<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Support expansion of state health care benefits</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2009/12/09/support-expansion-of-state-health-care-benefits/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2009/12/09/support-expansion-of-state-health-care-benefits/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:19:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon E. Mouse</title>
		<link>http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2009/12/09/support-expansion-of-state-health-care-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-158075</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon E. Mouse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.vivianpaige.com/?p=10965#comment-158075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since the entire cost will be paid for by the employee, my only beef with the proposed legislation is &quot;key provision #2.&quot; Why only one, if there is no cost to the State?  Twice now, I have been in the situation that a relative has been living with me without insurance.  They were unemployed, and had to be on Medicaid anyway.

And, seriously, what of polygamous situations? Everyone knows this is about same-sex relationships (hence the existence of &quot;key provision #2&quot;), so if you want to address that discrimination, why continue discrimination against polygamous relationships?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the entire cost will be paid for by the employee, my only beef with the proposed legislation is &#8220;key provision #2.&#8221; Why only one, if there is no cost to the State?  Twice now, I have been in the situation that a relative has been living with me without insurance.  They were unemployed, and had to be on Medicaid anyway.</p>
<p>And, seriously, what of polygamous situations? Everyone knows this is about same-sex relationships (hence the existence of &#8220;key provision #2&#8243;), so if you want to address that discrimination, why continue discrimination against polygamous relationships?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

