House Bill 43

House Bill 43 is another bill that is encroaching on personal liberties. This bill would prohibit driving while texting. Here is a letter I wrote to the Kernel about this subject:

The Kentucky Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. The measure, House Bill 43, has already passed the House by a vote of 80-16. The Interim Joint Committee on Transportation amended the bill to also ban the use of personal communication devices by persons under the age of 18.

It is a terrible idea to text while driving. It is irresponsible and dangerous to not only yourself, but to others as well. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated in 2002 that 2,600 people die each year because of cell phone use.

Drivers should look to limit their distractions as much as possible because about 80% of accidents are caused by distracted driving.

But does this mean we need to ban all "distractions" while operating a motor vehicle? If we follow this logic, there should be no stereos in cars, no passengers allowed, no eating, no coffee, no makeup, no smoking, nothing but driving while operating a motor vehicle.

And why stop while a vehicle is moving. I can think of many things that are harmful to users and potentially dangerous for non-participants. Or why don't we allow people to make their own choices.

I definitely shouldn't text while driving, but I know people who can enter a number and send a text without ever looking at their phone. Some people are perfectly competent driving while texting.

But my phone is also my mp3 player and radio. How can we enforce this when technologies are combining all devices into one? Would I be pulled over for using my radio just because it is the same device as my phone?

Perhaps we should let people make their own choices and live with the consequences including legal action and civil suits instead of attempting to outlaw activities that are dangerous for some people to do, but not all.

Sincerely,
Campbell Fritschner

House Bill 1

House Bill 1 is proposing to allow a court to place GPS monitors in domestic violence cases. This bill would "permit a court to restrain a respondent from going to or near specified locations" and "permit the petitioner in a domestic violence order case to inform the court of places the petitioner does not want the respondent to go into or near." It is certainly a good idea to enforce restraining orders and keep abusers away from the person they abuse, but at what cost to the "respondant's" personal liberty??? Does this apply to persons convicted of domestic abuse or persons accused? The language seems to suggest that an accused person can be forced to wear a GPS monitor and pay for its implementation and this to me seems over the edge impinging on accused (not convicted) person's liberties.

It is also surprising to note that this measure passed the house by a vote of 97-0. Will not one person stand up for personal liberties only because they will be labeled a protector of abusers? Is politics that important?

2010 Legislative Session

I've been doing some work covering the 2010 Kentucky Legislative Session and there are a few bills in here that seem a bit questionable. I'll be reporting on these as I can

Nanny of the Month

Obamacare: The promises PART THREE

"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange... It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and would also keep pressure on private insurance companies to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better."

A government run not-for-profit option would not only be less efficient because it can afford to be, but also because it has the American taxpayer behind it (much like the banks on Wall St do now) if it does run in the red (even advocates will not say that the taxpayer will not pay for it, the current plans to increase medicare tax for those making $200k a year, top tax bracket increases 4.6 percent, 5.4 percent surtax on incomes over $500k, increasing average top marginal tax rate to over 52 percent). This creates artificial pressure on insurance companies that causes prices to fall, but the net effect is that there will be a lower supply of healthcare (think bare bones insurance). Again, no one will be forced to choose it, but who doesn't want a free lunch???

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. The only thing this plan will eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud. And we will create an independent panel of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead."

Unfortunately, the plan is estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years. "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House proposal would actually increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years." If the government can find hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, then good for them, but I seriously doubt the private insurance market would miss this money if they are so greedy. And an independent panel created by the government (whose "appoint-ers" (politicians) are looking to push their constituents agenda, ie their own political doctrine) would be anything but independent by its very nature.

Obamacare: The promises PART TWO

"If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices."

Try typing "personal health insurance" in Google. The first two sites are companies that compare quotes for personal health insurance (e Health Insurance and Health Insurance Finders) both of which provide quotes and application links for individual/family, group/business, short-term, and even medicare. Sorry Dems, this marketplace already exists, created by the free market, something that doesn't seem to have been valued in the past 16 years.

"For those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. For those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill."

The first part sounds dangerously like "from each according to his ability to each according to his need," providing disincentives for people to raise their income. We will provide you tax credits if you are poor and if you become more productive, we will take them away. And economically speaking, people with preexisting conditions cost a lot of money to insure, meaning that low-cost coverage is not an economically viable option. What if a rich person has a preexisting condition? Do middle class Americans pay for this person to have "low-cost coverage" or is there a double standard providing this coverage to only some people who meet certain conditions? Who determines these conditions? This last paragraph is scares me quite a bit.

Obamacare: The promises PART ONE

In this post, I'll be commenting on this video found at www.whitehouse.gov:

"Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or doctor you have."

This is true, you won't have to change your plan, just like you don't have to accept other government funding. Unfortunately the government will provide incentives that not only make the public option more appealing to each individual marginally, it will provide negative financial incentives to have private insurance because:

"Under this plan it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition... As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most."

This will increase the cost for everyone who buys private insurance because forcing them to provide coverage to those individuals with preexisting conditions ultimately raises premiums for everyone, a negative incentive for buying private insurance. And insurance companies cannot just drop your coverage when you are sick (see John Stossel's six part "Sick in America"), they usually do this when you lie about preexisting conditions (Stossel's example is of a man who went to see a doctor about a lump in his leg a few days before he bought insurance), so providing insurance for people who cheat the system again raises the premiums for the contract abiding citizens.

"They will no longer to be able to place a cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. We will place a limit on the amount you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventative care -- like mammograms and colonoscopies -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."

Again these are regulations that will increase the cost of individual premiums or at the very least make the minimum coverage plan a lot more expensive for those who can afford it least. This will drive more people to the public option by increasing the amount of people that cannot afford a minimum health insurance premium. The forced coverage of preventative healthcare will increase the cost of everyone's premiums yet again. Also, see the uproar over mammograms and "expert opinion and consensus" in the LA Times, my particular favorite is their observation that "even the most careful scientific evaluations cannot always provide definitive answers on what works best for all patients."