You are here: Home / Archives for Federal Government

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SO-CALLED COMMON CORE STANDARDS

June 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards are sets of (currently Mathematics and English) imposed by the Obama administration as a top-down one size fits all curriculum;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the United States Constitution, to wit, education is not listed in the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “ . . . no funds provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable program, may be used to pilot test, field test, implement, administer or distribute in any way any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law;”

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to wit,  “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

Whereas, the only two standards experts on the Common Core Standards Commission, Dr. Jim Milgram (Mathematics) and Dr. Sandra Stotsky (English), refused to endorse any Common Core standard due to built-in low expectations, lowering of existing school standards and elimination of classic literature in favor of informational texts;

Whereas,  Dr. Jim Milgram stated that, “Realistically, the most likely outcome of the Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning  . . ;”

Whereas, Dr. Sandra Stotsky testified, “The standards which I have analyzed in detail many times over, do not signify readiness or authentic college level work, at best they point to readiness for a high school diploma . . . Professor Milgram says the same thing about the mathematics standards. We’re talking about the Common Core’s standards. Neither of them makes us competitive with other countries that have high expectations for their high school students . . ;

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Standards, which are intended to prepare students for nonselective community colleges rather than four-year universities are inferior to those in some states and no better than those of many others . . . their de-emphasis of the study of literature in favor of ‘informational texts’ would abandon the goal of truly educating students, focusing instead on training them for static jobs.”

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “Partnering with the Department of Labor, the Department [of Education] seeks to build a data system that allows tracking of individual students from preschool through the workforce.”  Why the need for population tracking and control?  Already, opponents to data collection, tracking and storage, to include the New York Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to fight this Common Core standard.

And Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Common Core State Standards . . . and the initiative for their nationwide adoption raise profound questions of federalism, education, content, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.”

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That We, the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen of Legislative District 11, Pima County GOP, unanimously affirm and declare our opposition to the so-called Common Core Standards. 

Resolved, that the State Superintendent of Education and all State Legislators reject and repeal Arizona’s commitment to submit to an unconstitutional and illegal overreach by the federal government.

Resolved, that the proposed tracking of students from preschool through the workforce is another unprecedented intrusion of and violation of personal liberty and confidentiality.

Resolved, that the Common Core standards call into question the very nature of federalism, education, control of curriculum, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.

Richard D. Brinkley

Chair, Legislative District 11

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Constitutional Law, Education, Federal Government, Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Rep Warren Petersen: Why Conservatives Oppose Expansion of Obamacare

June 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Warren PetersenThe battle over the Arizona expansion of Obamacare resembles the fight between David and Goliath. The pro-expansion team has millions of dollars, powerful lobbyists, support from all Democratic legislators, most if not all of the media and a few Republicans who have defected to their cause.

You’ve probably heard radio ads, watched commercials on ESPN or received a full page glossy mailer promoting their “conservative plan.” The only problem is that conservative legislators do not support it.

Here are a few reasons why.

We don’t fall for optical illusions. When the pro-expansion team bused in 300 people to their last rally, we knew that their support was a charade. When they say 63,000 people will lose coverage, we knew that it was not true. Those currently on Medicaid will still have coverage with or without the expansion. Even if it was true, they could get insurance from exchanges with any minimum wage job. We know that it is money and not compassion that is driving this train. A train that Harry Reid (U.S. Senate majority leader) said will wreck without the appropriation of more federal funds.

We stick to the facts and know that the budget put forth by Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs will not drain the rainy day fund or kick people off Medicaid. It does, however, include a request to renew our federal waiver. The pro-expansion team has said the waiver has been denied when, in reality, it has not. Cutting and pasting a web FAQ directed to 50 states is not the same as formally submitting your plan and receiving a denial letter. Ironically, this is the same argument the Democrats made when we last requested a waiver. They said we couldn’t get it, but we did. Will they deny that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled you can’t coerce people into expansion?

Another fact is that expansion doesn’t deal with health care of poor children. We are talking about a select group of adults of whom many have incomes above the poverty level. We are not talking about disabled people who cannot work. They have and will continue to have Medicaid coverage.

We have learned from history that we can afford to wait a year with or without the waiver as Arizona was the last state to implement Medicaid. We waited about 20 years and now it consumes one of every four dollars we spend. Obamacare is going to implode, which even the pro-expansion team admits. When it does, the expansion will go with it. It would be foolish to add onto something that is unraveling prior to implementation.

We know the numbers don’t add up. Conservatives don’t raise taxes on hospitals as a gimmick to draw down federal funds and they don’t put hundreds of thousands of people on a welfare program that will cost billions. Billions will be added to the national debt of which some will be used to fund abortions. Fortunately, half of the states have now refused the expansion. They took advantage of this rare opportunity to cut federal spending.

We believe in the American dream, which depends on every able bodied American to contribute and work. As mentioned before, a minimum wage job qualifies a person for health care exchange coverage. This will increase wealth and allow further contributions to society. Ours is a society that has been the most prosperous in the world because it promises that people can keep what they earn. Nations that guarantee benefits others have earned fail. Conservatives understand that and know that expansion is nothing more than massive growth of the welfare state and a direct threat to our long-term economic health.

Warren Petersen serves the citizens of Legislative District 12. He and his wife and children reside in the Town of Gilbert. For more information, visit his Facebook page.

Filed Under: Conservatives, Elected Officials, Entitlements, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, State Budget, State Economy, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Betrayal in Benghazi

May 30, 2013 by Leave a Comment

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, May 30, 2013

Betrayal in Benghazi
 
Phil “Hands” Handley
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
 
The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. Among America ‘s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.
 
The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.
 
It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog press” has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming. The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. 
 
It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference… mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base , Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based. Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):
 
When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.” At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down.” By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various Command and Control Agencies… and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM. 
 
So nothing could have been done, eh?  Nonsense.  If one assumes that tanker support really was not available… what about this:
 
· When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.
 
· By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. 
 
· While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use. 
 
· The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM… which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.
 
· Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick. 
 
· Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away. 
 
· As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act… screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America ‘s interests first. 
 
The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”… and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug on Superman’s cape.” 
 
Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rest for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone… and he didn’t understand the tactical situation? YGBSM! 
 
Ultimately it comes down to the question of who give that order to “stand down?” Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

Filed Under: Conspiracy Theories, Ethics, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, National Security, Uncategorized

Bipartisan AZ Lawmakers Submit Letter to EPA Regarding Proposed Rule for Navajo Generating Station

May 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Submit Comments to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Proposed Rule for Navajo Generating Station
Letter Urges EPA to Convene Public Hearings Throughout Arizona Given Dramatic Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Rule

 

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (May 28, 2013) – Today, a bipartisan majority of the Arizona House of Representatives will file the attached letter with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld. The document urges the agency to conduct broad public hearings throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area and rural areas during the EPA’s public comment period for its proposed regional haze rule for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Ariz..

21 Republicans and Sixteen Democrat Members of the Arizona House of Representatives signed the letter signaling a strong, bi-partisan opposition to the proposed rule. The sweeping nature of the EPA’s proposed rule, the legislators argue, would have significant adverse impacts on Arizona families, tribes, businesses, agricultural interests and other key industries in the state through increased energy and water rates. There also is enormous risk to the Arizona’s economy as thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost economic activity will impact the state every year. Public hearings are needed throughout the entire state to ensure a transparent process that reflects broad stakeholder engagement and input on the rule.

“The Navajo Generating Station provides affordable energy and water to Arizona. It’s disconcerting that its operation might be undermined—or worse, shut down altogether,” said House Speaker Andy Tobin. “If implemented, EPA’s rule would drive up water rates, jeopardize jobs, and severely damage Arizona’s economy.”

The EPA’s proposed rule rejects the detailed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) proposal submitted by NGS’s operator, Salt River Project, and would instead impose the installation of additional technology controls that could cost as much as $1.1 billion. Incredibly, the rule would yield no perceptible visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon, according to the government’s own study. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) concluded “the body of research to date…is inconclusive as to whether [installing additional controls] would lead to any perceptible improvement in visibility.”

NGS provides energy to the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which makes renewable, affordable water available to 80 percent of Arizona’s residents—45 percent in Phoenix alone. If NGS shuts down, or has to install these costly controls, it would result in a potential doubling or tripling of water rates throughout the state. Likewise, 3,400 skilled jobs and an estimated $20 billion in economic activity over the next three decades could be in jeopardy if NGS is forced to shut down due to the rule.

“The EPA must convene multiple public hearings in geographically diverse areas of the state so the agency can begin to understand firsthand how its proposed rule will harm the livelihood of Arizona families, businesses, and communities,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell. “All of us have a stake in this debate, and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle urge EPA to expand its study of the issue and ensure Arizonans’ voices are heard.”

The full letter is attached.  Signers of the letter include: 

Republicans
Andy Tobin, Speaker of the House
David Gowan, Majority Leader
Rick Gray, Majority Whip
J.D. Mesnard, Speaker Pro Tempore
Brenda Barton, LD 6
Paul Boyer, LD 20
Heather Carter, LD 15
Doug Coleman, LD 16
Jeff Dial, LD 18
Karen Fann, LD 1
Doris Goodale, LD 5
Debbie Lesko, LD 21
David Livingston, LD 22
Kate Brophy McGee, LD 28
Justin Pierce, LD 25
Ethan Orr, LD 9
T.J. Shope, LD 8
Steve Smith, LD 11
Bob Robson, LD 18
Bob Thorpe, LD 6
Kelly Townsend, LD 16

Democrats
Chad Campbell, Minority Leader
Bruce Wheeler, Minority Whip
Albert “Ahbihay” Hale, LD 7
Lela Alston, LD 24
Mark Cardenas, LD 19
Andrea Dalessandro, LD 2
Juan Carlos Escamilla, LD 4
Rosanna Gabaldon, LD 2
Lydia Hernandez, LD 29
Jonathan Larkin, LD 30
Stefanie Mach, LD 10
Juan Mendez, LD 26
Martin Quezada, LD 29
Andrew Sherwood, LD 26
Victoria Steele, LD 9
Macario Saldate, IV, LD 3

###

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Energy, Environment, Federal Government, Press Release, State Government, States Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

The Arizona Senate & Medicaid Expansion: A Lesson in Making a Bad Bill Worse

May 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Christina Corieri

Last week, the Arizona Senate passed Medicaid expansion. Sadly, the proponents were not satisfied with merely passing a program expansion we can’t afford; they actively worked together to kill a series of common sense amendments that would have prevented extra expense and abuse.

One amendment would have activated the circuit breaker if the federal government ever dropped its share of the cost below the promised 90 percent, but every senate Democrat and five Republicans voted the amendment down, signaling that the Feds should feel free to increase Arizona’s costs.

Another amendment would have required an independent audit to ensure hospitals don’t pass the provider tax on to patients. Expansion proponents voted the amendment down, making it easier for hospitals to illegally pass the cost along without fear of being caught.

An amendment was offered to require an annual report on the quality of care provided by AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program. Although taxpayers have a right to know whether their money is being put to good use, these same senators voted the amendment down. Without this transparency, proponents can continue to assert how well the program works without risking evidence to the contrary.

This coalition also voted down amendments designed to curtail non-emergency use of emergency rooms and ambulances, which result in high, unnecessary costs to the state. Likewise, they voted down amendments to require health professionals and pharmacists to check the prescription monitoring database before authorizing or filling a member’s prescription for a controlled substance such as Oxycodone, Percocet, or Vicodin. These amendments would have saved taxpayers from paying for and enabling addictions to these medications.

While the Medicaid expansion is a costly and misguided policy, these amendments were not poison pills but sensible ways to mitigate some of the costs and prevent abuse. The proponents, however, made a bad bill much worse by rejecting these amendments. Thankfully, the Senate does not have the last word. While we hope the House declines the Medicaid expansion, at a minimum, we hope it supports some common sense amendments that will help protect taxpayers.

Christina Corieri is a health care policy analyst with the Goldwater Institute.

 

Filed Under: Economics, Federal Government, Health Care, Legislation, Spending, State Government Tagged With: , , , ,

Senator John McCain Introduces Legislation for À La Carte Cable Consumption

May 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013, which provides consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as “a la carte,” giving Americans more control over their viewing options and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.

Video of Senator McCain introducing the legislation HERE

The full text of the legislation HERE

Text of Senator McCain’s statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate introducing the legislation:

“Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. This legislation has three principal objectives: (1) encourage the wholesale and retail ‘unbundling’ of programming by distributors and programmers; (2) establish consequences if broadcasters choose to ‘downgrade’ their over-the-air service; and (3) eliminate the sports blackout rule for events held in publicly-financed stadiums.

“For over 15 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as ‘a la carte’ – to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their home and, as a result, their monthly cable bill.

YouTube Preview Image

[Continue reading...]

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Legislation, Media, Press Release Tagged With: , ,

Rep. Paul Gosar Introduces the F.A.U.L.T Act

May 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Congressman Paul Gosar

‘Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable’   

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) introduced the Foreign Assistance Under Limitation and Transparency Act or the F.A.U.L.T Act. This legislation is intended to limit foreign aid to five countries that undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives – Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan. Rep. Gosar issued the following statement:

“Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable. Yet, only in Washington, D.C. does it make sense to pay other governments to undermine our foreign policy objectives.”

Rep. Gosar continued, “When countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan act like enemies rather than friends toward the United States and our allies, the time to cut them off from U.S. taxpayer dollars is now.”

Rep. Gosar previously introduced amendments to the last two Department of Defense Appropriations Acts that sought to ensure that foreign aid was not given to hostile international regimes and organizations.  He has introduced the F.A.U.L.T Act as stand-alone legislation in the hope to expand upon these principles and codify them into law.

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, National Security, Press Release, Terrorism Tagged With: , , , ,

Senator Jeff Flake Amendments to Immigration Bill Adopted in Committee

May 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Washington, D.C. – United States Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), today offered two amendments during the Senate Committee on the Judiciary markup of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The amendments were adopted en bloc.  

Flake #1: Adds three private land owner representatives (one from the Northern border region and two from the Southern border region) to the Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force included in the bill. 

Flake #2: Revises the schedule for the Department of Homeland Security’s submittal of the semiannual status report regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to 180 days after submission and every 180 days thereafter. Additionally, it adds the Comptroller of the United States as a recipient of the status report, and adds a requirement for an annual review by the Comptroller of the reports and an assessment of the status and progress of the strategy.

Senator Flake announced the adoption of these amendments on Twitter:

###

Filed Under: Border, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Illegal Immigration, Press Release Tagged With: , , , ,

ICYMI: Rep. Paul Gosar on C-Span’s Washington Journal Discussing Benghazi Hearings

May 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) appeared on C-Span’s Washington Journal to discuss the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Benghazi Consulate attack.

Please click HERE or the image below to watch the interview:

YouTube Preview Image

“There’s accountability in the private sector, but what we lack here is accountability in the public sector.”
—-
“This narrative that was put out was a deceitful lie that misled the American public.”
—-
“There is definitely a problem that we’ve got here. It’s not a matter of if, it’s just when, this is going to happen again and that’s why these hearings are so important.”

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Media, National Security, Press Release Tagged With: , , , ,

Arizona Stands for Health Care Freedom!

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

AZAgainstObamacare

Please visit and like our Facebook page!

Filed Under: Conservatives, Federal Government, Health Care, Political Ad, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Uninsured May Have Better Access to Care than Medicaid Patients, Survey Shows

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Reposted from AAPSonline.org

The public relations campaign to support Medicaid expansion frequently uses testimony by patients with serious medical conditions who have lost their private insurance. It is assumed that once they qualify for Medicaid, they will easily get their chemotherapy, hepatitis c treatment, or defibrillator battery replacement.

“The messages talk only about coverage, not care,” states Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). “But the real question is whether Medicaid provides access to care.”

An internet survey of AAPS members shows that about 47% of respondents think that it is more difficult for a Medicaid patient, compared with an uninsured patient, to get an appointment with a primary-care physician. Only 26% thought that the uninsured had more difficulty. For specialist appointments, 44% thought uninsured patients were better off, and 32% thought Medicaid patients were better off. Only 2% thought that Medicaid patients had “no problem” getting an appointment with a specialist.

When asked, “How easy is it for a Medicaid beneficiary to obtain drugs, medical equipment, or diagnostic tests?”, 48% said it could be “extremely difficult,” 27% said “moderately difficult at times,” and only 13% said it was “no problem.”

Of 166 respondents, 96 were physician specialists, 63 primary physicians, and 7 emergency physicians.

Open-ended comments were overwhelmingly negative about Medicaid. Rural patients who are unable to drive or travel may have no access to care at all except through charity. Some areas have no hand surgeons, endocrinologists, dentists, or rheumatologists who will accept Medicaid. Many cardiology tests, even echocardiograms on inpatients, are questioned or denied. Many drugs, even common generics, are unavailable without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Treatment for chronic pain is especially difficult. It may be very challenging to get non-emergency surgery approved, no matter how necessary.

“Medicaid ends up as a jobs program for administrators and quasi-medical professionals,” writes one physician. “Very little of Medicaid money actually goes to the ‘health care’ part of the equation.” Another said that “poor customer service is the norm” and “excessive paperwork is routine.”

Because it may cost more to file a claim than a physician can hope to collect, physicians may lose on every Medicaid patient, and lose less if they just see the patients for free.

Stating that “denials were much more common than approvals for appropriate treatment options and diagnostic studies,” one physician concluded that “to expand such a horrendous program is insane.”

AAPS, which was founded in 1943, is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties.

Filed Under: Demographics, Entitlements, Federal Government, Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Medicaid Expansion: What You Hear vs. What You See

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Dr. G. Keith Smith
Reposted from AAPSonline.org

The strongest advocate for expanding Medicaid—and the likely source of funding for the massive advertising campaign—is the hospital lobby.

We hear that hospitals are going broke. They can’t make ends meet. The uninsured are breaking the hospitals’ backs from emergency room over-utilization. Hospitals won’t survive unless Medicaid is expanded. (This is the most interesting claim, as hospitals simultaneously complain that underpayment by Medicaid justifies their cost-shifting to others!)

These are the lies that are primarily responsible for bringing us ObamaCare.

But if we look around us, what do we see?

Hospitals are building everywhere. They sponsor sports franchises. They buy advertising in high-priced media outlets. They are ceaselessly buying physician practices—and also buying rural hospitals they destroyed by having bought all of the small-town physician practices and diverting their referrals. They are expanding their emergency rooms—and even building free-standing emergency rooms, so-called loss leaders for their institutions. They make multi-million-dollar “logo” changes. Their administrative staffs are huge and extremely well paid.

Why are patients terrified of becoming uninsured, or driven into bankruptcy by medical bills? It is not because of doctor bills. How many doctors have extracted such huge payments from patients as to cause them to lose their homes? It is hospitals that do that. Routinely.

After reading the recent article in Time magazine about abusive hospital billing practices, in which Oklahoma City’s own Mercy Hospital was named, one of my partners remarked that the rotating cross on top of their hospital should be replaced with a dollar symbol! My father recently asked me if any of the hospital administrators whose billing practices have bankrupted countless patients ever had face-to-face contact with those whose lives had been ruined by their greed. Or, he asked, were they like drone operators, destroying people’s lives in a remote, impersonal way, while they themselves remain safe in their office?

The truth is that, economically, hospitals are not unlike utility companies in that they have high fixed costs. As Thomas DiLorenzo explains in his brilliant book Organized Crime: the Unvarnished Truth about Government, once the plant is built and the power lines are present, the cost of adding another utility customer approaches zero. Once the emergency room is built and staffed, the actual cost of an additional patient approaches zero, other than the actual supply costs. As a physician who owns and operates a medical facility, I can tell you that the supply costs are not that high, even in a surgical environment.

Also, while the hospital spokesmen claim that they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay, hospitals get paid even when they don’t get paid through the uncompensated care scam. As hospitals wave the charity flag with one hand, they are fleecing the taxpayers through this scam with the other.

When Jim Epstein of Reason magazine was writing an article about our facility, Surgery Center of Oklahoma, he discovered that the amount Medicaid paid local hospitals exceeded the prices we post publicly at http://www.surgerycenterok.com. Hospitals claim that these “horrible reimbursements” by Medicaid are one of the primary excuses used to justify the “hidden tax” they impose on uninsured (self-pay) and privately insured patients.

Think about this: if the costs for the indigent are shifted to others who do pay, or to taxpayers, how is it that the hospitals are providing “uncompensated” care? One way or the other, the hospital gets paid for everyone who comes through its doors.

We make a profit at the prices we have listed online. These prices are one-sixth to one-tenth of the prices charged for the same procedures at most “not for profit” hospitals. This is what you can see for yourself. What you now hear if you listen closely is a quiet panic engulfing those in the medical-industrial complex, as this free-market, transparent pricing model is getting noticed and gaining ground.

This movement, if allowed to grow, will reduce the cost of care and raise the quality bar, just like competition does in every other sector of the economy.

Why expand the bureaucratically encrusted waste and corruption-ridden Medicaid model that is bankrupting government, when freedom works so much better?

 

Dr. G. Keith Smith is a board certified anesthesiologist in private practice since 1990. In 1997, he co-founded The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, an outpatient surgery center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, owned by 40 of the top physicians and surgeons in central Oklahoma. Dr. Smith serves as the medical director, CEO and managing partner while maintaining an active anesthesia practice. 

In 2009, Dr. Smith launched a website displaying all-inclusive pricing for various surgical procedures, a move that has gained him and the facility, national and even international attention. Many Canadians and uninsured Americans have been treated at his facility, taking advantage of the low and transparent pricing available. 

Operation of this free market medical practice, arguably the only one of its kind in the U.S., has gained the endorsement of policymakers and legislators nationally. More and more self-funded insurance plans are taking advantage of Dr. Smith’s pricing model, resulting in significant savings to their employee health plans. His hope is for as many facilities as possible to adopt a transparent pricing model, a move he believes will lower costs for all and improve quality of care.

Filed Under: Entitlements, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care Tagged With: , ,

Dr. Kelli Ward: Opposition to Medicaid Expansion is Real

April 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Dr. and Senator Kelli Ward

Dr. and Senator Kelli Ward

Since January, many of us at the State Capitol have been trying to determine a common sense way to approach reliable health care for our neediest citizens. It is clear that a full expansion of our Medicaid program to 138% above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) will add 400,000 patients or more to an already overloaded system. After carefully studying this complex issue, I have determined the plan is unsustainable and potentially harmful to hardworking Arizona taxpayers. We simply do not have the doctors and other health care providers to offer primary care to these new patients. When people are sick or seek care for their chronic illnesses, they will not be able to get into a doctor’s office, so they will instead turn to our emergency departments. Not only will that be much more expensive to Arizonans, but the people are unlikely to get the kind of care they need most.

The last time we expanded AHCCCS (the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System – AZ’s Medicaid); we grossly underestimated the number of people who would enroll. Three times more parents of Medicaid-covered children and two times as many childless adults signed up. Costs went from an estimated $315 million to an actual $1.2 billion. Voters were told tobacco settlement money under Prop 204 would cover the added patients, but quickly we had to dig into the general fund. Now we are being told a hospital bed tax will cover this expansion proposal and the Federal government will bear the burden of the majority of the costs until 2017. Remember, the Federal government gets its money from us – the taxpayers. While no one can predict the true future price tag, experience proves that the costs have always been much higher than estimated.

Do not let people tell you there are no alternatives and we either expand or do nothing – there are real options. We should request that HHS allow Arizona to continue our current plan for those under 100% FPL and for Arizona to determine the best way to provide care for our indigent population. We should find ways to complete treatment of Medicaid patients that are in the midst of potentially lifesaving therapy for catastrophic illnesses despite the expiration of our current Federal waiver on December 31, 2013 – we can find a way to make an exception for this small number of patients. People above 100% FPL that are not otherwise eligible for coverage are able to buy subsidized policies through the federal exchange, we should let them. We should consider providing catastrophic coverage policies for those under 100% of the Federal Poverty Level and a graduated plan for other services. Cost transparency should be our goal. We must seek tort reform to discourage the practice of defensive medicine which drives up the cost of healthcare.

Our Medicaid system in Arizona is one of the best in the country, but I don’t believe that we need to make it bigger and give control of the hundreds of millions of dollars to an unelected agency director. I will continue to seek free market solutions to our health care dilemma and find ways to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. If you only remember one thing, remember this: the Medicaid expansion plan is about increasing the entitlement to healthcare coverage without any guarantees of increased accountability, improved access to care, higher quality, or lower costs of healthcare – it is a step in the direction of socialized medicine and much bigger government.

Senator Kelli Ward

Senator Kelli Ward, D.O., MPH is a Family Physician with additional expertise in Health Policy, she represents Arizona’s 5th Legislative District and resides in Lake Havasu City, AZ with her family. She serves on the Senate Health & Human Services (Vice-Chair), Appropriations, Education and Government & Environment Committees.

Filed Under: Conservatives, Elected Officials, Entitlements, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, State Budget, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Poll: Obamacare Medicaid in Arizona

April 12, 2013 by 1 Comment
Filed Under: Entitlements, Federal Government, Health Care, Polls, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Republican Primary Voters Weigh In on Medicaid Expansion for Arizona

April 11, 2013 by 1 Comment

Round two of a recent poll is now out and there are some revealing numbers on how Republican primary voters feel about Governor Brewer’s push to expand Medicaid in Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and several legislative districts. Here are those results:

This memorandum is an executive summary of an automated voice recorded survey of 718 likely Republican primary voters in six legislative districts in Arizona. The legislative districts surveyed were 13, 17, 18, 20, 25 and 28. The interviews were conducted March 27th and 28th, 2013. This survey has a margin of error of +/-­‐ 3.65% at the 95 percent confidence interval. This survey was weighted based upon past Republican primary voter demographics. The focus of this survey was to measure Republican primary voter opinions regarding the expansion of Medicaid, the implementation of Obamacare, as well as voter reaction to their state legislator’s support or opposition to Medicaid expansion. The survey toplines are also included with this document.

GOVERNOR BREWER IMAGE RATING

Among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts, Governor Brewer has a very strong image rating with 69% of voters having a favorable opinion of her, 23% having an unfavorable opinion of her, and 8% being undecided or not having an opinion.

SENATOR FLAKE IMAGE RATING

Senator Jeff Flake also has a very strong image rating among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts, with 70% of voters having a favorable opinion of him, 18% having an unfavorable opinion of him, and 12% being undecided or not having an opinion.

GOP PRIMARY VOTER SUPPORT FOR THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID

Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts were asked if they support Governor Brewer’s proposal to expand Medicaid in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014. Among all respondents, 30% support the expansion of Medicaid, 51% oppose expansion, and 19% are either unsure or do not have an opinion about the issue. The following table shows responses by legislative district.

“As you may know, Governor Brewer has proposed the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014. Knowing this, do you support or oppose the expansion of Medicaid in order to implement the federal government’s health care system?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 1

 

VOTER OPPOSITION FOR LEGISLATORS WHO VOTE TO EXPAND MEDICAID

To measure voter reactions if their state legislator voted to expand Medicaid, the following question was asked:

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for the expansion of Medicaid?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 2

 

Not surprisingly, among Republican primary voters in the six legislative districts a majority, or 53% are less likely to reelect their legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid and only 22% would be more likely to vote for their state legislator. When looking at the results by legislative district, the percentage of voters that are less likely to reelect their state legislator ranges from a low of 37% to a high of 69%.

GOP PRIMARY VOTER SUPPORT FOR TAX INCREASE TO FUND MEDICAID EXPANSION

In addition to measuring Republican primary voter’s reactions toward their state legislators if they voted to expand Medicaid, the survey tested voter reaction to a tax increase on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid. Again, it is no surprise that Republican primary voters vigorously oppose this idea and do not want their legislators supporting a new tax on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid. Among all respondents in the six legislative districts, only 11% would be more likely to vote to reelect their legislator, and two thirds, or 68%, would not vote to reelect their legislator. In short, if an incumbent voted for such a proposal it would be toxic for their reelection. The following table shows the question responses by legislative district.

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for a new tax on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid?”

Medicaid GOP Primary 3

 

CONCLUSION

Among the likely Republican primary voters surveyed in these six legislative districts, it is clear they oppose the expansion of Medicaid by varying degrees from a plurality of 42% to a large majority of 62%. Support for Medicaid expansion ranges from a high of 35% to a low of 26%. The survey also finds a plurality, or a majority, of Republican primary voters would be less likely to vote for their legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid in all six legislative districts. Finally, the information in this research should be of concern to incumbent legislators as they consider how to handle this issue.

View/Download the entire report including the topline results.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Legislation, Political Parties, Polls, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Congressman Trent Franks Tribal Gaming Bill Attracts Bi-Partisan Support

April 10, 2013 by 1 Comment

 

It’s good to see legislation like H.R. 1410 that would keep the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) from building a casino in the middle of Glendale. It’s even better to see it is a bi-partisan effort. Thanks to Congressman Trent Franks and Arizona co-sponsors, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, Congressmen Paul Gosar and David Schweikert, for leading the charge to stop TON from violating the compact with Arizona.

Sixteen tribes ALL agreed, INCLUDING, TON to certain KEY principles and the Indian Gaming compact that went to the voters to be approved in 2002, i.e. Prop 202.

H.R. 1410 honors the voters intent to keep indian gaming on indian tribal land and NOT on county islands across Maricopa County. Below is an article talk about this new legislation.

————————-
Mike Sunnucks
Phoenix Business Journal
April 9, 2013

Opponents of a proposed $500 million Native American casino in the West Valley are taking another stab at stopping the controversial development.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and three other Arizona lawmakers introduced new federal legislation prohibiting new casinos in the Phoenix area.

The bill, House Resolution 1410, is aimed at a proposed Tohono O’odham Nation casino at 91st and Northern avenues just north of Jobing.com Arena and University of Phoenix Stadium.

The land is in Franks district and is on unincorporated land on the Glendale and Peoria city borders. That allows the casino development to fit into a 1986 federal law allowing the O’odham tribe to bring unincorporated lands in the Valley into its reservation holdings after losing some lands because of federal dam construction near Tucson.

The casino is opposed by the city of Glendale, Franks and two other tribes — the Gila River Indian Community and Salt River Maricopa Indian Community. Those two tribes have casinos operating in the Phoenix area.

Three other Arizona House members — U.S. Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert —have signed onto the Franks bill. They argue the casino goes against the Proposition 202 Indian gaming pact approved by Arizona voters.

“More than a decade ago, Arizona tribes unified around Proposition 202, and the voters agreed,” said Kirkpatrick, a Democrat whose district includes Flagstaff, parts of the Gila River reservation as well as the Navajo Nation. “I’m co-sponsoring this legislation because it upholds the will of those voters and the overwhelming majority of tribes who participated in this historic effort.”

Gosar and Schweikert are both Republicans. Schweikert’s district includes the Salt River lands well as the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, which operates a casino just north of Fountain Hills.

Gosar’s district also includes GRIC lands.

Glendale officials also back the new legislation. The city has fought unsuccessfully in court to derail the casino plans.

“The city supports Congressman Trent Franks and a bi-partisan coalition of U.S. Representatives who want to uphold the trust of Arizona voters,” reads a city statement. “Proposition 202 was specifically passed more than a decade ago based upon a tribal promise that casino gaming would be restricted to only existing reservations and that new reservations for gaming would not be established in the Phoenix metropolitan area.”

Representatives from the Tohono O’odham tribe, which traditionally has its reservation in southern Arizona.

Filed Under: Federal Government, Gaming, Legislation

New Poll Reflects Voter Opinion on Governor Brewer, Legislators on Expanding Medicaid in Arizona

April 9, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Sonoran Alliance has obtained a recent poll that was conducted in Arizona on the latest public policy issue being debated among Arizonans – Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid in Arizona. This poll demonstrates the current attitude toward Governor Brewer, Legislators and the implementation of Obamacare. Magellan Strategies conducted the poll at the end of March. Here are the results of the poll:

ARIZONA MEDICAID EXPANSION SURVEY AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS

This memorandum is an executive summary of an automated voice recorded survey of 812 Arizona registered voters. The survey was conducted on March 27th and 28th and has a margin of error of 3.44% at the 95% confidence interval. The focus of this survey was to measure voter opinion regarding the expansion of Medicaid, the implementation of Obamacare, as well as voter reaction to their state legislator’s support or opposition to Medicaid expansion. The survey toplines are also included with this document.

GOVERNOR BREWER IMAGE RATING

Among all voters, Governor Brewer has a respectable net‐positive image rating with 49% of respondents having a favorable opinion of her, 40% having an unfavorable opinion of her, and 11% being undecided or not having an opinion. She is more popular among male voters than female voters, with 53% of men having a favorable opinion of her compared to 46% of women having a favorable opinion of her. Among senior voters aged 65 or older, 52% have a favorable opinion of her and 39% have an unfavorable opinion of her.

VOTER SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FOR THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID

When voters are asked if they support Governor Brewer’s proposal to expand Medicaid in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014, we find opinion almost evenly split. Among all respondents, 41% support the expansion of Medicaid, 37% oppose expansion, and 22% are either unsure or have no opinion about the issue. There are significant differences in support for expansion by party, with only 25% of Republicans supporting expansion compared to 62% of Democrats supporting expansion. “Independent” voters are split on the issue with 37% supporting expansion, 35% opposing expansion, and 28% are either unsure or have no opinion about the issue. The following table shows Medicaid expansion support and opposition by voter subgroup.

“As you may know, Governor Brewer has proposed the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona in order to fully implement the federal government’s health care system in 2014. Knowing this, do you support or oppose the expansion of Medicaid in order to implement the federal government’s health care system?”

Arizona Medicaid Poll 1

ARIZONA VOTER SUPPORT FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF OBAMACARE

When comparing voter support for Medicaid expansion to the full implementation of Obamacare, it is clear the full implementation of Obamacare has far less support than Medicaid expansion. While the issue of Medicaid expansion is nearly split among Arizona voters (41% support/37% oppose), 58% of all voters oppose the full implementation of Obamacare and a majority of those voters, 51%, strongly oppose the full implementation of Obamacare. Looking at the responses to this question by party, a whopping 87% of Republican voters oppose the full implementation of Obamacare and only 10% support it. Among Democrat voters, a plurality of 44% support full implementation of Obamacare and 35% oppose it. Among independent voters, two thirds, or 62%, oppose full implementation of Obamacare and 34% support full implementation.

VOTER SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATORS WHO VOTE TO EXPAND MEDICAID

To measure voter reactions if their state legislator voted to expand Medicaid, the following question was asked:

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for the expansion of Medicaid?”

Arizona Medicaid Poll 2

Not surprisingly, 63% of Republican voters would be less likely to vote for their state legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid and only 17% would be more likely to vote for their state legislator. Among Democrat voters, a plurality, or 47%, would be more likely to vote for their legislator if their legislator voted to expand Medicaid, and 30% would be less likely. Among independent voters, 28% would be more likely to vote for their legislator, 34% would be less likely and 38% were either unsure or did not have an opinion.

VOTER SUPPORT FOR TAX INCREASE TO FUND MEDICAID EXPANSION

In addition to measuring voter’s reactions toward their state legislators if they voted to expand Medicaid, the survey tested voter reaction for a tax increase on hospitals to fund the expansion of Medicaid. As the data in the table below indicates, voters do not want their legislators supporting a new tax on hospitals to fund Medicaid. Among all respondents, 57% would be less likely to vote for their state legislator, and among Republican voters, 72% would be less likely to vote for their legislator.

“Would you be more or less likely to vote to reelect your state legislator if they voted for a new tax on hospitals to fund the expansion of  Medicaid?”

Arizona Medicaid Poll 3

CONCLUSION

Among all Arizona voters, 41% support Governor Brewer’s effort to expand Medicaid in order to implement the federal government’s health care system by 2014, and 37% of voters oppose it. Among Republican voters, 57% oppose expansion and only 25% support it. In addition, 63% of Republican respondents indicated that they would be less likely to vote for their state legislator if they voted to expand Medicaid. These two data points should be a cause for concern among Republican legislators when considering how to vote on this issue. Republican legislators that support Medicaid expansion could make themselves vulnerable to a primary challenge.

View/Download the entire report including the topline results.

 

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Federal Government, Legislation, Political Parties, Polls, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts