff i mean we have to do some things to offset the uncertainty that's out there about what the financial future and i'll shut up with them and just say one more thing you know i have been skeptical from the beginning about this three mountain care and you know in their financing plan which didn't actually include a financing plan but i mean the only way they could could actually save any money was by paying providers at a rate of medicare plus five percent and just to give you a perspective on that we have these things called federally qualified health centers and the federally qualified health centers you know or are sort of a safety net thing and they have to take any patients who comes in there reimbursed differently their reimbursed the cost of the cost they're reimbursed at his medicare plus twenty five percent rate and so these folks think that they're going to pay all providers medicare plus five percent it just can't happen and you cannot the administrative savings they projected just way over cold and you know they they can't they won't have a workforce if they insist on paying medicare plus five percent i mean so i'm real skeptical we ever get to that that kind of yeah the same frame you're talking about nationalists leaving the state is that because reimbursement is not covering enough of their expenses because most of them have such high malpractise insurance rates that they have to pay you know the malpractise rates are much higher in other places reimbursements are also higher in other places i mean you know same hysterectomies if i did it here across the lake in plattsburgh makes a substantially higher payment over in new york than it does here so so most docs in most that is so i think to you know trade some make it economic trade off for being here you know the it's worth living here to make it even though you make a little less money it is worth it well there you know there are a number of things that that play into it but you know it's just a contracts that that you know the dog when you're to go shooting with a insure services are a lot lower here them most of the world you know i mean we're in a fee for service world still so if you know do fewer c t scans and you're a radiologist you make less money sure whether they let people go into the exchanges individual if people go into these changes in the business up to four hundred percent of federal poverty level you get federal subsidies for year for your premiums so that's about ninety four thousand dollars next year so if your employees the bulk of your employees make less than ninety four thousand dollars they're better off corning as individuals than through the business because if you going through the business they don't get those subsidies are only for people going individually and those federal subsidies coming in and up to two hundred fifty percent of poverty level they also get help with your out of pocket expenses federal money and there's going to be a certain level of additional state subsidy on these things to up to two hundred fifty three and a percent but but the the bottom line is that businesses are going to have have to you know look carefully what's there about what actually makes sense for them you know one of the things that was in the tax tax bill that we passed is that there is now an assessment on small businesses who don't provide health care most people associate with catamount it does a little more than that but that goes away you know that's a fifteen million dollar reduction in the charges to small  businesses that goes away twenty fifty but you know when we convert to a different system there's going to be winners there's going to be losers and end of the people particularly who will be losers or people who are in those plans like you were which is his sociate implant because the association plans you know we we talk about having having a community rating but it's it's  it's much more subtle than that you know the chamber of commerce they have multiple people who join but they were their own community so they were graded on their personal experience of the people they insured and if that was a largely healthy group which it is and you would expect that to be their rate were much lower than usual than most people coming into the change all those rates are going to be merged people who are buying individually their rates were very high they're going to come down you know but the association market they always have a choice to either which cheaper from trying to buy own experience or buying it on the open market and some of these associations the links of cities and towns as they were first got older all of a sudden it was not beneficial to buy it on their own experience anymore they dropped out of the association market because it was going to cost them more because their experience rating you know they had an older workforce and it was going to cost them more to stay as their own rating rabun jump into the general who you know so some folks like that will be winners  in this but yeah they're definitely winners and losers and you know the associate people in those who are self rated on their own health experience that they will take take a hit  another example dealer dot com bought there did their insurance on their own also they had a very young workforce when they started you know all their were just out of college very young most of them single so they were providing insurance for single young healthy people and their from year to year they were noticing very little increases in their in their rates for for for their group and all of a sudden after about i don't know five seven years or something being in business they noticed these little blips going up and when the owner was telling me about this i said so you had people starting to get married and have kids right and he said exactly so the insurance that they were buying even though they had it was the same workforce it wasn't so much that they were getting older i mean they're still young but you know that they were having family coverage and all of a sudden you know that that's what caused the blip and it you know it was very nice when they had all this one this one level of people but  those kind of things happen all the time and one of the things with the exchange was to try and and get more people into it so you don't have these blips so that it's more leveled out across the whole population just one state to me and the reason is that twenty percent of revenues are coming from out of state we got one hundred six thousand people who get their insurance from companies who are self insured we don't regulate they're regulated by federal but federal law not the state law and so we have a big chunk of the revenues that are going to be part of this single payer system and therefore that's why the in the straightest savings are with a mission talked about illogical didn't make any sense you could not come up with anything that was as bad as what we have right now it's just it's it's just you know there's no system is to it at all and it's you know the hospital from the hospitals would go through and figure out ok what payer mix do i have for it and each procedure so if if medicare is the only person who pays us for this procedure no sense an increase in those rates with medicare is going to pay us what medicare pays us if medicaid is the only payer no such an increase in those rates because medicaid going to pay is what they pay us but if we have a lot of people have private insurance having this procedure we will bump it up ten percent will bump that up one hundred percent still with averages out to ten percent when all said and done but you know so if you have a different payer mix at this hospital this hospital what makes sense to bump up is different here than it is here and you know they're smart enough to figure that out of that and that's what these absolutely unbelievable variations of how much the same exact same procedure costs it to charge for the exact and overwhelming support in the house we don't mix that whole lot of changes in the senate although the size of the bill you know i suspect that there will be some changes you know when it comes back to the house  but we are also working you also know it's not just that you take a bill in the senate the senate and forget about it you go down and follow and you talk to the senators and work with them so that if they have questions about it so they just you know it so so that you follow it all the way through the procedures so i would say that's that the main one out of human services if  was each one of seven it's kind of be just it's you know he'd plus pages fifty plus sections and most of pretty technical stuff in terms of preparing for the we don't keep anybody drinking yeah right i think you know it's just like cigarettes almost exactly like the cigarette tax and you know there's the whole the whole issue of we call price  one to two soldiers a day gives you a twenty six percent increased chance of getting diabetes that's that's amazing and we've got we've got teenage boys drinking average of one hundred gallons a year year i mean you know it's so but yeah i do think that it will it will reduce if the tax is big having the sales tax to it now that's just that's just a money issue that's pyramid and that the thing that works the best is the economic stuff at the top but the thing that is least the factor is the education and it's just that's just the reality of the way it is i mean just like cigarettes how many i mean you know in the house bill that it was going up fifty percent i said fifty cents and i had a chat with here president pro tem today i think i think that may be substantially higher when it comes out of  senate his cigarette tax is one of those that there was two really reasons for raising the cigarette tax and and which is similar to the sugar sweetened beverage tax but it's one one is to raise revenue and the other is to discourage people from smoking or keep them from to stop smoking or not usually not start smoking so it doesn't matter how much  raise the tax you're going to collect some revenue obviously though the more you raise it the more revenue you that but as far as the other reason that you do it to hopefully keep people from not starting to small and there were talking about young people mostly or to get people to go through the effort again to stop smoking you have to you have to raise it a certain amount and that i mean there's been all kinds of studies of of what the amount is what percentage you have to raise it or on how much or how much compared to other places that you can buy cigarettes and all those kind of things and the the last time we a cigarette taxes before this year the decision was made to take the amount that we should raise it and divide a five four and raise it for four years or divide it by two and raise it for two years which generated the amount of revenue you wanted but it didn't have the if it wasn't enough to have the effect to have people stop smoking or not start smoking and that's exactly because of jump ball it wasn't a big enough jump because even though it may be active for example fifty cents is you know it is a jump that is not the jump that people see when they're dishing out the money for a habit forming thing and so so basically this year the fifty percent a fifty cent tax increase was was entirely for revenue which is to me is the complete wrong reason for doing it i mean if you're going to do it you need to do it so that you get some help through reason out of it you get something that helps people and that has to be well you don't know what has to be i mean if it's definitely a percentage but it has to be a large enough for so nation so we're at the point of the price of cigarettes now that it has to be at least a dollar or more in order to make that tax is that people will look at it and you don't have to raise it as much because they haven't dealt you have an alternative all you have to do is go from this case to this case you get the same type of beverage but you know it's the same thing if it it no it depends if you're going into the convenience store buying one bottle of coke versus one bottle of diet coke you know you don't think about the extra twenty cents or something but if you're going down and buying enough for your party you know then that is when you look at them but then to your question you know again there are two ways to do the way that ways and means committee chose was just put a sales tax on it that's clearly just about on this kind of thing in the penny an ounce was where they settled with the economists know that that would give you a substantial reduction in the consumption but he's got to be that sort of payouts level to port to have the health benefits well it's it's looking good in in connecticut are looking good in colorado so you need to go through a sea state i guess because i mean so so what i understand is that it will take some testimony on but nothing's really that almost that the vast majority of people can agree on that it's a shame that we can't give leadership to go forward with my hope was that we could get a bill which is very similar to the bill we have now that had many different parts to it so that you could you were able to bring everyone together to discuss it and come to an agreement on some parts some parts you absolutely will never come to agreement on and then the remaining parts is this sort of you want to use the word compromise or agree to but not like and all of that but unless unless you have something that will allow the bill to be to be taken up and and the discussion started you know it's not going to happen and it it appears that you know that side has won out this year it's unfortunate i mean i think all people don't appreciate some of that the way the laws are in vermont that are hard troubling here on this but it got some serious resistance because people said well it doesn't say if i'm protecting myself self defense there's no specific wording in there but so that's what there's lots of self defense is that you have the right to defend yourself but you know so so and there's just silly things like that i mean things like you know fire law enforcement comes upon somebody who has a gun and shooting her a convicted felon or whatever from one state law does not allow them to confiscate the gun they have to call that the you know the a t f already f b i to confiscate the gun from the felt one who's walking around with it you know is that that's the state of i don't care we have a new town in vermont nothing's going to happen you know we had something kind of it was done in essex partly no kids were in the building but you know you haven't been that long but so it's sort of brings up the soap political thing about you know how does it work how can you get how can you get things done and you know all of you have contacted me and george with e mails or comments or even coming here you know with your point of view and i think you know if if we agree with you you know we tell you that and we take that back to montpelier and if it's in our committee we discuss it if it's not in our committee we talk to people in other committees but there's still that the you know there's more than just the the getting it off the wall in a committee because the first number one you have to convince the chair to take it off the wall because the chair is the person that ultimately decides what what is going to be taken up now that doesn't mean to say that the chair doesn't talk to the other committee members of this you know it's not of agreement but the ultimate thing so sometimes you know there has to be a an effort to to contact the chair and i think chip if if i get a email from somebody who lives down in since that's the first town south of here that i thought of way down there you know it doesn't have the same impact as if one of you send it to me that number one i recognize the name number or you know the address the town know that you're a constituent but chairs look at it a little different because they are representing the whole committee in the same holds true for the speaker in the house the speaker does  speaker holds meetings with regular regular people like us who are just you know committee members they hold meetings with the chair and that they do all kinds of discussion not just of what bill comes up but when it should come up and and how we can get certain bills through the process and it's not like when it's a full time legislature where you know you have these bills and they can come up any time during the year i mean we have this four month window this four month session a five month session but we know that if a bill doesn't come up in the first three months of the house getting it pass a year is questionable it's always questionable but i mean in order to ensure that the senate takes it up that it has to be done before cross over that now that's not to say the things that we're working on now will go to the senate and get passed i mean there's exceptions at every single thing that happens in politics but that's the general the general thing so it is frustrating and this is just as frustrating for us when we talk to our colleagues to the chairs to the speaker as it is when you when you're frustrated with your arguments but we love to hear it because it's just you know gives us the ammunition as you say th hands you know i don't think you heard us say that i think i think he's opposed to having any serious legislation move forward this year in the house on this yea one of their issues but it's not their only issue people who oppose gun control in large part it is the whole issue right so so the political calculation if you want to make you know these people work very hard to get you know i'm elected the next time we're the people who support and control it's just kind of one of the things that they're that they're thinking about it's not fighting issue for very many people on that side it's so you know from a political point of view yeah maybe the majority on that particular issue but that's not what's going to fire them out of your  the hot issue that i'm sure all of you you know may not be the number one in your minds but it's the gasoline tax increase i mean we hear you hear a lot about that as a lot it's in the paper a lot there's a lot of people that say absolutely no i get it george gets the same ones i'm sure many many e mails that say nothing much more than no new gas tax or some variation of that no you know in that number of words and this isn't the only thing i'm not i'm only using gas tax an example here we get that on other issues too however when i sit down and talk with people i typically end and gas tax comes up the people i talk to one on one will say but if we don't race gas tax what's going to happen to the condition of the roads or how are we going to maintain the roads is there another way or is all of the gas tax used to maintain the roads all variations of that but the discussion gets around to the fact that if it's a choice between raising the gas tax or having the roads go to pot more than they are now i will accept the gas tax raise so it's a different type of discussion for when you just come out and say i don't want the gas tax go up because i don't want to pay another net call or nine cents or whatever and that that comes to light if you look for example this year on the poll he did have a question that basically said children bought raise the gas tax i think it was just simple straightforward and if you look at it was about forty four percent yes forty four percent no in that range it was it was under fifty percent so but of forty five i don't know and then the rest we're not sure and when the state w  large number of people that said yes but also a very large number that said not sure what they were that last column is not sure as i think how he puts it on there so the point is is that is very easy to say to to go to a website and click and send a note to your representative says no new gas tax or no no no no gas tax increase or a variation on that  but when you have a when you do the discussion about why we need it or why it's being proposed you know that the conversation gets around so my point is  is what is you know if you're only looking up polls if you're only looking at the number of e mails you get the number telephone calls you get it can be it's sometimes skewed i think from what the true feelings are that's not to say that i we don't consider all of those because we do and typically when a poll comes out a statewide poll comes out on  topic i try to sort of compare that to what my constituents tell me you know is it in the same is it in the same is it about you know if it was three quarters in one quarters is that what the a variety of ways that you can go to get started with that but typically what you'll do is you'll take the idea you put it down and you're sent it to legislative counsel who writes bills i mean that's their job you know the lawyers that do that and then you review it and you go back over it with them and in this case if it was if it was something that i knew well enough that i would know the difference between the wording i would question them as to why they used it that way and sort of another way ok so george would have thought that i probably would have caught that so that's step one and in doing the bill another way is that there are there are people that want bill to introduce let's face it they want bill introduced and there's there's organizations that have lawyers that know how to write legal ladies and they will come to you and ask you if you'll sponsor this bill now the reason they come to you is because you have an interest in that area i mean i get requests all the time to sponsor bills dealing with smoke i used that was just the other day i knows i don't sponsor bills dealing with smoking sponsored bills dealing with not smoking that it just dawned on me the other day that i said i kept saying that right so so this is for example the department of health to be with with language that they want t sponsor stuff i'm interested in i read the bill i didn't go through it in detail for that stuff because they had already had a lawyer do it i will send it to another lawyer and when you take up a bill i mean those kind of things are corrected that time there are other people who actually call you up and say bill i think there ought to be a law against obama will you introduce and typically i say no but sometimes you do say yes for a person because for whatever reason either that you think it is and so you will introduce a bill by request constituent and this happened this happens frequently that you will do i think i have done one or two that way is in my nine years it has been this but some people some people do that so so there are a variety of one other way and one other way that end up as a sponsor of a bill that somebody else has done the drafting of it and then they go around with a sheet and say do you want to help sponsor this bill at that point you don't really have the option of altering it really didn't you say on balance yes or no and you know truthfully i look at those as conversation starters starters none of them come out the way they start right so so that kind of thing always gets changed and you know i just experience for bill i put in pretty much every year a bill for the dental society you know they come to me and say well yes we sponsor this and you know i sit down with legislative counsel and the represented from the dental society we come up with the you know the wording of what's the what it's going to cover you know that happens that happens all the time going back to this lyme disease an aerobatic bill why why are you legislating medical practice i don't especially like this it is history time disease because i actually have a friend who had got lyme disease in this state years ago and they refused to  him for it because the health department claimed there was no rock lyme disease in the state and he had never left the state any finally forced his doctor to send this test out of state so that he get treated for what he had there i mean you know we have over five hundred cases last year six hundred over six hundred a year before i mean lyme disease here my disease is real we should be legislating how you treat it i don't believe the bill that on the walls going anywhere there's my diseases it's really interesting there's there's there's there's a focal point for a valley between infectious disease folks and people you know the society of infectious disease doctors ten thousand people who study infectious disease treat infectious disease scientists physicians ten thousand in this country who have guidelines five of which are sadly opposed to what's in this bill and then on the other hand there are other groups that advocate groups who believe strongly in this hand that i mean the point of the current bill is it actually doesn't do a thing that he couldn't already do i mean which is why it's probably not you know we disposed of there every year since since i've been there in fact in zero nine i was one of my first year there i was one of the sponsors of it and i did some research was one of these or somebody said hey joe are you interested in being a too you know it's too late but you know i mean it's a really active debate about you know when the science says one thing and when there's a group of really is things change awfully fast in the medical world slowly in the legislative work and so but then again you know this is a this is a bill that has a group behind it who's very active and they have a group of legislators who believe in it and so and they're pushing it that that's why they existed but that's not why the group exists but i mean this is this is the legislation why the bills on the and there's also you know you look at bills if you look at bills i don't know what is that there is a sponsor of the bill and then as george said you get co sponsors to sign on to it and there's always this debate you don't do you need lots of co sponsors you need a couple co sponsors you need any co sponsors and the answer is it basically doesn't matter that is now what brings gets a bill off the wall per se now if you do have a lot of sponsors it will certainly get a second look faster than if it doesn't have a lot of small interest but i have introduced bills and had not any co sponsor and submitted it because it come to my committee it's got you know i've got taken off the wall immediately because everyone in the committee agreed with it and so you know that's i could have i could have gotten a lot of c sponsors but it got taken up by just me introducing it likewise george and i both know there are many bills that we there introducer cosigned and you know and never get the light of day could tell you why i signed on to that one because that bill has been introduced this is either the second or third by any i'm in a row and it's introduced by a member of my committee who i work very closely with and you know when you have good working relationships with people and they explain it to the bill to you you know you can you are more likely to sign on than if you know nothing about it but we also did take testimony for a couple hours three hours not last year two years ago or something and which was my real first introduction to to it and when she introduced the bill this year and asked me to sign on to what i ask  specific questions about the testimony we had heard why did i remember this well you remember things you know when you have a good connection to and have a good connection with passerby she you know i've worked with ever since i've been the legislature and stuff  and i know that this is this is very dear to her heart i mean that she's really behind this so so that one of the reasons remember something so that's why i signed onto it signing on to it in that that it did in this thing was to help her in getting the bill taken up so we could hear so so we could make a decision of whether it's the right thing or not and i feel that's the best way to make a decision not to make the decision wallace hanging on the wall but make the decision after you hear testimony both sides of it and and have a discussion on it and so i was willing to support her and having t patients it sounds like a pretty good idea to the way it was presented to me sounded like it like something that we should discuss yes we have a we do have a problem in terms of especially our medicaid population  getting dental coverage for these folks and although most dentists and vermont see medicaid patients they don't see very many in a lot of cases and you know there's been some addressing that through the federally qualified centers some of them are getting dentist but we still and you know less so in this part of the state than many others there's a shortage and there's a problem and i think you know people people try to think about ways to that's the right model to expand the workforce but you know but it's that you know as i says those are often the starting point for discussion and nothing comes out the way it starts out i think ends up the way it you have to pick up the extra the extra cost that medicaid is not pay it really is a big issue you know the you know they made a very small downpayment this year something raised three percent which would you know across across the whole area which would include dental coverage but you know this there's still so far behind that another reason why i just think this two thousand seventeen thing is overly optimistic because it visions a single rate whether it's of medicaid patient very privately insured patients you know there's an awful lot of ground to get made up and you know the discussion about how much we actually pay for these programs i mean it's a hidden tax very doubting your health care premiums but you know or if you buy dental insurance it would be in those i guess but put it this is kind of a hidden tax right now in the open we really need to have a discussion about how much we spend on those programs but we don't because it's considered so shapes coming down in the case it's almost eight o'clock last question another numbers opposing a moratorium my guess is that going to make it out of the house this year which means that it will be around for next year  and that the discussion well the you know the discussion that went on in the senate this year which has been quite long i think we will see more of that in the house next year and what do i base that on i don't  that senator do outflux collects them all and representatives and senators take them to their town meetings and pick them up and sometimes they just bring them back and put them in a box for senator doyle and his students count on george and i take the view that we like to know what our towns think consoled george takes the ones from jericho and tally some and i take the one in underhill and we put them on our website so you can you can see what those are and those were put on the week of town meeting the posted by friday i think and then one when senator doyle releases they're on there so you can compare so my website there's three columns for underhill jericho and and the state as a whole and you can say pawlenty how many people filled it out you know it is nonscientific i certainly know that everyone knows that however it is a fairly good indication because it's so well known and people look for it and and ask for it and i remember one year i i got down to town meeting  got down to two for about quarter after seven and sherry town thirty i've had all kinds of people ask you where the oil surveys are already you know people that came in to vote at seven o'clock so only if the local people have called them up now i do know some representatives have put they've they come up with five or so type questions and print them on the backside of the oil and then they call them up and then they called up the town ones and you know there's a whole bunch of variations but i think i just think it's interesting it's always interesting to look compare jarkko in underhill they're usually very close but there's always one question which i can't remember what it is this year but us about you know eighty eight percent difference in the in the number yeses which i think it's a thing that surprised me with that is five years now is remarkably consistent how many people throughout the circle yes it's remarkably consistent always get between one hundred and fifty five and one hundred seventy five years not you know i wonder whether it's the same people every year you know