08/18/2016
A friend of mine, Michael Barnes, posted this statement along with this insight: "Notice anything...? From top to bottom, the relationship is THE LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT, THE BETTER THE RESULTS.
Government is made up of people, just like any other group of people. Except they force you to "buy" their product. Their "oversight." Their control. At gunpoint, if "necessary."
They destroy the BEST FRIEND of the Consumer ... Competition."
My true to life example to support his insight: Michael Barnes, you are so right about competition. I often think how competition, the free market, is one of the key elements, perhaps the number one key element responsible for America's quick climb to the top of world domination. That, combined with the freedom to win or fail is probably one of two key elements. I don't understand why politicians like Trump don't talk more in simple terms about the importance of the basic elements that made us great: Competition, freedom to win or fail, and small government with little government control. For instance, when it comes to replacing Obummercare: Why does Trump not simply state that he is not sure what the best answer is. But, he knows what the answer is not. The answer is not for it to be run by the federal government. His solution is simple: a) Just like with most everything else, including education, the federal government will get out of the way and let the states come up with their own preferred/best solutions. Let them compete with each other. Let them share ideas with each other. They are competing with each other for companies to move to and grow within their states. They have an incentive to come up with the best solutions possible. And b) We will consider and pass any legislation that best supports the states in their pursuit to implement their preferred plans. Including federal tort reform and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. But, don't expect federal grants or subsidies. The states need to figure it out for their own people. One idea that I have seen work very well in California but was shut down by the liberals at the state level is my construction contractor customers who replaced their workers' compensation insurance with a combination of health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance at a fraction of the cost they were paying for mandatory workers' compensation! True example: A roofer with 20 employees making $12 to $32 per hour all had workers' comp. None had health, life, or disability insurance. Using an average wage of $15/hour, that roofer in California would be paying approximately $600,000 in wages for a 50 week work year. At a minimum, his workers' compensation would cost him 50% of that or $300,000. That is $15,000 ($1250/month) per employee. For about $250/month and no more than $350/month the employees would have 24x7 health insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance. Now, whether they are injured on the job or off, they have coverage. That fact alone will decrease the false claims that are experienced from a worker who is injured playing softball over the weekend and files a work injury claim on Monday. Plus, now you have happier and more productive employees with better benefits. It costs the state and the federal government nothing!
Companies can still do it in California. And I have some who are doing it. But, all on a much smaller scale because they don't want the State AG coming after them with lawsuits like they did with those who ran with the idea 6-10 years ago. The law still allows them to do it. It can still be done only with thanks to "The Governator", Arnold, who vetoed the Democratic law to change the current laws. But, the AG scared everyone enough that this great idea that makes too much sense was shut down!
The current law: If an employee is a stock holder and an officer in the corporation, they can be exempt from the workers' comp requirement. That's it! The Dems passed legislation vetoed by Arnold that would have required each employer to prove every exempt employee was truly a corporate officer with corporate responsibilities. If Trump looked at this, I think he would instruct law makers at the state level to change the law in exactly the opposite direction. Example of what a business man like Trump might suggest: If an employer chooses to exempt an employee from workers' compensation, they must provide 24x7 no deductible health insurance, full and temporary disability insurance, and life insurance for those employees. The state must be listed as a "Certificate Holder" for each plan. Certificate Holder is already standard in my line of business. That means that if a plan is ended and not replaced with another qualified plan, the state will be notified by the insurance carrier. This solution provides a number of positives: 1) Gives health coverage to those who had none, 2) saves the employer money so he can pay better wages and/or increase benefits, 3) encourages more businesses to move into that state, 4) reduces the cost of building a home and those savings are passed along to the consumer, 5) decreases the hiring of undocumented workers because it makes it more affordable for a contractor to hire documented workers, 6) saves the state and federal government tax dollars, and one of the most important outcomes is 7) the health coverage is group health coverage. That means the plan is required to insure "pre-existing conditions". Unfortunately, those kinds of logical and commonsense ideas will never see the light of day with the current corruption and bureaucracy that exists in both parties at all levels of government.
States have an incentive to attract and keep good businesses. Give them the right to be creative and think outside the box. Give them the right to exceed or fail. There are other states who have tried other ideas that were working for them before forced onto ObummerCare. They can and will share their ideas with each other. For instance, give companies tax incentives to offer affordable group health coverage. Group coverage takes care of the real concern of pre-existing conditions.
