A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
About
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here
Feedburner

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Donate
Become a sponsor and support our work.

 MichLib sponsor list

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

Hold Insurance Companies Accountable

by: Representative Barb Byrum

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 13:25:16 PM EDT


(Always a pleasure to have you here, Rep. Byrum! - promoted by ScottyUrb)

In an instant, Kecia Milliner's life changed forever. She watched helplessly as a speeding car struck her 5-year-old daughter, dragging her to the next driveway and leaving her clinging for life.

As the doctors worked, they found that in addition to the broken legs, bumps and bruises, Kecia's daughter had suffered a traumatic brain injury that would require years of expensive treatment to help her reach her full potential.

Like so many of us who suffer a tragedy, Kecia called her insurance company, and was told that they would honor their promise and pay for her daughter's medical bills.  With a huge weight off her mind, Kecia began to prepare for the work of putting her family's life back together.

But unfortunately, this story does not have a happy ending because what the insurance company said and what the insurance company did were two different things.  They delayed benefits saying Kecia's daughter had to see multiple doctors who had to recommend the same treatment before they would even pay the minimum benefits.  In the end, they stopped paying entirely.
Representative Barb Byrum :: Hold Insurance Companies Accountable

Insurance companies do this all the time.  By postponing or rejecting these legitimate property and auto claims, they can fatten their wallets by holding on to our money as long as they can.  That way, they make money off the interest.  In fact, many news outlets have reported that some insurance companies even reward their workers that deny the most claims with bonuses and promotions.

Their goal is to get consumers to accept far less than they are owed, while dragging out the process as long as possible.  Even if they finally agree to pay, it could end up taking years - all while consumers are on the hook for their bills.  Many end up having to fight an expensive legal battle just to get the bare minimum of what they are owed.  The financial strain ends up tearing many families apart, forcing them into bankruptcy and foreclosures.

And if insurance companies are found to have wrongfully denied a claim here in Michigan?  They receive a fine of $500.  That's right - Michigan drivers who pay the Driver's Responsibility Fee end up paying more than the insurance company that has turned a family's entire world upside down.

That is why my colleagues and I recently introduced a package of bills in the Michigan House that will crack down on these unscrupulous tactics and install protections for Michigan consumers.  It creates several powerful deterrents for insurance companies, including a $1 million fine for unfair practices and other penalties for wrongfully denied claims.  We would also put unscrupulous CEOs behind bars if they promote a culture of wrongful denial. When we make a promise, we are expected to keep it, and insurance companies should be no different.

Within hours of these bills being introduced, the insurance companies began their pushback.  They have hired expensive lobbyists to put the pressure on lawmakers, and they have even started running automated robocalls in my district attacking me for backing the plan.

Of course, the insurance companies that have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear from this legislation.  It is the companies that rely on wrongful denial of claims to prop up their huge profit margins that are running scared and gearing up to fight this plan.

But I am not going to be intimidated by high-priced pressure tactics from the insurance industry.  Kecia Milliner does not have the special interest money to hire an army of lobbyists.  She is depending on us to do what is right.  She is counting on us to be her voice.

It is time we fixed this culture of wrongful denial that places insurance company profits over the well-being of Michigan families.  I encourage you to join the fight and help hold insurance companies accountable.  Visit www.stopinsurancedenial.com to sign a petition and tell your story. 

 
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Hold Insurance Companies Accountable | 30 comments
Maybe you should tell Bart Stupak this story (4.00 / 1)
as he is one of several House Blue Dogs holding up health care reform...apparently because he's annoyed that he didn't get his way on abortion in DC...

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): Serving alongside Ross on the Energy and Commerce Committee are six other Blue Dogs--including Reps. Bart Gordon (D-TX), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Barrow (D-GA), Baron Hill (D-IN), and Zack Space (D-OH). Stupak, though, has been an unusually vocal critic of the health care reform process. For him, the key seems to be abortion--specifically, he's seeking to assure that the House health care bill contains a provision ban the use of federal funds for abortion. Stupak recently lost a bid to ban federal funds for abortion in the District of Columbia, and at least part of his intransigence on health care appears to be rooted in frustrations stemming from that defeat.

With friends like these!

I don't blame the Republicans...they are nuts and shoved to the side.

It's Democrats like Stupak that are undermining the Democratic agenda...an agenda that the public voted for and wants...

When will Democrats get their spines back...too many of them think it's 1994.

God damn it (0.00 / 0)
I really, really like Bart Stupak on environmental issues.  Even when I disagree with his position, I wind up respecting it.  But, this is just damned aggravating.  I mean, I can understand the pro-Life position, but there is no reason why abortion should be used to hold up health care reform.  It's just plain stupid.

Michigan is responsible for another one ... Dale Kildee.

Cap-and-trade would hit Michigan harder than other states because we stupidly refuse to shift away from fossil fuel energy; likewise, we stand to benefit greater from health care reform.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Support Stupak (0.00 / 0)
Are we talking medically necessary abortion here or elective abortion?  

I can accept using federal funds paying for a public health care obtion that includes medically necessary abortions along with standard OBGYN care.  But expecting taxpayers to foot the bill for someone seeking to obtain an elective abortion makes no sense.  Nor should a public health care option be paying for Viagra and similar drugs or for fertility issues.  I support a universal public option for medically neccessary health care and for preventative health care including contraception.  But not for non-medically necessary elective health care options.

I don't see Stupak as the one holding this up.  The hold up is coming from those people who refuse to make a common sense compromise on things like this.  A November 2008 Zogby poll showed that 71% of Americans do not support including elective abortion in a public health care option.  Stupak is clearly within the mainstream on this issue.

[ Parent ]
So what? (4.00 / 2)
The fact that abortion might be holding up substantive progress on health care reform is once again evidence that Lansing and Washington D.C. view everything, everything, first through the prism of incredible stupidity.  People want health care reform; nobody gives a shit about abortion.  It's something that affects such a small percentage of people that it can be argued over later.

Among the Trees
[ Parent ]
Arguing about it later (0.00 / 0)
That's my point.  If health care reform with a public option needs to be done right now, and I agree it does, Congressional Democrats need to come up with a majority to pass it.  And if coverage for elective abortion is an issue that's keeping this from passing, take it out.  It can be argued over later.  It's that easy.  Not including coverage for elective abortion in a public health care option doesn't take away anyone's right to receive an elective abortion.

But instead, the pro-abortion crowd is trying to use health care reform to press for policy changes that they know they could never get through on their own.  There's been a consensus at the congressional level since the mid-1970s that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for elective abortion.  Now NARAL is attempting to re-open settled policy for a backdoor attempt to get something they know most Americans don't support.

Beating up Stupak on this issue is dumb.  I'd venture to guess that half or more of the Democrats in his northern district don't want coverage for elective abortion to be included.  And the Republicans in his district don't want a national health care plan to pass in the first place.  Stupak is both voting his district and voting his values.

[ Parent ]
Are you serious? (4.00 / 2)
Abortion is currently a legal medical procedure in this country.  The blame for holding up health care reform over federal funding for a currently legal medical procedure does not fall on the shoulders of those who wish to see federal funding for legal medical procedures, but those who have a different agenda.

Stop making this about the pro-Life agenda.  Let federal funding cover legal medical procedures and try to get those procedures you don't want to be legal made illegal through proper political means.  Don't hold up reform that would benefit all Americans to get hung up for your personal agenda that could be addressed through more appropriate means.

Seriously.  

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Are you serious? (0.00 / 0)
Penis and breast enlargement are legal medical procedures too.  Gender reassignment surgery is a legal medical procedure.  So are cosmetic face lifts.  Are you suggesting that a public health option should cover every legal medical procedure available?  And how does not covering the cost of an elective medical procedure make abortion illegal?  I take no issue with covering medically necessary abortions, but a public health care option should not be covering elective procedures.
[ Parent ]
Are you fucking kidding me? (4.00 / 1)
I don't just lack health insurance, but I'm also an honorably discharged veteran who contracted tuberculosis while on active duty, and who has a son with a chronic health problem.  I cannot believe that this country would hold up substantive health care reform that would potentially provide me and my child with future health care options because you fucking politicos object to federally funded abortions.

Stop acting like a bunch of god damn children.  Reform health care right now, when it's a very serious problem for all Americans, and worry about your God Damned pro-Life agenda afterwards.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
American people, not politicos (0.00 / 0)
Eric, it's the American people who don't want to be paying for elective abortions.  Stupak is simply representing the people who sent him to Washington D.C.  You're way out in left field on this issue.  The health care bills are being held up because there isn't a majority of votes in Congress to pass them in large part because the Congressional Democratic leadership insists on keeping coverage for elective abortion in the bill against the wishes of a large majority of American taxpayers.  Go out on the streets of Mt. Pleasant and ask people if elective abortion should be included in the health reform legislation.
[ Parent ]
Stop ... just stop (0.00 / 0)
Do you really think that someone who has watched their private insurance premiums go up $100 a month this year gives a shit about making sure that if something is done to address it that it's done to not include abortion?

Nobody gives a shit about abortion politics.  No one.  I don't need to go ask people on the street of Mt. Pleasant. I hear it all the time, not just from regular people but also from people who work in the health care industry.  Health care needs fixing in this country, abortion is so far a side issue to this that you can't even see it if you're standing on top.

Pull your head out of your ass.  Fix health care first.  Worry about your personal political agenda second.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
So then... (0.00 / 0)
Why insist that elective abortion be included in a national health care option when there has been a general consensus in Congress for the past 35 years not to use taxpayer funds to pay for it?  Stupak isn't the one attempting to insert new abortion policy into this national health care legislation.  You blame Stupak, in part, for holding this issue up because of the abortion issue.  But the proposal is actually being held up by those who insist on including new abortion policy in a national health care program when a wide majority of Americans don't want it in there.  Take it out and get this passed.  Have the debate about including abortion later.  If Congressional leadership were serious about getting a national health care proposal done this summer they wouldn't be trying to bog it down with unpopular favors for their lobbyist friends.
[ Parent ]
Well that argument is a little ridiculus (4.00 / 1)
it would take Congressional Dems 10 seconds to remove govt. funding for elective abortions from the bill.  It would get them a lot more votes and conservatives wouldn't be able to use the issue as ammunition later. And I'm pro-choice, for the record.
[ Parent ]
My objections really have nothing to do specifically with abortion (0.00 / 0)
I really don't care one way or the other.  What makes me angry is that of all the things that need fixing right now, we're arguing -- yet again -- about fucking wedge issue politics.

You're right.  Removing elective abortions would take about 10 seconds.  That's a fight to have another day.

Right now, you not only have millions of Americans with no medical insurance, but even more with private sector insurance that is becoming a greater financial burden on their household budgets.  You've got employers that can't get out from under the costs of employee health plans, you've got health care costs that are saddling state governments, local school districts, colleges and universities, and city and village governments.  You've got hospitals that have to jack up the prices for people with regular health insurance because of people with no insurance and who become bad debt, and also for Medicaid patients because reimbursements from state and federal governments have fallen to the point where those people are losses.

Nobody, Brady, gives a shit about elective abortion right now.  You can wave around all the polls in the world you want to, but it not anyone's priority -- anyone, that is, outside of the Beltway -- that substantive health care reform be held up over abortion.  The fact that it is, and that it's now become a blame game, is why everyone hates politicians.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Paybacks for lobbyists (0.00 / 0)
The attempt to include elective abortion coverage in health care reform even though it is opposed by most Americans is about Congressional Democratic leadership attempting to provide a payback to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily's List for campaign contributions in the last election.  Pelosi and Rham know that have no chance of advancing the agenda of these lobbyists openly in single issue legislation.  So they are attempting to pass it by attaching it to legislation that almost all Democrats and the majority of Americans favor.  Kudos to Stupak for standing up for open and transparent government.
[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.00 / 2)
if they spent more time on policy that prevented unwanted pregnancies to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem.

And why can't elective abortions be provided for? This taxpayer argument is bunk...

There are a large number of things I find objectionable that my tax money goes towards...like funding unnecessary wars to start with, or boondoggle missile defense systems...

A slippery slope that for some reason is allowed to the pro-life crowd.

Here's an idea, you don't like abortions, don't have one or offer to adopt one of these children.

How many pro-lifers are having kids left and right while children languish in foster care? The hypocrisy of the position knows no bounds...and it shouldn't preclude individuals from having access to services they deem necessary because of the anti-slut crowd.

[ Parent ]
who are you to judge? (0.00 / 0)
Who are you to judge whether an abortion is needed or "elective" (whatever that means)?  I don't need two legs to survive.  Does this mean that if one is or both are amputated, anything replacing that leg is elective in your book?

I'd rather pay for a woman to have an abortion than pay for her to raise a child.  Why are we always letting these anti-abortion people pull crap like this?  I refuse to call them "pro-life" any more because most of them, including Stupak (gun control and other issues), are far from it. Dale Kildee is a rare exception. Barney Frank is right: They believe life begins at procreation and ends at birth.


[ Parent ]
<<sigh>> (0.00 / 0)
"I'd rather pay for a woman to have an abortion than pay for her to raise a child."

Wow.  This coming from someone who I assume considers herself a progressive.  I hope you made this statement irrationally without first thinking what you were saying.

[ Parent ]
Not irrational (0.00 / 0)
I hope that to make your comments, you misunderstood mine. Those certainly are my sentiments. I didn't explain that I meant raising an unwanted child that the mother can't afford, though I thought it was apparent.  If you were reading that I'd urge or want to force an abortion for someone who'd need government assistance, you read the intent incorrectly.  If, with that understanding, you think I'm being irrational or illiberal, I wholeheartedly disagree.

[ Parent ]
Economic eugenics (0.00 / 0)
The mental and physical health of a woman on social assistance and the life of her unborn child should be worth no less than that of a woman with high quality employer provided health care and a good salary.

I didn't take your comment to mean that you would want to force an abortion.  I took it to mean that you'd prefer that a woman with taxpayer supported health care abort her pregnancy rather than pay to help her raise her child with social assistance.  This is economic eugenics.  It isn't even "pro-choice" on the part of the woman since you're the one making the value judgment about her pregnancy.  It certainly isn't a progressive attitude.  It's something I'd expect to hear out of a pro-abortion, Ayn Rand, type of Republican if one could still be found.

[ Parent ]
I agree with Stupak as well (4.00 / 1)
except when the abortion is medically necessary.  Elective abortions should not be covered by the U.S. government.
[ Parent ]
What is covered by private insurers (0.00 / 0)
should also be covered by the public option.

If you want to go down the road of determining tax payer public funding by moral objections, that road leads to madness.

Many of the so-called pro-lifers decry funding for those slutty women while supporting funding for bombs being dropped on babies, gas chambers and lack of monies for children.

Spare me the morality play!

[ Parent ]
Apologies to Rep. Byrum (4.00 / 1)
Apologies to Rep. Byrum that her thread on a very important topic was taken over by a non-related issue.  Thank you for all your hard work on this legislation, Rep. Byrum.  There is a lot of abuse in the insurance industry toward denying legitimate claims.  My one potential concern, and I'll admit that I haven't read the legislation, is that the new process could provide people making fraudulent claims with an easier opportunity to collect on them and drive up the cost of insurance for everyone else.
Petition signed (4.00 / 2)
I hope to see a greater focus on consumer protection.  Having two parents who are 18 years into retirement (80 & 75), I'm becoming more and more aware of the nonsense companies can pull.

I'd hope that this legislation could apply to Social Security as well.  On NPR, I've heard horror stories of people having to spend years (not to mention $$$ for attorneys) getting disability benefit from Social Security and understand that delays are a part of their tactic also.

Deep breath.... (4.00 / 1)
So, one of our Representatives took time out of her busy schedule to let us know her views on a high profile legislative issue that affects all of us.

Instead of thanking her for taking the time to talk to her constituents (something that we in the blogosphere always clamor for) and responding with a thoughtful - or at least sincere - discussion on how to address this serious issue, some of us have decided to hijack this diary to go on a very emotional tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with saving this little girl's life.

Is that really what we have decided to do here??? Seriously???

I apologize for lecturing but Eric, Brady, you guys are both better than this.  

Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the back of the poor. People who don't have lobbyists or clout.

Better than this (0.00 / 0)
Yvette my friend, this is the reason for my earlier apology to Rep. Byrum and the legislation she has worked hard to advance.  And it's why I posted the comment to continue discussion of her legislation.  Yet, Nazgul and Eric hijacked her diary to attack Congressman Stupak for representing his district and as a northern Michigan Democrat I feel an obligation to respond to them in defense of his position.

So to continue, Rep. Byrum, I appreciate your work on this issue given the abuse we've seen from the insurance industry.  Can you tell us what controls are included in this legislation for people making fraudulent claims to collect on them and drive up the cost of insurance for everyone else?

[ Parent ]
Ahem (0.00 / 0)
With regards to Rep. Byrum ... there was no conversation to hijack.  She wrote her post, it got front paged, and no one commented on it.  There was no conversation to hijack.

Fortunately for us, this Internet thingy doesn't come with a very strict set of rules.  When someone posts something and it sticks around at the top for awhile, it occasionally happens that someone will post something under it that is either a bit off topic, or entirely off topic to get a new conversation going.  Both of you have been around long enough to have seen this happen.  It's happened to me, in fact.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Please (0.00 / 0)
the number of comments probably got more people to look at the petition than would have otherwise...

And it was a twofer, by letting people know about what Stupak is doing...besides, you could have all simply avoided my initial post and moved on, just like you did with your 16 on topic posts...err...oh!

I guess you didn't do that...did you Brady?

[ Parent ]
Stupak (0.00 / 0)
Bart Stupak's opposition to this is a bit more complicated than the TPM report would have you believe.  Abortion is part of it, but it's not all abortion.

Also, he's not a Blue Dog Democrat.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Wow! what a derailment. Back to Insurance... (0.00 / 0)
I was denied a workers comp claim that the insurance company dragged out nearly eight months. In the meantime, I lost more and more mobility in my arm while my pain increased. By the time I had my day in (phone) court, I could no longer use my arm to put on a shirt or my belt.

The insurance agent/rep or whatever they're called waited until one hour before our three-way call with the judge and decided to pay for the claim.

I went through all that pain and unnecessary suffering for what? Because she thought I would just say, "Oh well, I can't dress myself and may as well give up fighting the insurance company that should honor the claim"? Did she seriously believe that?

I can see where this practice may be used to weed out some unscrupulous claims; but there has to be a better way to accomplish that than to have the majority of us who file honest claims suffer.

That said, a $1 million fine sounds pretty hefty to levy against a company that I imagine already spends every day in court battling denials. With so much more money at stake for the insurance companies and plaintive attorneys, will this actually increase lawsuits?  

Will this cause insurance companies to settle more false claims due to the chance of being penalized $1 million plus all attorneys' fees and the suit; thus causing premiums to skyrocket and the whole system to collapse?

Believe me, I'm no troll or lobbyist and actually have disdain for insurance companies that drive up enormous profits by denying claims. My family lives in Louisiana. Need I say more? Nor have I had a chance to study the bills in detail.

I guess I'm playing devils advocate or at least trying to see past the emotions.  

no way! (0.00 / 0)
just think of what it would do to those companies stock prices? that's the most important thing: the bottom line.

even if a few children and families need to be sacrificed in order to keep stock prices up, so be it.  

Hold Insurance Companies Accountable | 30 comments

Features

Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange
RSS
Politics & Elections Library:
- US Senate
- US House
- Executive Branch
- Michigan Senate
- Michigan House
- State Supreme Court
- Michigan Media

Special Sections:
- Technical Politics - Grebner
- Michigan's Fallen

Search
Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
 - MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

Statewide:
 - Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

Mid-Michigan:
- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
 - A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
 - Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)
MI Campaigns:
- ActBlue (MI Congressional Candidates)
- Michigan Round Table for Diversity and Inclusion
- MichUHCAN (Affordable Health Care)
- Politics1 (MI Candidate Listings)
- Senator Carl Levin

MI Democratic Orgs:
- Michigan Democratic Party
- Michigan House Democratic Caucus
- Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus
- MDP Youth Caucus
- Michigan Young Democrats
- Ingham County Democratic Party
- Genesee County Dems Progressive Caucus
- Saginaw Area Democratic Club
- Justice Caucus
- South County Dems (Berrien Co.)
- Western Washtenaw Democrats

MI Progressive Orgs:
- America Votes Michigan coalition
- Michigan Labor organizations
- Michigan Voice coalition

MI Misc.:
- Absolute Michigan
- Center for Michigan
- Citizens Research Council
- Detroit News Politics Blog
- Freep Opinion
- Media Mouse (Grand Rapids Indy Media) Blog
- Michigan Campaign Finance Network
- The Michigan Citizen Blog
- Michigan Interfaith Trust Fund
- Michigan Future (WWJ)
- Michigan Nonprofit Association's blog
- Michigan Prospect
- Michigan Public News Service
- Michigan Radio
- Michigan Secret Court
- MLive.com Blogs
- Political Graveyard
- Red Tape Blog (Government Documents Librarians of Michigan)

National Alternative Media:
- Air America Radio
- BlogTalkRadio
- BuzzFlash
- ePluribus Media
- Indymedia
- New Journalist Program (Center for Independent Media)
- PoliticsTV

National Blogs:
- AFL-CIO Weblog
- BlogPAC
- Daily Kos
- Firedoglake
- From The Roots (DSCC)
- The Gavel (Speaker's Office)
- Huffington Post
- HuffPo: Rich Robinson
- Kicking Ass (DNC)
- MyDD
- My Left Wing
- The Next Hurrah
- Open Left
- The Thicket (NCSL)
- Senate Guru
- Smart Ass (CDA)
- The Stakeholder (DCCC)
- YDA



© Michiganliberal.com, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Powered by: SoapBlox