Thankfully, this bill passed, and Representative Chavez-Houck is looking to improve the law further with HB 232 – Medical Language Interpreter Amendments.

The bill itself will allow the Division of Health and Human Services to recommend to the legislature the need for laws relating to the act if HHS discovers that people are abusing the system or unqualified individuals are getting through the system and dispensing inadequate or incomplete medical advice.  Furthermore, the bill would set up a certification system and demand that certifications would expire.

In short, this bill takes a good law and makes it better.

As I have said, health is one of those things we simply can not skimp on because we dislike people who don’t look like us – disease could care less if you know a particular language or come from a particular country.  With the expansion of this law we will ensure that our community will be healthier and that people are making informed decisions about their health.

Click here to contact Representative Chavez-Houck.

Now, to be fair, Ray’s bill, HB 196 – Tobacco Tax Revisions, is a more toned down version of last years bill.  This does not mean, however, that it still is a good bill.

You see, last years bill more than doubled the tax on each individual cigarette and cigar. This years tax would raise the tax on cigarettes and cigars by a little less than double – from 3.475 cents to 6.55 cents per cigarettes and from 4.075 cents to 7.68 cents per cigar respectively. It should be noted that the bill adds something else: the raising of the tax on snuff from 75 cents to $1.41 per ounce. But the bill still does not address my two principal concerns: health education, treatment and prevention of the effects of tobacco, and the usage of this tax as a crutch.

The bill does state that one million dollars of the revenue gained from the tax will go towards the Department of Health for use in the “Gold Medal Schools” program (whatever that is), but otherwise remains silent on health education. I presume this million dollars will go towards the tried and true “don’t smoke kids” argument we have seen before – but it could easily be directed towards other substance abuse programs…or placing hand sanitizers in schools – the bill is not specific.

The bill also does not direct funds to more logical sources, like the treatment of health problems associated with the consumption of tobacco products.  Perhaps more funding towards our hospitals or cancer centers that focus both on research and treatment. As it stands now, smokers simply drain the system if they can’t afford treatment, and cancer research benefits not just those who wish to puff up.

Finally, it appears that this bill is designed to pad the state coffers. Now, I am not inherently opposed to this, especially with our budget in as bad of a shape as it is, but I am always weary when we talk about raising so called “sin taxes” to get us out of debt.

You see, Ray may argue that the bill discourages smokers while increasing revenue.  But this is talking out of both sides of ones mouth.  If we want fewer smokers, we will have less revenue; likewise if we have more smokers, we will have more revenue.

My point to this is that it is not a stable tax when compared to, say, homeowners tax. It fluctuates and is, therefore, not a good way to balance a budget in difficult times, if only because you simply can not predict how much revenue will come in.

In the end, this is a better bill than last year, but it still has the same fundamental flaws and should not pass.

Click here to contact Representative Ray

In the past, I have been understanding of Representative Matheson’s tenuous position as Representative of the Second Congressional District – after all, he is a moderate in a moderate district – and, for the most part, Democrats understand this fact when he is less than supportive of initiatives and bills that us lefties would like to see. Furthermore, many Dem’s respect his fiscal conservatism in the light of swelling budgets and shrinking pocket books, if only because it shows that we are not a “tax and spend” party.

But there are a few things Democrats expect, nay demand, he vote for if he is to call himself a Democrat in the first place; things such as environmental protection, education, smart growth, and, yes, heath care reform.

His no vote on health care will fundamentally place into doubt Matheson’s liberal ideals in the eyes of many convention goers while others (such as myself) will finally be pushed over the edge of supporting him and his moderate votes. This fact may just be enough to ensure that a contender could bump him out of office at convention. Furthermore, any candidate worth their grain of salt will be sure to remind convention goers of this Matheson’s past votes and could easily put into question his commitment to the party.

In many ways this was inevitable.  Matheson has crafted an image of a moderate that looks out for his constituents and proves that there are Democrats can win it Utah.  Many in the party (and you know who you are) tolerated this view during the Bush Administration if only because we knew that Matheson, for the most part, would not agree with the policies being pushed through Congress –  especially when compared to the alternatives John Swallow, LaVar Christensen, and Bill Dew, respectively provided on the ballot.

Now, however, Matheson is showing that he will not support a Democratic president with a very Democratic (note the big d) bill. In many ways he is now showing that he still does not agree with the policies of this administration either. With a Democratic majority in the nation, Utah Democrats will wonder if having a Democrat in name only is worth supporting over someone who might actually share the same beliefs and values – even if it means loosing the seat in the process. Don’t forget that, as Democrats in Utah, we very much have the “give them hell” attitude when it comes to taking on the Republicans, if only because we have to do so to stay sane. Utah Democrats, as a general rule, support who they believe in, not who will win – otherwise we would simply vote Republican and get it over with.

Of course, Matheson must have seen the writing on the wall long ago – especially with the fourth district just beyond the horizon. There is no way you can cut the districts that won’t produce at least two very conservative districts, one moderately conservative district, and one very liberal district. None of these districts are ideally suited to fit Matheson, and he has to know that he survives due to the echoes of the 2000 census; 2010 will not be so kind. This no vote may just be his swan song to the Democratic Party.

And so I will wait with bated breath to see what happens next.  His no vote could be the beginning of the end for the esteemed gentleman from Utah.

This only goes further the point I made in my last post regarding the slow death being brought upon our republic by those who are more interested in pushing partisanship over debate.

Was Obama being aggressive? Of course he was…but I feel that it was only because (and as he addressed) critics of the plan resort to lies instead of engaging in an actual discussion.  Wouldn’t you be a little testy to if you constantly tried to work with someone only to have them spit in your face and tell lies about you and what you want to do?

Now, you may feel that Representative Wilson’s views were correct – that President Obama’s plan really will insure illegal immigrants – but do you feel his actions were respectful to the Office of the President of the United States of America? How would you feel if Representative Frank (D-MA) had shouted “You Lie!” when President Bush insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction up to, and including, nuclear weapons? You would be, naturally, outraged (I know I would find it highly inappropriate).

This was not the proudest moment for our nation.

It is worth noting that Representative Wilson stated the following soon after the speach:

Normal text color
This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listen to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the heath care bill.  While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable.  I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.

The damage, however, has been done.  Emotions often run high in political debates, but something has happend to our nation where these guttural feelings are, at the very least, not stifled.

…Now lets watch the right-wing pundits defend this guy and the left-wing pundits punish Representative Wilson until they are respectively  blue in the face.

So lets ask the All-American Superman what he thinks of the evils of welfare and health services:

Published in 1952, the principals still hold: desease does not know income levels, that we have a moral imparitive to help our fellow citizens, and that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized and thriving society.

Sourced from media.comicmix.com

“Why not go to the doctor?” You might ask yourself – fair point. I didn’t go to the doctor because I have no way of affording it. You see, I am 25, college educated, contributing member of society that has a 9-5 job and no heath insurance. “Well, Curtis, you could get it if you wanted to.” You may briskly reply. Well, yes and no. You see I could spend the minimum $130 a month through a private provider for a healthy Male who does not smoke…but then I would have trouble paying of the debt I racked up while going to college, again trying to be a more productive member of society. Furthermore, it would delay my ability to purchase a car, an apartment, and the furnishings associated with that – stunting the economy ever-so-slightly – in the process.

Now don’t get me wrong, I would love to have health insurance, I really would. And I would pay for it if I felt that it was something I could actually afford. I feel that many of the people who have health insurance and complain about the “socialist” movement to ensure that everyone is insured does not really understand what insurance is: legalized gambling.

Take my auto insurance, for example. I bet my insurance company $120 every month that I will get into an car accident; the company, in return, takes the $120 and says that I won’t get into an accident. Now, the insurance company has been right 99 percent of the time, but the one time I won the bet, insurance had to pay out. Now auto insurance is something I have to pay for the privilege of driving, but health insurance is a bet I don’t have to take, and at $130 a month I am simply not willing to bet a company that I will fall ill. This month it was a bad bet, but the past nine or ten I have made out like a bandit.

Ah, but I am not holding out simply because I am some sort of daredevil who does the dew and lives life to the extreme (insert guitar wail here), no I am just a guy who is trying to live his life and, again, contribute to the world around him. I would gladly pay the money for heath insurance, however the price is simply cost prohibitive – it is the same reason I don’t fly an airplane or drive a BMW; the difference is that the last two would probably shorten my life when compared to insurance.

So, arch conservatives, I want you to tell me why I am wrong in supporting a government system that will provide me with something I want and need when others in the market have priced me out of it? Am I wrong for wanting to be healthy? Am I wrong for thinking it should be affordable? Am I wrong for thinking that, in the greatest country on earth, I should be able to go to the doctor when my throat is sore? I dare say not.

You may complain that I am stealing from your pocket, but I dare say that I am more valuable healthy than sick. I, too, pay my taxes, go to work, and help make the economy run. The only difference between you and me is that you are on the winning side of the equation and were lucky enough to have a company or big enough coffers to help you buy insurance.

Have you considered the fact that a government program might actually help you too? Indeed, a government option would mean another competitor in the market, breaking up the near monopoly currently in place. Also, a healthier nation is a more productive nation.  I missed half a day of work for no reason other than the only medicine I could take was rest and over the counter drugs.  Let us also not forget the moral obligation we have to our brothers and sisters – indeed you can judge a people based on how they treat the unprotected. Also, if I do have to go to the emergency room because of a fever and can’t pay for it, you do anyway – so what do you have to loose? Finally, if you are so concerned about your own pockets, just remember that taxes are the price civilized societies pay to stay that way.

Please, just tell me I am wrong – I will be sure to cough on you.

That is where H.B. 144 as proposed by Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24) steps in. The bill would allow people that speak English – Spanish, Russian, Bosnian, Somali, Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese, or Navajo to become certified translators for those various languages.

Now this bill does not require that hospitals have these translators on their staff, it simply sets up the rules and regulations to ensure that someone is qualified to translate between doctors and their patients. A hospital can hire these people if they so choose.

This bill is good policy – not only does it set up legal framework to encourage hospitals to be more competitive in regards to patient care, but it also makes sick people more likely to go to the hospital to get care in the first place. Guess what people, the flu does not care what color your skin is or what language you speak, it cares even less if you are in this country legally or not, all it just knows that it will grow, multiply, and spread to everyone it can…potentially killing people in the process.

S.B. 119 is a bill would create a task force to evaluate the patients that come into the emergency room of a hospital. The idea behind this is to see how many of these visitors are legitimate and how many are doing it to get their jollies up.

The bill goes into detail about who will sit on the committee, but really it is more of the same: seven from the House and five from the Senate – and to be fair, there is nothing very interesting about how they are picked either.

No, I am posting this for an utterly different reason all together. I am curious as to what the task force will find and what Senator Buttars thinks it will find.

I suspect that Buttars thinks that people are going to emergency rooms because they don’t know of any particular alternatives – they are needlessly going to ER’s and raising the cost of health care for the state to cover those who can’t pay the bill themselves. After all the bill specifically states that the task force should “find ways to create incentives to decrease inappropriate use of hospital emergency rooms.” What I also suspect will happen is that all of our fears will come to light – that people are using emergency rooms because people can’t afford the preventative care Democrats have been shouting about for years.

I hope this bill does pass; I also hope that the task force will actually listen to all sides of the argument, as opposed to task forces’ in the past (effect of illegal immigration task force *cough, cough*).

If they do their job, this bill could prove to be a watershed moment for legislators who fundamentally don’t understand the problems we face in regards to some of the high health care costs the state has to absorb.