Sunday, January 17, 2010

Sheldon Kilpack and Other Thoughts

I found Sheldon Kilpack to be one of the better representatives that I have worked with.  He would usually respond to my correspondences.  He accomplished much in his time in the Senate.  Being that he pushed a lot of drunk driving and alcohol bills, he had no choice but to resign.  He lost his credibility to govern after this incident.  Hopefully he will own up to the problems that led to this incident, resolve them and have a fulfilling life.  I wish him well.

Obviously, the person that succeeds Sheldon in the Senate will not have a lot of impact in this session.  But will have the inside track in replacing him in this fall's election.  Curt Oda, Paul Ray and Jerry Stevenson have declared and interest in replacing him.  I think that either would do well enough and have already proven themselves as leaders.

The jockying will be for those who wish to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader.  The chance to drive legislation will have for or five power-hungry republicans in a feeding frenzy for the next three days.

The Tobacco Tax issue will come up again this year.  I repeat what I said last year.  It is OK in my mind to raise the Utah State tax on tobacco as long is it is not raised high enough to encourage bootlegging.  We already see many Utah residents crossing to border for lottery tickets and other types of gambling, alcohol and fireworks.  It could become a money making venture.  The border is 70-100 miles in each direction from Salt Lake, which means that the average car would burn at least six gallons of gas to get to the nearest border town...whether it is Wendover, Evanston or Franklin.  This means that a two dollar increase in the tobacco tax would likely be a money looser for the average Salt Laker unless you buy tobacco by the case.

I do not think that raising the tax would stop people from smoking.  It would encourage some to quit, but most people begin to use tobacco when they are young.  How many of those kids actually get a job and pay for their habit themselves?  It is usually after one moves away from home and begins a family that costs such as this become a burden.  For many, that is after 15 to 20 years of use.  Much of the damage to their bodies has already began at this point and some of it may be irreversable at this point.

For a national issue, I agree with those who think that a insurance mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional.  I have mentioned this before.  I think that is is fair that there be a consequence for those who are uninsured by choice and for those companies that refuse to provide insurance to their employees.  I have previously mentioned that one thing that can be done is a change to the bankruptcy laws that would make it more difficult for those who have refused insurance to include medical bills in a bankruptcy filing.  In addition, companies that do not offer group coverage to their employees could find themselves liable for expenses that would have been covered if they had.

Requiring companies to cover employees is a different matter.  It is not as simple as passing a law wishing it.  There are employers like Lagoon who hire mostly teenagers who have coverage with their parents.  There are the college-aged kids and those a little older who do not purchase insurance because they rarely use it.  It is only when children come into the picture that the value of medical insurance is realized.  There are jobs that pay only comission and it would be difficult for the employer to provide anything but access to a group discount.  Then there is self-employment and contracting.  And there are those employers that feel that it is not their obligation to provide insurance at all.  There is also not one single category of insurance, there are many.  For review, here is how health insurance breaks down.

Preventative: This is for routine medical procedure that are desinged to detect conditions early or prevent disease or injury.  This includes immunizations, colonoscopies and mammograms.  This also includes drug and alcohol treatment and tobacco ceasation.  Most plans that can be purchased at work do not provide this type of care.  Employers that do find that they have lower premiums and lower costs due to absenteeism.  They also loose fewer employees to long-term illness and injury because conditions are caught early when they are relatively simple to treat.  What Benjamin Franklin said many years ago is still true today, and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  More attention to preventative measures could be enough to save our medical system.

Minor Medical:  This includes anything that is resolved with a few trips to the doctor.  Most insurance covers this.

Major Medical:  These are conditions that are resolved within thirty days and cost less than 100K to treat.  Most of this is covered as well.

Long-term Medical:  This covers treatment for on-going conditions.  Some plans cover it, but those that do cover only a token amount of the long-term costs.  This is why I have purchased long-term disability.  I figure the 15 dollars per month that I pay will be worth it if I need this type of coverage.

Catastrophic Medical:  Most insurance plans do not cover catastrophic losses, such as cancer or a major heart attack or major accident.  They only cover up to a certain dollar amount.  This is the leading cause of bankruptcy by those who have insurance.  Part of the problem is that when someone has a catastrophic illness or accident, the victim usually has at best, lost wages and sometimes looses their employment completely.  Often, a catastrophic illness is fatal.

In order for insurance to be completely effective, a policy has to cover all five points.  Most plans do not, they only cover minor and major.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Harry Reid vs Trent Lott

Just a few words to those of you who think that the press is being unfair to Harry Reid.  Let me remind you what happened to Trent Lott.  Double standard?  You decide.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Mandatory Health Insurance is Unconstitutional

Is mandatory health insurance unconstitutional?  The answer is, yes.  Many have pointed out that all state governments require auto insurance.  What is the difference?

When the government requires auto insurance, they are providing something to the citizen in exchange.  In exchange for the privilege to operate an automobile, which is a very dangerous machine, the citizen is required to perform specifics.  One of those specifics is insurance.  So you might think of a drivers license as a contract.  If you do not have insurance, you are in violation of that contract.  As such, the state has the right to revoke or suspend the privilege to operate that machinery.

Now, what privelege can the Federal Government grant in exchange for forcing people to purchase health insurance?  The only thing that I can think of that is fair is the privelege of writing off catastrophic medical bills in a bankruptcy filing.  The right to be treated?  What about EMTALA?  (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)  The right to live?  Remember, that the government can not give or take away rights.  Therefore Congress has nothing to exchange for the healthcare mandate.  That is why it is unconstitutional.