Creating State Healthcare Reform

by Brian L. Baker

It should be easier for many of the estimated 700,000 uninsured Missourians to afford health insurance and have a better idea of what health care goods and services cost under legislation currently in the Missouri House.

Building upon our tax equity and portability successes from last year, we are now in a position to continue making market-based reforms to improve access to affordable coverage for those who are unable to be medically underwritten and to low-income individuals. It is also time for Missourians to be given the information necessary to be informed consumers and not just participants in their health care. We have a right to know the cost and quality of health care before those services are provided. As I leave the Missouri House, I am supporting legislation that takes steps to bring real reform and looks to free-market principles to help the consumer.

The first part of reform begins with “Transparency.” I co-sponsored HB2394 relating to price and quality transparency in healthcare. I believe that people have the right to know what health care costs and have some idea of the quality of that care before the care is provided. All of us, at one time or another has driven across town to save a penny or two per gallon of gas or spent time clipping coupons, but we don’t always think about the price of health care or services. Many times we never look beyond our co-pays. As consumers of health care we act irrationally, especially when it is paid for by a third party or employer. This is largely due to the lack of price and quality information available to consumers.

The proposed plan ensures that people have the right to request an estimate of the costs of their in non-emergency situations. It is not that we don’t care about what something costs or how good our doctor is, but simply that we have never been given the opportunity to find out. Let’s face it, we have a health care system that is price blind and quality silent, patients demand and deserve better than that.

I am also a co-sponsor for HB2413 relating to access and affordability of health coverage through the MHIP and the Insure Missouri program last week. This plan uses the Missouri Health Insurance Pool to help the medically uninsurable. It will provide affordable health insurance through the high risk pool known as the Missouri Health Insurance Pool (MHIP). The MHIP serves individuals who have medical conditions that insurers won’t provide coverage to in the individual health insurance market. These individuals typically do not qualify for public assistance and do not have an employer health insurance plan available to them. It is estimated that one to two percent of Missouri’s population is considered medically uninsurable.

Currently, individuals qualifying for the high risk pool pay 150% of the standard market rate for coverage. HB2413 would lower that rate to the standard market rate for lower income enrollees and cap the rate at 125% of the standard market rate for higher income enrollees. The plan also authorizes the MHIP to create a low-income premium subsidy program to assist low-income enrollees.

Small businesses can benefit from this legislation. Small businesses find the cost of providing employees with employer-sponsored health insurance to be excessively prohibitive, especially when an employee or dependent has a significant health problem. HB2413 would create a pilot program to allow insurers to transfer the high risks from the small group to the MHIP through a risk transfer product with the intent to stabilize rates for the small group. It is estimated that half of Missouri’s uninsured population work for small businesses.

HB2413 rewrites the Governor’s Insure Missouri plan. This proposal will provide premium assistance to low-income Missourians allowing them to purchase individual health insurance policies. The program is intended to assist at least 71,000 low-income, working adults.

Each Insure Missouri policy holder will be required to make a monthly contribution, based upon income, to a separate account to pay for deductibles and co-pays. Failure to make the monthly contribution will cause the individual to be removed from the program. This creates accountability and sustainability.

The Insure Missouri plan allows those qualified individuals to purchase an individual health insurance policy while promoting personal responsibility and ownership of their health, leveraging private market innovations, focusing on prevention and wellness, and using existing revenues to pay for the plan, thus eliminating the need to raise taxes.

Congress Proves Their Infancy Status; Has Chance to Lead but FAILS!

By Brian L. Baker

President Reagan once said, “Government is like a baby…an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Congress proved him right this week!

Every major national news outlet reported that the Congress rejected calls from citizens and national leaders to take an election-year break from pork-barrel spending as they passed budget plans that would torpedo hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted to keep spending tax-dollars on “Pork Projects” in our federal budget. They further voted to NOT re-instate the Bush tax-cuts. With reference to President Reagan, we are watching the baby eat and soil her diaper right in front of our eyes.

Since when, in the course of our nations history, do tax increases help a struggling economy? How can Congress talk about economic “stimulus” packages out of one side of their mouth and job killing tax increases out of the other? Why does Congress want us to believe that a one-time tax rebate is good for us, but a permanent tax cut it is not? Is Congress more concerned about their “pork”, than the prosperity of its citizens?

Missouri is not allowed to deficit spend and according to our state constitution we must have a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the federal government can “deficit-spend.” Further, these federal budget plans are nonbinding, and they highlight the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next President and Congress. Binding votes on the expiring tax-cuts will be left to his successor and the Congress that's elected in November. Regardless of your political party, this makes the 2008 elections all the more important.

Politicians in Washington have opted for a politically expedient “stimulus” package that will do little to stimulate the economy, but may be enough to stimulate their re-election campaigns. When the rebate becomes available, take it – it may be the only thing you’ll get from Congress, unless they give you some of their “sweet & sour” pork.

The Missouri legislature is already working on legislation to curb illegal immigration – a job that belongs to the federal government. The Missouri legislature is working to provide better access and affordability in our health care markets, but the federal government has put up barriers that stifle innovation and our ability to implement new ideas. The Missouri legislature is working to improve public education, but again the federal “No Child Left Behind” Act has too many big-government strings attached. What is a state to do?

Recently, at a “Coffee with Cleaver” in Raymore, I heard Congressman Cleaver defend the practice “pork-spending” due to the fact that it represents such a small part of the federal budget. Many congressmen and congresswomen argue that the practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen by both parties as a birthright “power of the purse” awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers. I tend to disagree. Our founding fathers separated from a government that was abusing its tax and spend powers.

Earmarks have exploded in number and cost in recent years, accompanied by charges of abuse and public outrage over egregious examples like the proposed "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which would have cost more than $200 million to serve an island with a population of about 50.

Since Congress is failing to lead, Missouri should take steps to help our citizens by reducing our state income tax burden. One proposal (HB1340) would phase in the full deductibility of our federal income tax liability from our state income taxes. Another proposal, to be introduced by the end of the month, will reduce the state individual-income tax providing real tax relief for Missourians, especially the middle class.

These proposals are intended to allow people keep more of their own money, to allow them to make decisions for themselves and their families, to give individuals more liberty in their consumption, savings, and debt retirement. If Washington refuses to offer relief…it will be left to the states.

By contrast, 20 House Democrats from St. Louis and Kansas City have introduced a bill (HB2131) this year that will deny citizens more liberty in their consumption, savings, and debt retirement. This bill increases income taxes up to 50% for middle class families in a time when families need to keep more of their hard-earned income, not less. HB2131 would increase taxes for ALL income levels with the largest tax-increase going to those who make $20,000 a year or more! Apparently, some believe government knows how best to spend your money than you do.

If we continue to ignore the long-term benefits of lower taxes and instead, embrace the “feel good economics” of Washington where Americans are baited into a $600 tax rebate check while Congress imposes a tax increase roughly twice that size, not only will Missouri continue lose representation in Washington, but the individual liberty of each Missourian will be eroded. Let’s be thankful, as Will Rogers observed that we are not getting all of the government we are paying for.

Congress is promising spending that would enlarge the deficit and/or require large tax increases. They further argue that tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending. Maybe a meat cleaver would be a wiser investment than a $200 million dollar bridge to help a population of 50.

Maybe President Reagan was right. Excuse me while I go try to change a diaper!

Founding Fathers & Separation of Powers

By Brian L. Baker

President Thomas Jefferson once said, "If the three powers maintain their mutual independence on each other our Government may last long, but not so if either can assume the authorities of the other."

Jefferson, one of our most beloved founding fathers, also commented, "The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that."

The roles of the branches of government were clearly laid before us when our nation was founded. It is imperative, as Jefferson stated, to keep these roles intact if our form of government is to remain in intact. One of the most important parts of a successful democracy is separation of powers. Our founding fathers left the power of taxation and law-making to the legislative branch, the branch that has the most direct accountability to the citizens. While checks and balances are also imperative to the process, this definitely does not give the judicial branch the right to impose taxes.

The issue of judge-imposed tax increases has become a “hot-topic” across the nation. Judge-imposed taxes became an issue here in Missouri during the Kansas City school desegregation case, Missouri v. Jenkins. A federal judge also forced the local government to raise taxes. Then the federal judge ordered the state and local governments to increase spending for the school district.

Many Republicans and Democrats alike fought this decision. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where they upheld a federal court’s ability to force state and local governments to raise taxes.

In Arizona, a court ruled that the state could be held in contempt if they do not find tax-dollars to pay to improve instruction of English to non-native speakers. The judge directed millions in penalties to go immediately to Arizona classrooms. The state of Arizona is facing a billion dollar budget shortfall, and they are facing a situation where a judge is dictating how the legislature allocates and distributes money. That is the role and duty of the legislature.

These are just a few examples where courts did exceed their constitutionally designed powers to make law and levy taxation from the bench. While we can’t control what federal judges do, we can ensure that Missouri clearly defines our separation of powers. Let us be proactive…rather than reactive.

Citizens elected representatives, senators, city councilman, and other officials to serve and manage our government. It is our duty to answer to the people for our votes and decisions. The role of appropriating tax-dollars toward public services is clearly outlined in our state constitution. Further, the citizens hold us directly accountable for that action.

We are working on a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would insure that Missouri does not have judge-imposed tax increases. You and other voters would go to the polls and be given the opportunity to decide the future of this legislation. Specifically, this proposed amendment prohibits the Missouri Supreme Court or any other court of the state from ordering the state, county or city to increase taxes. The amendment also prohibits any Missouri court from controlling how the state, county or city spends, allocates, or budgets except as expressly authorized by legislation or approved by Missouri voters.

Around the country and in Missouri, judges are necessary and important to the process and there are so many who do great work.

That being said, judges are elected to interpret the law and insure we abide by the law. Legislators are elected to appropriate tax-dollars and make laws. In our democracy, your representatives allow you and your fellow voters to have a say in the operation of government – whether it is by voting, calling your representatives or taking action through petitions, grassroots campaigns and public forums. Judges do not have the same role in our system. In addition, judges cannot always see the full picture in terms of the budget because they are not involved in the appropriations and budget process. That is the constitutional duty and role of the legislative branch.

We must clearly reiterate the separation of powers between the branches of our government and clearly define the role of the legislative and judicial branch. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, we must do this “that our government may last long.”

Protecting Our Children in the Classroom

by Brian L. Baker

KMBC Channel 9 recently reported that the Butler School District Athletic Director was arrested and charged with running a meth-lab. Last year, several news-reporters uncovered several cases inappropriate teacher-student relationships.

An unspoken epidemic has plagued our school systems for far too long. Teacher misconduct and numerous teacher sexual misconduct cases have gone unreported and unresolved over the years because of a system that fails to promote open communication between schools and school districts. While we have taken many steps to prevent sexual predators from coming within a thousand feet of our schools, we have failed to create a system that ensures they are not inside our schools; teaching our children. It’s time we rectify this problem by ensuring our schools are safe learning environments where our young people can receive a quality education without fear of harm.

As we take a closer look at this problem, it’s important to realize Missouri is not alone in failing to adequately address the issue. An Associated Press report revealed 2,570 educators nationwide whose teaching credentials were revoked or denied from 2001-2005 as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct.

Nationally studies show us that almost 1 out of every 10 children will be subject to sexual misconduct by a school employee between kindergarten and 12th grade. These shocking statistics have prompted legislators in New York, Maine, Minnesota, California and several other states to propose legislation to close the loopholes that have allowed sexual abuse to persist. In addition, the federal government is considering the creation of a national registry for teacher offenders and a toll-free number to report allegations of abuse.

Here in Missouri, the Associated Press report found 87 cases from 2001-2005. Unfortunately, this number designates us as the 11th worst state in the nation for teacher sexual misconduct.

While there are a variety of factors that have resulted in this unwanted ranking, one of the most alarming centers around the confidentiality agreements many school districts have with teachers. The Associated Press investigation turned up one example of a teacher who quietly moved from school to school even after dozens of accusations of sexual misconduct. He was able to do this because of confidentiality agreements that prevented schools from passing along the crucial information regarding the allegations made against him. While his license was eventually revoked, he was able to exist within the system for far too long and his actions caused irreparable harm to innocent young people who looked to him as an adult they could trust.

We are serious about creating a system here in Missouri that will keep sexual offenders out of our classrooms. Our ideas have taken the form of legislation that takes several steps to do exactly that. The Amy Hestir Davis Student Protection Act is named after a Missouri resident who came forward to share how she had been the victim of sexual abuse by a teacher. Her story is just one of many and it serves as another example of why this legislation is so vital to our state.

The Amy Hestir Davis Student Protection Act would take a number of important steps to crack down on the problem of teacher sexual misconduct. One of the most important provisions of the bill would make the current system more transparent by requiring school districts to adopt written policies on the information they can provide about former employees. Furthermore it would exempt current district employees from civil liability when discussing employee information that may affect student safety. These changes would give school districts the ability to share important information regarding teacher sexual misconduct. This in turn would prevent cases like I mentioned where the teacher existed within the system for years despite numerous allegations of sexual misconduct.

In addition, the act would clarify that a criminal background check must include a check of the sexual offender registry and the child abuse central registry. It also would require the departments involved in doing the checks to develop procedures for an annual record check of holders of active teacher certificates. These represent common sense changes and something that should have been part of our system from the beginning. We are doing our young people a great disservice by not conducting regular, thorough background checks on the educators we trust to provide a safe, nurturing environment. It is time we change this flawed system for the better.

The Student Protection Act also would remove the current 20-year statute of limitation that is in place for the prosecution of unlawful sexual offenses involving a person 18 years of age or younger. Amy Davis is one such person who came forward to share her story years later when the statute of limitation prevented prosecution of the teacher who abused her. As she stated, victims spend years being afraid to come forward to reveal the truth. In her case she waited too long and the man who abused her continues teaching today. That is why it is imperative we move forward with this legislation and correct our system so that sexual offenders cannot continue to exist within it.

The Amy Hestir Davis Student Protection Act is an important step in closing the loopholes that have plagued our system of education. It has a number of other provisions I have not mentioned, but the overall approach is one that encourages transparency and open communications between school districts, as well placing a heavier emphasis on ensuring our educators have no history of sexual misconduct. By doing this we can provide safer learning environments – the kinds of schools we as parents envision for our children where they are free to learn and grow without fear of harm.

In closing, I want to make it clear that both the Belton and Ray-Pec School Districts communicate with me on a regular basis. Officials from both districts have worked with me to pass legislation that keeps sex-offenders at least 1,000 feet away from school property. Further, both districts are working to make sure their back-ground checks are accurate and that our children are safe. No official wants to see students face these horrible situations develop. I will continue to work with our schools to provide a quality and safe environment for kids!