By Constitution Staff

Proponents of the bill that has come to be known as Nick's Law claim that it is will save taxpayers millions in Medicaid costs by forcing insurance companies to cover autism treatment. They say that people's insurance premiums will only go up by pennies, while saving the state millions in healthcare costs. The main guy trying to ram it through claims to be a conservative who worked for Ronald Reagan and idolizes Barry Goldwater, so of course the bill can't be anything BUT good, conservative legislation. Even supposedly conservative talk show host Mark Shannon praises the bill, likening it to required wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking places, another illegitimate governmental action.

I on the other hand, see it differently, for three main reasons.

In the first place, If I take money from my gas budget or my food budget to buy a new pair of shoes, the cost of the shoes doesn't change. I'd be interested to see exactly HOW it's going to save me money by being forced to pay a higher insurance premium, over what I'm now paying in Medicaid costs. Not some nebulous cost to "the taxpayers", but the actual dollars and cents I, ONE taxpayer, will save. Nick's Law is just another redistribute the wealth by force scam, and one more step on the road to socialized medicine and complete government control over the healthcare industry. However, this is one step we should all be overjoyed to take, because someone who purports to being a conservative will benefit from it, Frederic Bastiat be hanged!

Secondly, insurance is a private enterprise. Anyone who purchases an insurance policy is embarking, hopefully on a voluntary basis, in a gamble. You pay your premiums, betting that you'll get more out of them than you've paid in; while the guy on the other end is betting that you won't. This is why limitations and exclusions exist -- insurance companies, like any other business venture, need to make a profit to keep the doors open. If a participant decides to sky dive and turns himself into street pizza, and there's an exclusion on the plan, well, he knew the risk was all his from the start. If such limitations and exclusions didn't exist, nobody would be able to afford insurance. Then think of what kind of a fine mess we'd all be in.

Third, government has no right telling someone how to conduct their business, as long as it's done fairly and ethically. If a plan says they'll cover a given condition and doesn't, they've committed fraud. If they tell you up front something isn't covered, you know it's not going to be, and no one's been defrauded, and no one's guilty of any misrepresentation. If you have concerns about second hand smoke, the proper thing to do is to not frequent restaurants that allow smoking. The improper thing to do is to outlaw smoking in any and all dining establishments. Let the market work! If your employer values your work enough, he'll make sure you aren't unable to do your job due to worry about your health costs. If you're wealthy enough to afford a private policy, pony up the extra and have it written the way you want it written.

Possibly the only smart thing Chris Benge has done since he's been in office is to decide not to waste the taxpayers' representatives' time with this insipid bit of legislation.

John F. Greening

Moore, OK

Socialized Public Education

In the Summer 2008 issue of The Oklahoma Constitution, SB 2093 -- The New Hope Scholarships -- bill was chosen as a bill by conservatives to rate legislators. This rating was based on a five point conservatism criteria for determining what is conservative; i.e. limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, constitutional principles and traditional standards. HB 2093 fails to meet any of the criteria. So how did this bill get listed on the conservative index? It was argued that it was a first baby step in breaking the monopoly of public education. It was argued that SB2093 would put a dent in the public school armor by taking some kids out of 13 failing schools and put them into a better public school or by using tax credits for a private school. The proponents and opponents of HB 2093 were a mixed bag of conservatives and liberals voting for and against the issue based on analogies of the Titanic and the underground railroad. Both positions miss the main point of public education in the first place. Public education exists on the false foundation of socialism. This false foundation is then shored up by tax credits as a first step to slowly eat away at the appetite of the perpetual educational pig that must be forced fed by involuntary participation.

It is inconsistent thinking and application of conservative principles to conclude that SB 2093 should have been listed on the conservative index. Tax credits and a union between private and public entities has long been a sore spot amongst conservatives. So why do we exempt education from that concept? I think it comes from the belief that public education is here to stay and nothing can be done to end that reality so we are going to try and chip away at its thick armor piece by piece in hopes that we can whittle the giant tax hog down to a manageable size.

There is only one way to end socialized public education as we know it today in order to rescue every child from the immorality of public schools and that is to abolish compulsory attendance that currently exists in our state constitution. Compulsory education is slavery to the mind, body and spirit of every child who enters the dungeon of darkness of public schools.

I have the highest respect for all the legislators who are rated 100% on the conservative index but in my mind, they should be rated at 90%.

Robert Godwin

Jones, OK