►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Health & Welfare (2-9-22)
Description
This video was uploaded from a backup file. The original live stream did not process or save correctly.
A
C
Due,
mr
president,
I
have
a
carlisle
county
magistrate
here
today:
miss
lisa
adams.
This
is
her
first
trip
for
a
county
officials
day
and
so
she's
in
a
learning
process
today.
But
it's
good
to
see
her
up
here.
I've
known
her
and
her
husband
as
a
state
trooper
for
many
years,
just
a
great
family
down
in
carlisle,
county
and
involved
in
the
community
in
the
in
the
area
down
there,
carlisle
and
ballard
county.
So
it's
an
honor
to
have
her
here
today,
and
I
would
ask
that
committee
please
make
her
welcome
very.
A
Also
want
to
recognize
today,
I
think,
is
the
kentucky
medical
association
physicians
day
at
the
capitol
you'll
see
a
lot
of
white
coats
walking
around
the
halls.
We
want
to
welcome
our
physicians
and
our
doctors.
Thank
you
for
the
work
that
you
do
in
our
communities.
We
know
this
last
couple
of
years
have
been
particularly
difficult,
so
we
want
to
thank
you
for
coming
today
and
for
the
work
that
you
do
and
taking
care
of
all
of
us
back
home
before
we
get
started
on
the
two
bills
for
consideration.
A
A
D
E
E
You
know
we
try
to
do
these
things
in
the
interim,
but
it's
just
not
enough
time
to
do
those
things,
but
I
make
these
comments
in
support
of
the
senate
joint,
a
concurrent
resolution
that
we
passed
in
the
senate
a
few
weeks
back
would
just
encourage
our
colleagues
in
the
house
to
do
the
same,
because
this
cabinet
has
become
enormous
and
it's
just
difficult
to
pay
the
attention
to
the
recipients
and
the
impact
of
that
these
grants
have
upon
them
and
promised
as
a
whole.
So
again
it's
just
a
commercial.
E
A
Thank
you
senator
appreciate
that
any
other
comments
questions,
if
not
let
the
records
show
that
we've
reviewed
these
grants,
as
is
required.
Thank
you,
mr
speaking,
appreciate
it
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
going
to
be
consideration
of
regulations.
I
think
we've
got
members
of
the
cabinet
who
are
available
here
also
to
discuss
some
of
these
if
needed.
Any
questions
concerns
from
members
of
the
committee.
A
A
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
cabinet's
aware
to
be
sure
that
when
the
new
emergency
regulation
related
to
senate
bill,
100
is
filed
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
that
it's
not
in
conflict
with
this
previous
emergency
reg,
because
it's
going
to
be
extended
until
june.
So
I
think
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure.
Maybe
you
guys
can
comment
on
this-
that
if
once
we
do
that
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
once
the
other
one
is
done,
this
one
needs
to
be
withdrawn.
F
A
Very
good
appreciate
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everyone
was
at
least
we
got
that
on
the
record,
and
everybody
was
aware
that
that
needed
to
be
make
sure
we
got
that
changed
any
other
comments
or
concerns
from
members
of
the
committee
all
right.
Let
the
record
show
that
we've
reviewed
those
regulations.
We
appreciate
you
being
available
now
we'll
kind
of
attack
the
two
bills
that
we
have,
I'm
the
sponsor
for
both
of
them.
The
first
one
we'll
cover
will
be
senate
bill
87
and
act
relating
to
medicaid
reimbursements
for
dental
services.
E
A
Thank
you,
gentlemen,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
discuss
senate
bill
87.
This
is
a
rather
short
bill
that
directs
the
department
of
medicaid
services
to
utilize
a
directed
payment
option
to
adopt
a
minimum
fee
schedule
for
covered
dental
services.
It
would
require
that
any
medicaid
mco
to
reimburse
medicaid
dental
providers
who
see
at
least
50
patients
during
the
previous
year
at
a
level
equal
to
the
established
fee
for
service
rate
for
the
same
service.
A
There
is
a
clinic
in
my
district
in
lexington
that
provides
care
exclusively
for
medicaid
patients,
both
adults
and
children,
and
they're
barely
hanging
on
really
kentucky
struggles
to
find
dental
providers
willing
to
see
medicaid
patients,
because
the
rates
are
frankly
so
low,
and
this
clinic
asked
for
me
to
introduce
this
legislation.
There
is
a
fiscal
note
that
was
requested
also,
I
believe
all
members
have
had
a
copy
of
that
sent
to
them
in
the
last
couple
of
days.
Funding
this
bill
would
draw
down
federal
funds
at
an
80
20
match
rate.
A
The
expenditures
were
estimated
between
3.85
million
to
7.45
million,
with
a
drawdown
of
between
14.65
million
to
29
million
dollars
from
the
federal
government.
There
would
also
be
an
additional
administrative
cost
of
about
250
000,
with
a
50
50
match
rate
of
an
additional
250
from
the
federal
government.
I
thought
we'd
start
off
today
by
by
having
huck
present
some
information,
then
we'll
have
the
folks
that
are
online
as
well,
discuss
some
issues
and
and
perhaps
be
able
to
answer
some
questions
for
you.
G
Thank
you
senator.
Thank
you
all
for
having
us
join
today.
Kentucky
youth
advocates
were
the
independent
voice
for
kentucky's
kids
and
our
vision
is
to
make
kentucky
the
best
place
to
be
young.
Often
at
times
you
see
us
testifying
on
to
this
committee
on
policy
recommendations
to
protect
kids
from
abuse
and
neglect,
ensuring
kids
have
access
to
quality
education,
help
kids
grow
up
to
be
healthy,
strong,
helping,
also
working
families,
make
ends
meet,
and
so
much
more.
But
today
we
want
to
talk
about
oral
health.
G
We
know
that
oral
health
is
an
integral
part
of
a
child's
development
and
learning,
and
there's
no
secret
that
kentucky's
history
of
poor
oral
health.
There's
no
history,
there's
no!
I
should
say
it's.
It's
often
obvious.
You
know
we
talk
about
it
so
much
in
a
recent
study.
It
showed
that
kentucky
is
ranked
41st
in
the
nation.
In
dental
wellness
we
have
the
highest
sugar,
sweetened
beverages,
consumption,
the
highest
percentage
of
adult
smokers.
G
We
could
all
think
about
it.
We
could
all
remember
that
experience
and
for
children
when
we're
experiencing
prolonged
persistent
dental
pain,
it's
difficult
for
them.
We
know
it's
hard
for
them
to
learn,
and
once
in
school,
children
with
poor
dental
health
are
three
times
more
likely
to
be
absent
than
other
children,
and
most
oral
health
disease
is
preventable,
yet
routine.
Dental
care
is
out
of
reach
for
kentuckians.
G
The
lack
of
access
to
care
can
leave
people
with
few
or
no
other
options
other
than
visiting
the
er,
and
we
know
that
the
er
is
costly
not
only
to
patients
but
to
health
care
system,
our
state
medicaid
program
and
also
to
taxpayers.
So
the
bottom
line
is
when
teeth
are
healthy
and
pain-free.
It's
easier
for
children
to
focus,
to
listen
to
play,
to
learn,
to
grow
and
thrive,
and
oral
health
is
much
more
than
a
bright,
beautiful
smile.
It
takes
establishing
good,
brushing
and
flossing
routines
early
in
life
and
maintaining
them.
G
Kentucky
has
not
seen
an
increased
schedule
in
nearly
two
decades
and
we
believe
in
doing
this.
It
will
increase
the
providers
that
come
to
our
state
in
providing
those
provide
cells,
access
to
care
and
to
accept
new
patients
across
the
state.
So
it
also
takes
a
commitment
from
state
leaders
such
as
yourself
here
to
allocate
funds
for
medicaid,
and
it
also
requires
healthy
foods,
safe
drinking
water
in
every
neighborhood
and
community,
which
you
already
doing
so.
H
H
I
see
two
issues
where
this
senate
bill
87
will
be
a
great
plus
for
kentucky
with
medicaid.
There
is
a
declining
access
to
care
problem
and
that's
number
one
number
two
there's
a
perfect
storm
brewing
on
the
business
of
dentistry.
Now,
let
me
explain:
dentistry
has
not
had
a
fee
increase
for
the
adult
medicaid
population
since
2002,
which
was
based
off
of
a
1998
fee
schedule,
increased
cost
of
supplies,
infection
control
products,
ppe
office,
I.t
and
technology.
H
H
H
H
H
H
They
say
I
can't
work
hard
enough,
nor
fast
enough
anymore,
to
make
ends
meet,
and,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
hope
you
will
support
and
fund
this
initiative.
This
is
a
step
forward
that
will
incentivize
dentists
to
help
address
this
need
and
to
start
increasing
access
to
care.
Thank
you.
I
Sure
my
name
is
ronnie
coleman.
I'm
director
of
government
relations
for
benevis
we're
a
a
dental
support
organization
that
provides
non-clinical
support
services
for
dental
offices
in
15
states
and
in
kentucky
we
support
ruby,
dental
they're,
a
kid
first
family
friendly
practice
with
two
offices
in
louisville,
one
in
lexington
and
the
senator's
district
and
one
in
elizabethtown,
and
we
support
senate
bill.
87.,
ruby
dental
prior
to
the
pandemic
saw
on
average
22
000
patients
a
year
on
50
000
visits.
They
employed
15,
full-time
and
part-time
dentists.
I
I
I
In
our
experience
since
the
pandemic,
we're
seeing
rates
of
40
or
even
lower
certain
weeks
when
weather
is
bad,
so
that
too,
is
contributing
to
the
challenge
for
medicaid
providers
to
be
able
to
make
enough
money
to
continue
seeing
medicaid
patients.
All
of
that
in
an
environment
of
a
state.
Dental
fee
schedule,
that's
over
20
years
old
and,
what's
worse,
is
that
the
mcos
are
reimbursing
kentucky
dentists
on
average
15
to
30
percent.
Less
than
that
old
fee
schedule,
it's
unbelievable,
and
so
the
dentists
are
having
a
very
brutal
time
with
regular
inflation.
I
The
hyperinflation
associated
with
covid,
as
dr
babrowski
mentioned,
the
extremely
high
cost
of
ppe
infection
control
technology
and
then
staffing
in
normal
times.
It's
very
difficult
for
safety
net.
Dental
practices
to
compete
with
commercial
dentists
for
staffing,
but
it's
really
hard
now
and
so
medicaid
oriented
dentists,
rural
dentists,
are
all
on
fixed
incomes.
For
the
most
part
they
can't
raise
prices.
I
They
can't
balance
the
low
medicaid
fees
with
a
high
percentage
of
commercial
patients.
They
can't
ask
patients
to
pay
surcharges
all
on
a
sub
two
decade
old
fee
schedule,
so
our
practices
are
are
closing.
I
know
that
the
practices
we
support
in
other
states
have
closed
in
the
past
two
or
three
years
and
I'm
hopeful.
I
We
don't
get
to
that
point
in
kentucky
so
senate
bill
87
would
require
mcos
to
make
directed
payments
to
dennis,
to
boost
them
to
that
old
20
year
old
fee
schedule-
and
I
know
that's
a
sub-optimal
solution,
but
it's
really
the
only
remedy.
We
have
right
now
until
the
mcos
renegotiate
their
contracts
with
until
medicaid
renegotiates
their
contracts
with
the
mcos,
and
at
that
time
I
would
urge
medicaid
to
increase
the
fee
schedule
to
a
modern
level
require
mcos
to
pay
at
minimum.
I
J
So,
dr
rorowski,
just
a
quick
shout
out
to
you
to
say
thanks
for
your
years
of
service,
your
continued
service,
your
leadership
across
the
state,
the
dedication
day
in
and
day
out
that
you
and
your
family
show
to
our
greensburg
green
county
and
surrounding
citizens.
We
need
more
of
you
in
the
world
and
thank
you
for
all.
You
do
quick
question
as
we
discuss
the
cost
related
because
often
chair
alvarado,
as
you
know,
the
cost
question
comes
up.
A
I
can't
speak
for
the
dentist
mr
coleman
might
be
able
to
he's,
got
more
experience
as
to
what
to
expect
probably
can
answer
that,
but
that,
unfortunately,
the
entire
medical
community
has
been
the
case
even
amongst
physicians.
I
can
say
that
we're
dealing
with
very
old
fee
schedules,
we
have
often
relied
as
a
state
and
as
a
country
on
the
good
will
of
our
providers
to
make
up
the
difference
on
this,
and
so
that
we
just
say
these
are
folks
that
have
dedicated
their
lives
to
taking
care
of
us.
A
You
know
we'll
we'll
keep
putting
strain
on
them.
Putting
pressure
on
them,
they'll
be
the
ones
to
fill
in
the
gap
and,
unfortunately,
that
goodwill's
starting
to
to
run
out
and
the
pandemic
has
put
that
much
more
strain
on
folks.
It's
getting
difficult
and
you
realize
that
36
of
our
population
in
the
state
have
has
medicaid.
These
are
adults,
kids,
if
they
don't
get.
You
know,
there's
very
few
providers
that
offer
these
services,
and
so
again,
this
bill
doesn't
really
increase
that
fee
schedule.
A
It
just
makes
the
mcos
pay
at
the
previously
agreed
to
fee
schedule,
which
is
still
woefully
deficient.
You
can
imagine
how
much
more
expensive
that
would
be.
I'm
hoping
that
medicaid
will
take
a
look
at
this
as
it
needs
to
across
the
entire
service
line
for
services,
but
this
is
just
going
to
make
them
pay
at
that
old
fee
schedule
to
pay
the
base
minimum.
It
just
raises
the
floor
to
say
you
must
pay
this,
because
the
mcos
are
paying
a
lot
less
than
that,
mr
coleman,
maybe
you
can
provide
more
insight.
I
So
I'm
responsible
for
government
relations
in
like
seven
states
and
I've
been
responsible
for
other
states
too,
and
I
will
just
say
that
kentucky's
not
alone,
many
states
have
neglected
rate
increases
for
dentists
for
a
long
long
time,
but
I'll
give
you
a
sort
of
a
positive
example.
That's
georgia.
I
Unfortunately,
georgia
has
an
mco
system
like
yours
and
we're
paid
below
sort
of
the
rate
schedule
level
by
the
mcos,
but
they
review
the
schedule
every
year
for
the
past
four
or
five
years
that
I've
been
responsible
for
georgia
they've
either
increased
hygiene
fees,
three
percent
or
restorative
fees
by
one
percent,
then
hygiene
fees
by
seven,
so
they
review
it
every
year
and
then
we
get
some
kind
of
rate
increase
that
flows
through
the
mcos
to
the
providers,
but
indiana
has
not
increased
their
fees.
In
I
don't
know.
I
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
senator
alvarado.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
and
in
our
part
of
the
state,
it's
it's
a
terrible
problem
there
and
the
population
that
I
work
with
the
disabled
population.
It
is
a
struggle
for
our
folks
to
find
a
dentist,
especially
those
who
have
severe
disabilities.
They
often
have
to
travel
lee
specialty
clinic.
I
think
that's
louisville
lexington,
so
I
wish
we
had
more
of
those
services
throughout
the
state
for
those
folks.
C
My
question
is
this,
and
this
kind
of
brings
to
light
it's
concerning
that
a
provider
should
should
be
paid
less
than
the
medicaid.
That
should
be
the
the
basic
minimum
for
any
mco
to
start
with,
and
I
is
that
something
that
maybe
we
need
to
look
at
as
a
bigger
picture
in
dealing
with
the
mcos
to
make
that
to
put
that
floor
into
statute.
So
we
don't
have
these
issues.
A
Again,
everybody
knows:
I've
been
a
very
vocal
critic,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
our
mcos
senator
meredith,
and
I
have
had
lots
of
discussions.
Maybe
something,
as
he's
been
talking
about
this
proposed
task
force,
maybe
something
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
in
that
task
force
to
start
making
sure
we're
taking
care
of
our
providers.
A
We
know
that
once
we
lose
providers
to
other
states,
it's
difficult
to
get
them
back
and
we
talk
about
having
students,
but
we
talk
about
residency
and
a
lot
of
those
kinds
of
things
that
once
people
start
their
practices,
they
get
their
roots
and
we
want
to
keep
them
here
and
take
care
of
them
but
again
yeah.
I
think
it's
something
we
need
to
take
a
look
at.
A
We
often
urge
it
doesn't
matter
who's
in
the
executive
branch
for
them
to
be
able
to
handle
this
issue
and
hold
those
institutions,
those
insurance
companies
to
their
contracts,
but
a
lot
of
times
again
it
gets
that
gets
overseen.
So
we
have
to
take
action
for
something
like
this,
but
it
would
make
sense
that
you
would
think
if
you
have
a
contract.
A
You've
agreed
to
an
amount,
that's
what
you
get
paid
when
they
get
paid
less
the
health
care
field's,
the
only
field
where
you
can
say
I'm
going
to
charge
a
certain
amount,
you
get
paid
a
quarter
of
it
and
you
just
smile
and
take
it
and
you
can't
do
anything
about
it.
So
it's
it's
something
we
need
to
take
a
look
at.
I
think,
as
a
state.
E
F
Sorry,
hello,
this
is
donna
vino,
I'm
director
of
telehealth
services
for
the
cabinet.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
any
type
of
dental
services
that
are
provided
through
asynchronous
and
synchronous,
telehealth
services
are
also
reimbursed
on
this
fee
schedule,
because
I
know
more
and
more
dentists
are
are
starting
to
use
telehealth
in
the
in
the
dental
area.
K
I
would
just
like
to
make
just
one
comment
that
I
don't
think
has
actually
been
made
in
the
room,
and
I
think
it's
important
for
people
to
understand
oral
health
is
not
just
a
toothache
or
not
just
you
know.
I
can't
chew
well,
because
it
hurts
oral
health.
Has
a
tremendous
impact
on
cardiac
health
and
vascular
health
in
adults,
and
actually
oral
health
can
be
the
foundation
of
other
disease
processes
that
are
very
destructive
to
the
body
and
cost
us
a
lot
of
money
to
to
treat.
K
E
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
fiscal
note
or
the
lack
of
it,
and
it
goes
back
to
something
you
said
earlier
about.
We
need
to
allocate
funding.
I
think
the
funding
is
there.
We
need
to
reallocate
the
funding
and
I
wonder
we
have
any
data
whatsoever
that
measures
the
how
many
medicaid
patients
are
going
to
ers
for
dental
problems.
Do
we
have
any
debt
at
all.
G
E
We
had
a
good
conversation
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
about
this,
and
but
you
know,
I'm
a
little
bit
dismayed
that
our
mcos,
the
last
10
years
have
done
such
a
wonderful
job
in
improving
the
health
of
a
population
that
this
is
an
issue
that
plus
network
adequacy.
You
know
that's
one
of
the
things
we
select
them
on
and
let's
say
those
networks
are
there
and
obviously
they're.
Not
we
have
dental
deserts.
There's
there's
no
doubt
about
that.
E
So
again,
if
you
look
at
this
solely
from
a
business
model,
there's
significant
savings
to
be
realized.
By
making
this
change-
and
I
think
long
term,
we
will
actually
see
that
it's
cost
us
more
to
do
nothing
than
take
this
kind
of
action.
So
I
think
great
testimony
today.
If
there
are
no
other
questions,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
for
approval
motion
by
senator
adams.
Second,
by
thanks,
sir
motion,
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
the
motionbuild
eye
and
all
the
posts
we
won't
know.
C
E
A
E
A
Proceed:
go
ahead,
we've
got
time.
Thank
you,
sir.
The
next
item
is
senate
joint
resolution
80..
This
is
a
bill
that
was
brought
before
this
committee
during
the
special
session,
and
then
I've
filed
once
again.
That
effectively
is
establishing
that
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky
would
recognize
a
positive
covid19.
Antibody
test
is
equivalent
to
having
been
vaccinated
against
covid19.
A
I
know
many
of
us
have
been
hearing
from
a
lot
of
constituents
with
concerns
and
I've
heard
from
particularly
from
medical
professionals.
Physicians,
nurses,
many
of
them
in
the
line
of
duty
who
have
contracted
covid19,
many
of
them
for
various
reasons
who
perhaps
have
not
taken
a
vaccine.
Don't
wish
to
take
a
vaccination
but
have
said
I've
already
been
exposed.
I
have
a
measurable
antibody
level
and
that
I
have
should
have
the
equivalent
of
being
recognized
as
such.
A
I
did
a
bit
more
research
on
this
and
started
looking
at
some
of
the
data.
Since
our
meeting
in
september
and
I've
noted,
we've
had
several
studies
that
have
been
produced.
Looking
at
the
level
of
immunity
from
natural
infections,
I
know
johns
hopkins
did
a
recent
study.
The
world
health
organization
has
a
scientific
brief
based
on
natural
immunity
and
we
still
have
the
original.
I
think
study
that
I
white
paper
that
I
brought
from
australia
looking
at
neutralizing
antibody
levels
as
being
highly
predictive
of
immune
protection.
A
We've
had
more
and
more
studies
coming
out
to
the
point
now
that
we
even
have
international
governments
that
have
begun
to
recognize
this
as
being
equal
to
being
vaccinated,
for
example.
If
you
wish
to
travel
to-
and
I
think
I
wrote
them
all
down
here-
all
the
countries
in
europe
and
I'll
list
them
albania
and
dora,
finland,
iceland,
ireland,
montenegro,
serbia,
austria,
bulgaria,
denmark,
estonia,
germany,
hungary,
italy,
latvia,
the
netherlands,
poland,
slovenia,
spain,
sweden
and
switzerland,
just
in
europe.
A
But
now,
if
you
want
to
travel
to
their
country,
you
have
to
have
proof
of
vaccination
or
proof
of
previous
infection
with
antibody
response
recognizing
that
to
be
equivalent.
I
think
we've
gotten
to
a
point
right
now
with
the
pandemic,
which
is
now
moving
into
an
endemic
stage,
government
has
done
its
role.
It's
produced
a
vaccination,
it's
available,
we've
had
many
discussions.
Many
urges
from
people
on
this
body
and
in
various
levels
of
government,
both
on
federal
state
and
local,
to
urge
people
to
get
vaccinated.
A
A
It's
the
point
now,
where
it's
people's
decisions
and
choices
to
make
those,
but
for
a
lot
of
individuals
that
are
out
there.
We
know
there's
a
lot
of
urgencies
that
I
think
it's
time
for
the
state
to
be
able
to
recognize,
as
many
international
governments
have
to
start
recognizing
people
that
have
a
measurable
antibody
response,
and
the
way
it's
listed
here
is
to
the
20th,
percentile
or
higher,
to
start
wrecking
that
recognizing
that
as
being
equivalent
to
being
vaccinated
again
that
20th
percentile
level
comes
from
the
study.
A
Again,
I
looked
at
recent
studies
which
are
saying
that
these
antibodies
are
lasting
at
measurable
levels,
upwards
of
one
year
for
people
that
have
had
a
natural
infection,
and
so
therefore
the
expiration
of
this
joint
resolution
would
be
january
31st
of
2023,
which
would
be
a
little
under
12
months
from
now.
As
far
as
being
recognized
again,
this
committee
has
heard
this.
It
passed
the
senate
last
year
and
I
bring
it
before
this
body
for
consideration
again.
K
I
am
still
a
hard
no
on
this.
The
data
is
starting
to
come
out.
It
will
eventually
possibly
be
useful,
but
at
this
point
there
are
no
cdc
fda
world
health
organization.
Nobody
is
recommending
this
at
this
point.
The
data
is
starting
to
come
out.
It
is
going
to
take
a
while
to
see
what
the
difference
in
natural
immunity
versus
vaccine-induced
immunity
versus
you
know.
K
The
combination
of
both
which
we
know
is
by
far
the
best
and
most
protective
at
this
level,
and
until
we
have
that
data
and
we
have
it
strong,
there's
no
way
no
way.
I
would
be
in
favor
of
this.
On
top
of
that.
At
this
point,
my
understanding
is
the
only
mandates
for
vaccination
in
the
state.
Right
now
would
be
for
health
care
workers
and
private
employers.
K
C
Maybe
the
data
isn't
in
for
this,
but
I
think
it's
common
sense
that
if
you've
had
the
disease
or
you
have
your
immune
system
tested
and
that
you're
more
likely
to
be
immune
to
it,
that
this
is
a
common
sense
thing.
The
data
is
in
that,
if
you've
been
vaccinated,
you
still
catch
the
disease.
Thank
you.
C
C
A
The
medical
communities
of
several
countries
in
europe
would
argue
otherwise
that
there
is
plenty
of
data
on
this.
I
would
encourage
those
who
question,
if
there's
data
to
research,
to
do
simple
literature
researches
on
the
numerous
studies
that
are
out
there
that
are
showing
that
natural
immunity
and
again
it
makes
common
sense
with
so
many
other
disease
states
that
we
have
now
that
if
you
have
measurable
antibodies,
we're
considered
immune
the
discussion
doesn't
need
to
be
about
vaccination.
A
It
needs
to
be
about
immunity
and
again
it's
not
necessarily
lifelong
immunity,
but
that's
what
the
discussion
needs
to
be
just
like.
We
have
influenza
if
you've
catched.
If
you
caught
the
flu
for
this
year,
do
you
need
to
have
a
flu
vaccine
on
top
of?
If
you've
already
had
the
flu,
if
you've
got
the
current
strain,
not
necessarily
it
may
change
year
to
year.
But
again
this
goes
for
12
months.
It
goes
in
line
with
many
of
our
european
international
governments
that
also
support
this
concept.
So
I
cast
a
yes
vote.