A short letter about handgun laws.

Recently my state (Tennessee) passed a law that allows persons with state handgun carry permits to carry their guns in parks. The same law provides local municipalities the option to ban guns in the parks within their jurisdictions. The complications exceeded anything I ever imagined and TV news stories about the issue have been far too frequent. After one such story where local school boards were refusing to hold school activities in parks where guns were allowed I reacted. I sent the following letter to the TV station that aired the story and I decided to publish it here also.

Guns in parks

As a handgun permit holder I feel more than a little insulted by some recent reactions to the guns in parks decision by the Tennessee Legislature. Opponents to guns act like I’m some crazy person who is subject to shooting wildly about. I am not! Like all legal permit holders I have established a record of non-violence and law abiding stability. I have never been charged with a felony, I have never been accused of domestic violence in any form, I am not and have never been a drug user, and I have never been judged mentally incompetent. In effect I am just about as safe a person to be around as any one you know. If I have my weapon with me it is not being brandished in a threatening manner, in fact you will never know if I have it or not.

Look around you in any public place. What can you say about the people you see? You really have no way to know what kind of person you may be looking at. If you know I have a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit you can be sure I am not an unstable, violence prone felon. I am in fact a safer person to have next to you than some of the people you may know. Please stop acting like permit holders are dangerous. We have met the background checks and we have passed classes on proper safety procedures. We are not a danger to you and especially to your kids. The person carrying a gun without a permit is already a felon and he is not worried about what the law says.

D. Page

Please post some comments or tweet me at twitter.com/wyoknott

Senator Edward Kennedy's passing

There are opponents of health care reform who are breathing a secret sigh of relief. With the passing of Senator Kennedy the most powerful and long-lived voice for reform has been quieted. Kennedy was a proponent of health care reform many years before the stance became sexy. He sincerely believed all Americans had a right to health care and he did not like the way health care had become a privilege based on one's financial status.

I don't necessarily believe it is a right but at today's rising costs it is rapidly becoming a privilege of the wealthy. My view of reform requires insurance companies to limit the practices that place adequate coverage to sick people far below profit on their corporate plans. I want a plan that provides basic coverage for pre-existing conditions (does not exclude pre-existing from coverage). My recommendation for the public option is based on using the public option to supplement the insurance options available from the private sector. A private sector insurer will always have the right to establish its own coverage system and include any exclusions it sees fit. To have this right the insurer must be willing to pay a surcharge on the premiums it collects from members. This surcharge will help offset the public cost of subsidizing the people who cannot afford to pay for coverage. The public option will provide coverage for anyone. The cost of coverage for the individual will depend on that individual's ability to pay. The private insurers can provide lower premiums by continuing the exclusion practices that reduce their costs but they will have to pay for that privilege with the aforementioned surcharge. This actually seems fair to all and a good, non-controversial option to the status-quo.
Post your comments to tell me what you think!
DRP

ps: I must apologize for the insensitivity of using Senator Kennedy's passing as an opportunity to mount my soapbox but it is a common political practice is it not.

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

Here is a list of facts about the health care reform issue. This list is what I believe about the issue and the ongoing debate:

1)President Obama truly intends to improve the lives of all Americans by extending access to health care to ALL Americans - Not just the "well-off".

2)The rising cost of health care and health insurance is putting even basic health out of the reach of an increasing number of people.

3)The President's intent is to help the people without adequate access to care. He has no desire to take over the entire population's health care.

4)A workable plan will be an insurance-based plan with subsidies for lower income families so they can choose their own insurance with financial aid from the government.

5)No workable plan will be free. Someone will have to pay for it. The only way to pay is by taxes on someone.

6)The people most in need of help are the ones least able to pay taxes. There exists an income level above which the impact of a health care surtax or some other taxation is minimal the the family's quality of life/lifestyle.

7)Families with income above a to-be-determined level will have to pay the taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for poorer people.

8)People who oppose reform are being manipulated by outrageous statements funded by the rich people who simply do not want to pay for other people's health insurance.

9)People without access to health care are dying daily. Opposing reform increases the death rate and reduces the quality of life for those it doesn't kill.

10)I really believe there are wealthy people in the country who oppose reform because they do not want to share waiting rooms and hospital resources with poor people.

11)Statistics might establish a level of personal taxation needed to keep one person alive for a month. If you (with family income greater than say $200,000 refuse to pay this amount you are effectively killing someone.

12)If you have good insurance coverage that you are happy with, you should be allowed to keep it. that does not preclude paying some tax on that coverage based on income level.

13)The insurance industry is already the most effective rationer of care. We don't have to fear government rationing. How often do we hear of someone being refused treatment because the insurance they have won't pay for it.

14)I have reason to believe our streets could be safer if some marginal people had better care, including mental health care. Private insurance is notoriously limiting when dealing with mental health issues. We need some reform to promote better mental health care. I bet a lot of people believe I should get some help here.

15)The Medicare system has some significant problems but it does make use of private insurors to provide prescription assistance. Something similar to the Medicare system would help many people and it is paid for by deductions from recipient's monthly checks.

16)Opponents to President Obama are using this issue as a weapon against him with total disregard for the collateral damage to unfortunate people.

17)We were once a very powerful country when we combined our efforts. People around the world looked to us an an example. We can solve any problem through cooperation and compromise. We can be damaged from within by political wars with no purpose other than gaining power over someone.

18)People must think for themselves and stop being influenced by TV ads. Just think about how many lives could be saved by the money spent on the ads.

19)We all need to think about the reasoning behind the ads; think about the concept of spinning information to promote a viewpoint.

20) Everyone must look at who will be helped by reform and who will actually be hurt. The helped vastly outnumber the hurt - this cannot be denied. Maybe we need to look to our hearts instead of our bank accounts for the real story here.

dRp

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

Here is a list of things I believe about the health care debate:
1) President Obama truly wants to help the american people live better, longer, productive lives by providing health care to everyone. (I could be wrong but this is my belief)
2)The plan envisioned by the President is not a complete, all-encompassing health care system for every one. It will be intended for persons who cannot afford insurance or health care at today's market prices.
3)The plan in whatever form it ends up will not be "cheap". There will have to some taxes paid by someone to make any plan workable.
4)the

Something other than health care

My home state, Tennessee recently passed a law allowing persons with handgun carry permits to carry weapons in public parks. Municipalities are allowed to opt-out of carrying guns in parks by passing local measures. Many cities and towns have exercised this right and prohibited guns in local parks.

I may be revealing too much about my own personality in this post but I feel the need to comment here. The local rules only serve to cause a patchwork of confusion in the state. Handgun carriers travelling around the state can unknowlingly run afoul of local rules - especially if they have been allowed to carry in their home area parks. People who oppose carrying in parks are reacting emotionally and are not thinking clearly about the issue. It can be statistacally demonstrated (I'll get a link to support this statement later)that the people who have qualified for handgun carry permits are one of the population segments least likely to be violent or to permit any crimes. The very nature of the person who meets the requirements establishes that person's stability and history as a lawabiding citizen. All it takes is one incident of violence in a person's background to deny ther permit. Even one charge of domestic violence is enough to deny a permit. The handgun permit holder walking next to you in the park is an anonymous security resource. The criminal in the park carrying a knife (or a gun or club) has no respect for your rights and security. The handgunner has a moral (and possibly legal) responsibility to come to your aid if you are attacked by a criminal type. Do not deny this person the means to come to your aid immediately. A ploiceman is not usually close at hand. You might be surprised how many authorized handgun carriers are close at hand in the places you frequent.

DRP

Why we need reform and not lies or accusations.

Once more I am inspired to comment on healthcare reform.

On today’s evening news I saw a follow-up report on a free healthcare service for poor, uninsured and under-insured persons. There were literally thousands of people of all ages staying in line just to see one of a group of volunteer doctors. The report went on to say less than half of small businesses can afford to provide insurance for their employees or themselves. This is a very real indicator of the need for healthcare reform in this country. There are millions of people with no access to health care at all. Sure there are some laws the require hospitals to provide a certain level of indigent care but the laws generally apply to acute need and do not provide wellness or preventative care. What happens is people cannot get any help unless their life is in immediate jeopardy.
Now, what does this mean in respect to the current debate raging in the media? It means there is one side that has been either grossly misinformed or is undeniably selfish and greedy. Opponents to reform want the current system to remain in place. The current system is becoming more expensive at an alarming rate – putting reasonable care out of reach to more people. I can understand if you have good coverage at a price you can afford you certainly do not want any drastic changes. My problem is the lack of compassion for the growing number of people left behind as costs escalate.
The intent of the reform is to get some help for lower income level families. There is no intent or need to mess with anybody’s current coverage if said coverage is acceptable to the covered. Certainly there will be costs associated with providing coverage. The only real way to cover these costs is an increase in revenue from some sources. Highway infrastructure is paid for in a large part by taxes related to highway use: fuel taxes, local wheel taxes…etc. It would not be unreasonable to institute a small tax on some portions of the health care system to pay for the coverage. The government should be no more than a provider of insurance coverage for those without any other affordable coverage. There is no reason for government regulation of health care beyond what we now have. I would expect the coverage provided by the government would be less restrictive and intrusive than most current insurance companies. People would have the option of buying the government-backed insurance coverage or any private insurance coverage. For the lower income levels the government would subsidize the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles so families could afford the payments. More people will have access to coverage. Current coverage need not change. The combination of user premiums and subsidies for low income families based on reasonable taxes on existing private coverage would pay the cost. Competition would remain the driving force of private insurers.
If you have an irrational fear of sharing a waiting room with a poor family, you could purchase a private access plan and you never have to see a poor person. If you think it is better to let poor people to suffer instead of paying a bit more tax you are simply selfish and greedy. As I have said before: Some people would rather let three people die prematurely than pay a 1 or 2 percent annual tax on their health care. There is no excuse to oppose reform blindly. Support reform in concept and work with us to craft a workable solution. People are suffering. Be wiling to help. Don’t believe all the outrageous lies being wielded as political weapons. Think for yourself and with your soul. Help us find a workable reform plan!!!

Socialized Medicine Scare

My response to the socialized medicine ads being run opponents to healthcare reform:

If you have adequate healthcare and you are secure in the feeling that you will have access to care for the rest of your life then there is no need for you to worry about healthcare reform. If there is a chance you might loose the job that provides your healthcare coverage or you might loose the ability to pay for your own healthcare then you should be very interested in how this debate plays out.

Here is an interesting comparison. Legal representation is always provided for criminal suspects if they cannot afford to pay for it. If the suspect can pay, he get the representation he can afford. In the legal system, more money gets better quality representation. This is not debateable. I am aware that legal representation is a right guaranteed by the constitution while there is no direct mention of health care. From this point of view there is no comparison between the justice system and healthcare.

There is another possible point of view. Lack of healthcare access can be a threat to a person's life and life is widely accepted as one of our "inalienable rights". I don't expect that rich person to be forced to the same level of care that I can afford and i don't expect the same level of care the wealth person can afford. I would like to have some access to care that might prolong my life or prevent premature death from some treatable disease.

What is really happening here is that wealthy people are afraid they will have to share their top quality healthcare providers with a waiting room full of poor people. I have personally witnessed the difference in the quality of care and the quality of facilities between well-off neighborhood clinics and poor neighborhood clinics. If I had the money I too would prefer the wealthy neighborhood. I don't have the money and I would be happy to see a doctor in any neighborhood. The opponents are using scare tactics to generate pressure to oppose reform. The exaggerations and misleading statements are intended to manipulate the masses by making the majority of people believe their healthcare is threatened. If the prices continue to increase the income level that provides adequate access is going to increase as well. More people will loose access. Wealthy people will have to pay more.

What we need is a rational plan to subsidize lower income families and the small businesses who employ them to enable their access to healthcare. We need laws to prevent denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. We need laws to tax employers who refuse to provide adequate coverage for employee and families. We need oversight of insurance companies that use drastic rules to deny coverage for expensive treatments. We need to stop insurance company accountants setting the rules for treatment and ignoring doctors' and providers' recommendations. We must put some controls in place to limit the outrageous inflation that has driven healthcare costs out of the reach of so many people including bussinesses. We could actually subsidize doctors' insurance costs if they voluntarily provide lower income care at reduced prices.

What is intended is making healthcare accessible to more people at the lower end of the income scale and possiblly reducing costs to employers who want to provide coverage to employees. There is no threat to the care accessible by people who can afford it. There certainly may be a tax required to pay for it; if you would rather have three people die from lack of care than pay an additional 1% tax that is a reflection on your personal greed. In this country, we have been strangling our government in recent years by refusing to provide the means for the services we demand. even without healthcare reform we need some additional taxes to help our government operate.

Raising taxes vs. letting people die.

I just read a headline reporting Obama officials have finally mentioned the only thing that will help the health care reform – tax increase. Now the rich and powerful have the ultimate weapon to wield against the Obama administration. The myriad ways of spinning the phrase “tax increase” make it a very powerful weapon indeed. There is no real way to put a positive spin on a tax increase discussion except appealing to voters’ humanity and compassion. I have been preaching this concept for several months now in this blog that remains mostly unread. I even tried to put my own spin on the subject by equating the refusal to raise taxes to allowing people to die.

I cannot see how a person with an income greater than 200K/yr can feel threatened by an additional $500 – 1000 a year in taxes. I have existed all my life on less than $50k/yr and lived OK. I had reasonable health care through my employers, money/credit to buy home or car, and even some vacation time. I have never really complained about the taxes I pay because I realize I should pay my part for the government services. These services often include helping less fortunate in my community. A family making four times as much as I do should have no more real needs than I do. Sure there is a higher priced home, higher priced cars, much higher priced colleges…etc but these are optional expenses chosen – not imposed. If you choose to spend all your money that’s a personal decision and other people should not have to pay for your decisions. When you demand lower taxes in order to increase your available funds you are strangling the government of resources. The reduction in resources will not likely impact your life nearly as much as the people who lose their police presence or fire protection in low income neighborhoods.

This same argument applies to the current healthcare crisis. If you refuse to pay taxes just because you want more spending money, you are hurting someone in need. If you have substantial income, you can continue to pay for increasing healthcare costs for your own family. The family with less income does not have that option – there is a point where their access to healthcare goes away. We are at that point now! People are making choices between medicine and food; doctor visits or rent; getting that cough treated or buying a tank of gas to get to work. I KNOW! I am one of them! Sure I’m being a bit selfish but am I any more selfish than the rich person who demands lower taxes for his own benefit?

There may be some intangible costs involved in denying healthcare to poor people. Think about this: That homeless person with a cough could be suffering from Swine Flu. Do you want him spreading the disease or getting into a hospital for treatment (and isolation)? That young man with an easily controllable mental health issue may have lost his access to the medicine that keeps him stable. What could happen? I realize other people’s problems are easily dismissed as being their own fault. It is a fact that not all of us have the personalities that make us successful in life. You need to keep these people alive – even if for no other reason than to have someone to look down on. Refuse to pay a few dollars more taxes and let one of us die early. You’ll never know about it. You won’t feel the loss nearly as much as you’d feel the extra $30/week in taxes on your $2500/week paycheck.

DRP