If there is one thing I have come to watch during my “Bills to Watch” series, it is that I should automatically become suspicious of any legislation that attempts to change benefits to state employees. Why? Because it inevitably means that we will be screwing over the public servants who are trying to make the state a better place.

Take for example SB 138, Health Insurance Mandate Accountability Amendments by Senator Todd Weiler (R-Woods Cross, District 23).

The bill is remarkably think to get through for being only a four page bill – and I suspect it is that way on purpose.  After about four pass overs here is the long and short of it – we are attempting to screw over public employee’s access to health insurance benefits by adding an extra layer of complication to the process. To make the situation worse, it is a feeble attempt to somehow workaround the Affordable Health Care Act.

Yes, in some fancy political maneuvering, Weiler is attempting to screw over public employees by stating that an essential health care package is not, in fact, an “insurance mandate” when applied to a state employee. What does that mean? It means that a state employee is not entitled to any sort of basic health insurance package when hired – and if they attempt to apply for even a basic level insurance, they will not be covered…EVEN IF a national health care system passes the Supreme Court.

Oh, and did I mention this little fact – the “public employees” I am talking about are specifically teachers.

Yes, once again, our Republican legislature is attempting to screw over our teachers – all the while stating that we must think of the children. We complain that we have a brain drain of teachers, and we wonder why they don’t stick around…well, I have one theory. Not only do we pay them terribly, we are now making it almost impossible for them to receive any sort of benefits as well.

No doubt, Weiler is attempting yet another “starve the beast” approach to government, and he will be damned if it hurts the children. Furthermore, I am sure he has had numerous insurance lobbyists whispering in his ear telling him how important it is to pass this legislation.

This bill is a bad one, and it needs to die fast.

To contact Sen. Weiler, Click Here or call 801-599-9823

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I have to hand it to freshman Representative Brian Doughty (D-Salt Lake City, District 30). His bill, HB 64, Amendments to Public Employee Health Care would go far in proving that Utah is not some backwater stuck in the 1940′s.

Doughty’s bill makes the revolutionary step to acknowledge that not every state employee fits into the classic Norman Rockwell painting, but that we live in modern times and our public servants have modern needs.

The bill would allow any state employee to designate an adult dependent who could benefit from our states public employee health care insurance.

Now, arch-conservative a-holes, this would mean that those gays would have the ability to give benefits to their partners; but it also means that someone could take care of an aging parent or relative who lives at home. It would mean that each and every employee be treated fairly in regards to health care benefits and that we as a state don’t create a narrow definition of which loved ones we should be allowed to take care of. Yes, it would mean that every public employee would be able to take advantage of one of the perks currently reserved for a select number of servants.

Republicans will spin this into a pro gay rights bill, and in some ways, it certainly is.  But what the bill really does is provide incentives to attract talented people to a sometimes thankless job. They will thumb their noses at the potential price-tag, without considering the fact that this would show to many large businesses that we are actually catching up with the policies of several Fortune 500 companies, making the state more attractive to companies and their employees.

Unfortunately, I doubt the backward thinking knuckle draggers will ever let this bill see the light of day…because they know that it actually would receive support from the public; forcing them to choose between their narrow minds and the will of the people.

To contact Rep. Doughty, Click Here or call 801-413-4931

Impact: 2

Need: 2

Overall: 5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

It is interesting to see just how far legislators are willing to go to stamp out smoking all together in Utah. Representative Bradley Last (R-Hurricane, District 71), for example, is willing to go so far as to attack stop-smoking devices from being in the public’s air.

By proposing HB 245, Amendment to Definition of Smoking in Utah Indoor Clean Air Act, last is wanting to put into law a provision that would ban so called “e-cigarettes” in public spaces.

For those of you unfamiliar with e-cigarettes, they are basically a small device that heats a cartridge of nicotine that the “smoker” inhales. After sucking in, the “smoker” exhales pure and simple water vapor.  There is no second hand smoke in the traditional sense, and the smoke is harmless in both the body of the smoker and of those around them. Furthermore, no odor is produced and the only effect is that the smoker gets a dose of nicotine similar to that of a traditional cigarette.

In short, e-cigarettes are designed to help people move away from harmful, real, cigarettes and towards (at the very least) a healthier alternative.  They are far more expensive than cigarettes and have little no impact on non-smokers around the user.

But, lets set that aside.

The bill also has a provision that would ban hookahs in public places. Although I am far less opposed to this idea, I have to wonder if Last has considered the impact this bill would have on hookah bars? Mind you, in order to smoke a hookah, you must be of legal age to do so – and it is not illegal to smoke tobacco from a hookah. Do we suddenly have to set into place more restrictions that would ultimately force hookah bars to become private clubs? Can special areas be quarantined off to allow legitimate businesses to continue to operate? These are all questions that the bill fails to answer.

So, Last not only wants to discourage those trying to quit to do so, but he also wants to harm business in the process. I understand the incentive for government to deincentivize smoking, but I really feel that Last is going about it in the wrong way.

To contact Rep. Last, Click Here or call 435-635-7334

Impact: 3

Need: 1

Overall: -2

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Although many people may not want to talk about it, the abuse of prescription pain killers is a big problem in the state. In many cases, those addicted to these medications did not seek them out because of the classic cliche’s associated with illegal drug use. Most often addicts are addicts because of a painful surgery or physical ailment and a doctor is overzealous with the prescription pad. Sadly, some doctors most likely do this because there is a profit involved (as an example, those doctors who have a financial interest in a pain clinic), but most do it because they are simply trying to help a patient who is struggling with pain.

But there is a line that many people cross, and most doctors simply don’t know the warning signs associated with drug abuse versus pain management.

That is why I applaud Senator Pat Jones (D – Salt Lake City, District 4) for proposing SB 61 – Education for Prescribing Controlled Substances.

The bill would require all doctors who prescribe pain medication to people to go through four hours of training about the subject before they have to renew their medical licence. Doctors would learn about the states controlled substance database, and the abuse, dependence, and addictive nature of the various narcotics and drugs they prescribe along with the consequences of abuse – up to and including death.

Most doctors don’t set out to create addicts, they simply want to help a person get better – but this training will help to ensure that people receive the medication they need, not the mediation they want.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Senator Jones.

HB 89 – Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles has been kicked around in one form or another for many years now. This time, Representative Patrice Arent (D – Salt Lake City, District 36) has decided to take up the call and attempt to pass a bill that makes it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle when another occupant of the vehicle is under 16 years old.

This bill brings to focus two very different rights. On one hand, smoking isn’t illegal, so why criminalize such behavior? Furthermore, the youth in the vehicle is most likely the child of the person driving, doesn’t the parent have the right, if they so choose, to expose their child to that risk? On the flip side, we know the very real health issues associated with second hand smoke, especially on lungs that are still developing. Furthermore, there is a very real interest for the state to reduce exposure to smoke as it increases the odds that the state will have to pay higher health care costs down the road. Finally, what about the rights of those being exposed to smoke? They don’t have an option in the situation, and would wish not to be exposed to such a nuisance.

And, in the end, this is probably the biggest point. Parents simply don’t have the right to expose their children to any and everything. Just as we would punish a parent that smokes marijuana in front of a child or offers them alcohol we should extend that to this very specific situation were a child is forced to be in a confined space with potentially dangerous chemicals in the air.

And before people start stomping about the eroding rights of parents, remember these two points: 1 – the rights of the parent are not always the best for the child, so the state must step in for very good reasons. As an example, as a parent, you do not have the right to deny your child an education, you do not have the right to deny your child food, and in the most extreme case, you do not have the right to deny your child the right to life. Point 2 – this bill deals with a very specific situation where risk is higher than usual, there is a legitimate public health issue here. In many ways this bill is similar to public schools requiring vaccinations; just as vaccinations prevent a child from catching a disease, so to would this bill help prevent future health problems.

The legislature, however, is much more conservative than in years past. I would be surprised if this bill ever makes it out of committee.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Arent.

Although it is very early to say, I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the progressive health care bills coming out of the minds of legislators so far. Many of these are, admittedly, small steps, but they are steps in the right direction.  Look at HB 14 – Catastrophic Mental Health Coverage – Sunset as proposed by Representative James Dunnigan (R – Taylorsville, District 39).

The bill itself eliminates two lines of code, but these two lines have being removed will have a big impact on the lives of many Utahns.

As it stands right now, we have on the books a law that says that there is a maximum amount insurance companies can charge their subscribers for mental health care coverage. Presumably, the legislature put a time constraint on this and other provisions because they wanted to test out how this would affect people and insurance companies. This limit happens to be set for the end of June of 2011.

After seeing that it would not be the end of the world for insurance companies, Dunnigan, with his Senate Partner John Valentine R – Orem, District 14) have proposed eliminating what is known as the “Sunset Clause” of the bill - eliminating the date that the bill would expire and making it law fo’ reals.

Of course, I would like to see more done to take the burden off the individual, but, hey, I am a Democrat in Utah, any step in the right direction is a good one.

Click here to contact Representative Dunnigan.

Representative Paul Ray (R-Clearfield-District 13) is not exactly known for his progressive policies and willingness to stick it to big business, that is why I find it a little surprising and refreshing that he is proposing HB 11 – Inmate Health Insurance Amendments.

This bill is actually a carbon copy of Ray’s amended bill in the 2010 session. It appears to have gotten a bit bogged down in the process and never quite made it out of the House chamber.

That being said, this actually isn’t a bad bill. In short, it states that if an inmate has health insurance upon being incarcerated, the health insurance company can not deny coverage to that individual simply because they are locked up and put the bill on the state in the event that that inmate needs some sort of medical treatment.

Now, I assume that Ray is looking at this as a cost cutting measure, but I also see it as a quality of life issue for inmates.  Let us presume, for example, that someone gets locked up for being involved in a fight, gets banged up pretty good, and needs to get a few stitches. The state would have to flip the bill and may do the job as cheaply as possible because an insurance company can claim that the person was an inmate at the time so they don’t need to cover them. With the insurance company rightfully covering the costs, not only does the state not have to pay to patch someone up, but the individual receives a higher quality of health care.

Click here to contact Representative Ray

It seems that I always start my “Bills to Watch” series with Representative Jen Seelig (D-Salt Lake, District 23); I guess it is because she seems to constantly propose bills that are both good, and glossed over for more high profile issues. Well, this year is no different as Seelig has now proposed HB 13 – Immunizations for Teen Mothers.

Now, to be fair, we may see a little controversy over this one as we are talking about teen mothers here (I mean it is right in the title), but when you get into the meat and potato’s of the bill, it is not only a family values bill, it is also just good policy.

So, let us assume you have a teen aged mother. As it stands right now that minor can not authorize treatment for their child to get things such as immunizations or examinations, even if the minor was legally married and had a child. Yes, as it stands right now, a baby could go without proper medical treatment simply because their mother happens to be under the age of 18.

Yes, yes, I know, it is a great sin for these girls to be running around and having sex and getting pregnant – but this bill is not about the morality of children having children, this bill is about making sure that babies have access to life saving immunizations and doctors examinations that they would not otherwise be able to access.

In short, this bill is to help children, not promote more teen mothers.

I should also note that this bill also updates terminology by changing the term “crippled children” with “children with disabilities,” but that is a relatively minor provision of the bill.

In short, this is a true family values bill that promotes a healthier community. I honestly hope that this bill passes.

Click here to contact Representative Seelig.

This time last year, I wrote about Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck’s (D – Salt Lake – District 24) HB 144, a bill that allowed medical language interpreters into hospitals so that those who speak little to no English can understand the medical procedures they (or those they love) will have.

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.

This time last year, I was complaining about Representative Paul Ray’s (R-Clearfield-District 13) attempt to raise taxes on tobacco in the state. Well, I am back to complain again.

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