For Immediate Release
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Contact: Brad Bainum, email@example.com
MADISON — Despite criticism from Wisconsin medical professionals, Republican Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, in an interview this morning with WISN radio’s Jay Weber, yet again defended her votes against making insurance companies cover Wisconsinites’ oral chemotherapy treatments — the fourth time that Vukmir has defended her votes.
This morning, Vukmir pointedly refused to answer Weber when he asked her to explain the reason for her opposition to expanding oral chemotherapy coverage — twice ducking Weber’s question to that effect.
In the past, however, Vukmir has been much more forthcoming, openly admitting that she voted against oral chemotherapy coverage precisely because she didn’t want to burden her powerful insurance companies backers, even if it meant blocking sick Wisconsinites from getting the medicine they need, according to the Capital Times:
Vukmir was one of just two state senators who opposed [the bill]. She said at the time she voted against it because she opposed imposing mandates on insurers.
Here are some highlights, via the Capital Times:
- “A group of Baldwin supporters, which included health care professionals, gathered Wednesday at the state Capitol to criticize Vukmir for her 2014 vote in the state Senate against a bill that required insurers to cover oral chemotherapy. Vukmir is challenging Baldwin to serve in the U.S. Senate.”
- “‘As a nurse, I’m shocked a fellow nurse would vote against requiring insurance companies to cover oral chemotherapy. I just cannot condone this,’ said Amy Bevington, a Madison nurse.”
- “Jay A. Gold, a Madison preventative health specialist, said he thinks Vukmir’s argument that people with pre-existing conditions would still be covered if Obamacare is repealed is ‘a lot of bull.'”
- “‘There was no more important point in the ACA than to keep insurers from denying insurance to people because of pre-existing conditions,” Gold said. ‘For Leah Vukmir to say that she’s going to maintain coverage for pre-existing conditions by eliminating the very thing that gave them coverage, it makes no sense.'”