Mary Fallin and John Doak: Restricting Newborns' Enrollment to Health Insurance

[Midtowner]

An emergency rule that eliminates birth as a qualifying event for individual health insurance coverage was approved by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin this week, a spokesman for her office said.

Alex Wentz, Fallin's director of communications, said the governor signed an emergency rule written by state Insurance Commissioner John Doak's office. Wentz said Fallin signed the rule change on Monday.

The new rule would amend a rule adopted this summer by eliminating birth as a qualifying event for individual insurance coverage. Additionally, the proposal would eliminate a provision that states nothing shall alter the ability of an applicant to obtain a child-only policy outside of the open enrollment period upon the occurrence of a qualifying event.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=313552#.TvM3kczYrZI.facebook

This is absolutely reprehensible. Even if a parent is prudent and wants to get insurance for their newborn, they very well may not be able to under this newly minted rule. Fallin and Doak are clearly bought and paid for by the insurance lobbyists. This, folks, is what you get with single-party rule. Putting profits ahead of the health of newborns. Anyone want to defend this?

[KantoSooner]

Unpack this for me.

Are they saying that newborns can NOT be insured? Or that newborns are not automatically covered under their parents insurance simply by virtue of being born?

It would seem that this contradicts Fallin's loud support for 'family values', but I really don't know. Then again, logical inconsistency, not to mention outright, barking-at-the-moon insanity and Mary are far more than nodding acquaintances.

[JohnnyMack]

So what happens if a newborn is born with a problem at birth? Can an insurance company deny it coverage due to a preexisting condition?

[KantoSooner]

That would be one logical consequence if I understand it.

But then again, birth always was a time of great risk for the mother and new born. Maybe Mary's plan is just to reinject some of that good ole 'tradition' back into the process.

[Midtowner]

So what happens if a newborn is born with a problem at birth? Can an insurance company deny it coverage due to a preexisting condition?

Yep.

[soonercruiser]

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=313552


Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin OKs health insurance rule change
[Journal Record (Oklahoma Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin OKs health insurance rule change [Journal Record (Oklahoma City, OK)]
December 15, 2011 Email Print Free Newsletter
By M Scott Carter; M. Scott Carter
Proquest LLC

An emergency rule that eliminates birth as a qualifying event for individual health insurance coverage was approved by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin this week, a spokesman for her office said.

Alex Wentz, Fallin's director of communications, said the governor signed an emergency rule written by state Insurance Commissioner John Doak's office. Wentz said Fallin signed the rule change on Monday.

The new rule would amend a rule adopted this summer by eliminating birth as a qualifying event for individual insurance coverage. Additionally, the proposal would eliminate a provision that states nothing shall alter the ability of an applicant to obtain a child-only policy outside of the open enrollment period upon the occurrence of a qualifying event.

Wentz said Fallin signed the rule because she wanted to try and bring companies offering health insurance back into the Oklahoma market.

"As a result of the president's health care plan, companies offering child health insurance policies essentially fled the market," Wentz said. "And the governor and the insurance industry have been working on a way to lure those companies back in."

Wentz said the rule loosens some state regulations with the intent of bringing insurance companies back into the market.

"We think it will get more kids covered," he said. "It's not perfect, but honestly, we view it as cleaning up a mess made by the Obama administration."

Under the new rule, current health insurance industry regulations would be changed to "non-health eligibility underwriting rules may be applied to child-only coverage, provided such eligibility rules are uniformly applied to all applicants applying for child-only coverage."

Mike Rhoads, Doak's deputy commissioner for health insurance, said the change was necessary.

"What we found based on an initial review was that we haven't had a child-only market (for health insurance) for about 18 months," he said.

Officials with the Oklahoma Hospital Association and the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy opposed the rule.

"We are very concerned by this rule," said Patti Davis, the OHA's executive vice president. "We think the zero-to-1 population needs to be covered. When births are great, everything is fine. But we know, unfortunately, that there are often issues you don't know about until a baby is born. That's a big concern."

Linda Terrell, executive director of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy, said she was disappointed that the rule was approved.

"I'm saddened by the governor's signing," Terrell said. "It is not OK for babies to not have the health coverage they need."

Terrell said her organization was caught off guard when the rule was proposed, but added that the OICA would be communicating with Fallin's office about the need for child health insurance coverage.

"We have to have that conversation," she said. "That first year is a critical time in a baby's development."

With the rule now on the book, many child advocates fear that families seeking individual health coverage for newborns won't have access to insurance.

Wentz said Fallin was aware of the problem.

"We're exploring our options," he said. "Where we are right now clearly is not the perfect solution, but by approving the rule we have the potential to get thousands of more children covered."

Although the rule was signed by the governor, state lawmakers will have an opportunity to revoke the change during the 2012 legislative session that begins in February.

Copyright: (c) 2011 ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved.
Wordcount: 554
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=313552

[soonercruiser]

This from a legal article that starts out rather negatively to Fallin....


Gov OK’s Rule Eliminating Birth as a QE for Individual Coverage
http://www.bassettlawyers.com/2011/oks-gov-oks-emergency-rule-eliminating-birth-as-a-qualifying-event-for-individual-health-insurance-coverage/

For some background, though, for some 18 months “child-only” policies for ages 19-and-under have not been sold by any insurance company doing business in Oklahoma, a response by insurers to new federal regulations in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Insurance Commissioner John D. Doak said that Gov. Fallin’s signature should revive that market for the vast majority of uncovered children. As of now, children 0-19 are not able to be covered by child-only policies and their parents are not able to buy a child-only policy in the state of OK. The only way they can cover a child under the age of 19 is to buy a family policy. What the Governor has signed will now allow insurance companies in the state of OK to offer child-only policies to cover ages 0 – 19.So, what was signed seems focused on allowing the ability for child-only insurance to be purchased by “parents or guardians whose incomes don’t qualify for government programs (SoonerCare) and who cannot or choose not to buy private coverage for the whole family.”

A special enrollment period for coverage will take place in January and February 2012.

So, even this legal firm that questions the rule, shows that there is a logical reason to do such a thing....
Because, Obamacare has forced many insurance companies to not offer 0-19 child only policies, when the parents themselves cannot afford healthcare insurance.
So, maybe Nanci Peeloski can work on this, so we can see what happens after the bill passes.
:indecisiveness:

[ictsooner7]

This from a legal article that starts out rather negatively to Fallin....



So, even this legal firm that questions the rule, shows that there is a logical reason to do such a thing....
Because, Obamacare has forced many insurance companies to not offer 0-19 child only policies, when the parents themselves cannot afford healthcare insurance.
So, maybe Nanci Peeloski can work on this, so we can see what happens after the bill passes.
:indecisiveness:

More right wing making stuff up. The healthcare reform act did not force many insurance companies to not offer 0-19 only policies, it was a CHOICE by insurance companies to not offer it.



New requirements under health system reform took effect Sept. 23, including some the administration said would protect patients from many of the worst insurance industry abuses.

But the transition didn't go entirely as planned. A few days before rules took effect, many insurers said they would stop selling new child-only policies, citing requirements that the plans said made such policies too risky. The insurers included the five largest private-pay plans by enrollment -- WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Cigna and Humana -- and some nonprofit BlueCross BlueShield plans.

Among the rules effective six months after President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a ban on barring children from getting insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Though the number of children affected by the insurers' actions is small, the Obama administration and others saw it as a symbol of insurer recalcitrance. "I think the reaction of the insurers to the child-only policies highlights that they are more interested in ensuring profit than covering those who need health care coverage," said American Medical Association Immediate Past President J. James Rohack, MD.

That was especially galling to the administration because of what it saw as a promise by America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurers' trade group, to implement this provision.

6% of the 16.7 million people with individual health policies have child-only plans.

"In March, AHIP committed to working with us to implement this important provision," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote in a Sept. 24 letter to the organization. "Regrettably, it appears that some of your members are now turning a blind eye and declining to sell new child-only policies in lieu of offering coverage to children with preexisting conditions. This is inconsistent with your March letter."

On Sept. 27, AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said the group was discussing the Sebelius letter. "We will continue to work with regulators to try and find workable solutions to stabilize the market for new child-only coverage," he said. Plans said they were not pulling back on family coverage, and children could be included there if child-only plans were not available. Those now in child-only plans, which AHIP estimated at 6% of the 16.7 million in individual policies, can stay in those plans.

Sebelius sent a nearly identical letter to the BlueCross BlueShield Assn. That group's spokesman, Jeff Smokler, said, "We continue to work with the [Obama] administration to find solutions to this and other reform implementation matters."

New rules in place
As of this article's deadline, the HHS and insurers were discussing ways to ensure that child-only plans were not closed to new enrollment. But ill feelings between insurers and the government over health system reform requirements began well before mid-September, and more fights are likely as health reform rolls out until its full implementation in 2014. For example, insurers and the administration are battling over the definition of medical costs because of a requirement that at least 80% of insurer premiums go toward health care.

Besides children's coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, other rules effective Sept. 23 include:

■Insurers cannot place lifetime limits on coverage.
■Insurance may not be rescinded except in cases of fraud.
■Children may remain covered by their parents' insurance until age 26.
■Preventive care must be offered without deductibles or co-payments.
■Emergency care must be covered without a requirement for prior approval, regardless of whether a hospital is in network.
■Patients' must be allowed to choose any primary care physician or pediatrician from an insurers' network and have the right to see an ob-gyn without a referral.
In April, WellPoint and other insurers promised to abide by the rescission rule. The Obama administration criticized WellPoint after Reuters reported that the company allegedly dropped coverage for individuals with breast cancer, which the company denied. Insurers also agreed to honor the rule to keep children on their parents' coverage until age 26, well before the Sept. 23 deadline.

In April, however, Sebelius predicted that plans would raise rates and blame it on health reform, and a Sept. 8 article in The Wall Street Journal stated that plans were blaming rate increases of up to 7.4% for individual plans solely on reform costs.

Sebelius' letter to AHIP on child-only plans was her second of September. On Sept. 9, she wrote that she would have "zero tolerance" for insurers' "misleading claims" that a portion of their proposed rate hikes were caused by reform. Plans said their rates reflected only the underlying cost of care, while critics of the Obama administration viewed Sebelius' letter as strong-arming plans into silence on reform costs.

Health plans insisted that they remain committed to the new rules but said parents have an incentive to wait until their children become ill before signing them up for insurance.

The administration had attempted to quell insurers' concerns about adverse risk selection months earlier by saying that insurers were allowed to set open-enrollment periods for child-only policies. But that wasn't enough.

As of the first week of the new rules, Colorado and Ohio insurance regulators adopted emergency rules to establish open-enrollment periods, hoping to persuade insurers to continue to offer new child-only policies. A bill introduced in the California Legislature would penalize insurers for dropping child-only plans. Kentucky's insurance commissioner has ordered insurance representatives to appear Oct. 13 so they can explain why they are stopping the sale of child-only policies to new customers.

Colorado Division of Insurance spokeswoman Jo Donlin said she isn't sure whether states will want HHS to dictate the solution to the problem.

"States are very individual. We don't necessarily want to reinvent the wheel, but we want the wheel to look a little bit unique for each state," she said.

A few insurers, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Kansas City and in Florida, said they would continue to offer coverage just for children, even where their competitors would not.

Susan Johnson, spokeswoman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, said executives at the nonprofit plan discussed their decision at length.

"Providing insurance to children and adults, to the community, is part of our mission," she said. "We do feel strongly about being able to continue to provide a variety of products. It's just the right thing to do."

[Midtowner]

Wow Crusier, you're going to cover more children by denying coverage to children. Gotta love that logic!

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wow Crusier, you're going to cover more children by denying coverage to children. Gotta love that logic!Like you know anything about logic...

[cleller]

This is what happens when the government takes over. Nobody is happy.

[Midtowner]

This is what happens when the government takes over. Nobody is happy.

How has the government taken over? It has just told insurance companies that they can refuse to count the birth of a child as a qualifying event to obtain medical coverage. That's less governmental regulation, not more. And if this is how insurance companies are going to behave under this regimen, then a public option is looking pretty good right now.

[Midtowner]

Like you know anything about logic...

Uh... okay?

[REDREX]

Since you do not even provide insurance for your employees it will not affect them unless they buy insurance on their own ---And it looks like this rule could give them more options to do that

[Midtowner]

No, this rule will ensure a higher infant mortality rate and that many newborns with complications will bankrupt their families. Trust me, if all 50 states had rules allowing the birth of a child to be treated as a qualifying event to enroll in insurance, our insurance companies, who by the way are experiencing record profits every year, would certainly cover them rather than going out of business. But states like Oklahoma are helping to keep those profits up even if a few babies die here and there or families are bankrupted.

I guess some are pro-life until birth, then those infants need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

[ictsooner7]

No, this rule will ensure a higher infant mortality rate and that many newborns with complications will bankrupt their families. Trust me, if all 50 states had rules allowing the birth of a child to be treated as a qualifying event to enroll in insurance, our insurance companies, who by the way are experiencing record profits every year, would certainly cover them rather than going out of business. But states like Oklahoma are helping to keep those profits up even if a few babies die here and there or families are bankrupted.

I guess some are pro-life until birth, then those infants need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.


"hear, hear!"


It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

[yermom]

No, this rule will ensure a higher infant mortality rate and that many newborns with complications will bankrupt their families. Trust me, if all 50 states had rules allowing the birth of a child to be treated as a qualifying event to enroll in insurance, our insurance companies, who by the way are experiencing record profits every year, would certainly cover them rather than going out of business. But states like Oklahoma are helping to keep those profits up even if a few babies die here and there or families are bankrupted.

I guess some are pro-life until birth, then those infants need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

i'd certainly like to hear the explanation for this, other than "well, i have this nice big check someone at BCBS gave me"

[Sooner5030]

meh.....if you don't like your insurer then start your own company with your own capital. Then hire an actuary to help you figure out what premium revenue you need to raise based on you population and future claims expense. Then hire a huge legal team, pay for the lobbyist and get ready to see your capital dwindle away because our society is generally unhealthy and wants the best care but have someone else pay for it. Also, see your pharmacy claims expense grow at 19% and health claims expense at 14% but have premiums capped below that.

Pretty soon the idea of pooling our risks together to cover catastrophic events is overwhelmed by kids on ritilin, moms on prozac, dads on hard on medicine, and grandparents popping 20 pills a day just to extend the inevitable.

Our system is broke but requiring insurance companies to provide "better" coverage will not work. It's just not that easy.

[Midtowner]

No, instead, when we have politicians who act to preserve insurance industry profits rather than the lives of newborns and the financial health of their families, we just vote them out of office. I can tell you one thing for sure--Askins wouldn't have signed this rule.

[Midtowner]

i'd certainly like to hear the explanation for this, other than "well, i have this nice big check someone at BCBS gave me"

There really is no other good explanation. This is a move by states, including Oklahoma, to shield their political benefactors, the insurance companies, from some of the effects of the Affordable Care Act. Insurance interests donated over $500K to Oklahoma Republicans in the last election. You don't think that kind of scratch goes unnoticed by our elected officials?

[badger]

They're also trying to get Texas-level income taxes... as in zilch.

I really don't think this is the right time to be cutting state revenues or health plans... you know, when our roads suck, schools are cutting teachers and our population is SEC-level unhealthy.

[Midtowner]

They're also trying to get Texas-level income taxes... as in zilch.

I really don't think this is the right time to be cutting state revenues or health plans... you know, when our roads suck, schools are cutting teachers and our population is SEC-level unhealthy.

The income tax part is amazing. Oklahoma and Texas are both near the bottom as far as tax burden, with Oklahoma ranks 40th and Texas ranks 44th, but that isn't the end of the story. Texas citizens, on average, due their higher income per capita ($35,913 vs. $32,661), pay more per capita in taxes ($3,368 vs. $3,129) than Oklahomans, but a lower percentage of income (9.2% vs. 9.6%).

Oklahoma is currently not able to compete with Texas in terms of an economy of scale in delivering some services, so we're going to have a higher cost to deliver services to our public. I understand the legislature wants to eliminate the income tax to compete with Texas, but unless that's made up somewhere else, which constitutionally, it probably cannot, since to raise taxes requires a supermajority of the legislature or a vote of the people, we're talking about eliminating state revenue without replacing it with anything.

That's going to eventually mean that we cannot provide core services like education, healthcare, child protection, etc. and hope to compete with Texas, or hell.. even Mississippi.

[badger]

The funny thing is that people with income in this state seem to want to do their part to get better roads, services and schools and that it's only the legislature that seems hellbent on being Texas'd. I've heard from people living in Texas that they are finding roundabout ways to get people to pay income-like taxes in Texas though, so I guess there's always in out available... something about payroll deductions or something that isn't explicitly an income tax, but might as well be one.

I personally am living OK with the level of state taxes that our household currently has, even if more money would be nice, of course. It is kind of funny every April to be getting a federal tax refund and then turn around and cut Oklahoma a check for about the amount that the federal refund was.

[Midtowner]

It's funny--we want all of these services, but we want someone else to pay for them. For example, despite our crumbling infrastructure, the voters overwhelmingly rejected a fuel tax hike to pay for better roads. Forcing the folks who actually use the roads to pay an increase in direct proportion to their use of the roads? Outrageous, right?

The fact is that there is not a lot of difference in the per capita percentage of income paid by Oklahomans and Texans. It's a .4% spread.

I don't think a professed right winger has even engaged on this thread because it's awfully fact-specific. I'd sure like to hear from one of those folks as to how they think the state is going to make up the revenue that's lost and continue to pay for our vital services. Are we supposed to cut back on the number of child welfare workers? Shut down state funded rehab facilities for mothers with addiction problems? Increase class sizes? Those things are actually happening. Does anyone think that's a good thing?

Sometimes the cause of lack of government performance is a lack of funding.

As to the topic at hand though, do I understand our resident dittoheads have only responded by saying that Fallin's actions were not precipitated by a lobbying effort? I haven't heard anyone actually defend her actions. Whatever her motivation, I'd like to hear from someone who thinks Fallin deserves another term.

[badger]

I'll be your self professed right-winger. I've only ever voted for two Democrats, and one used to be a Republican up till that election year :D

I don't think we have California syndrome, in that we want something for nothing (and now Cali is getting the nothing part, because their optimistic budget turned into a pumpkin at midnight, lol).

I do, however, think state history has made Oklahomans extremely distrusting of politicians at every level - local, state, and federal. Thus, when the question comes whether we want to give politicians more money to play with, when funds have already been directed in directions they are not intended for numerous times in the past, the answer is a big huge NO.

I don't think Oklahoma is a donor state for federal highway funds anymore, but voters remember all the years that they were. More money that will probably not end up helping our own roads? The answer is NO.

I do not have any links or anything, but I seem to remember hearing that a portion of state budget in recent history had been diverting funds for roads toward education instead. So, you want me to believe that a tax now will go where it is intended to go? The answer is NO.

A city surrounding by butt-hurt suburbs and areas that feel under-served are presented with a tax plan to improve the river... a county-wide tax plan. The plan is ill-conceived and the river is only in one part of the county. A big overwhelming vote of NO.

IMHO, it's not that Oklahomans want someone else to pay (although that would be very generous of someone else and we would say "thank you"). It's that our money's been wasted or questionably spent in the past and we aren't as ready to trust politicians with it again.

[okie52]

It's funny--we want all of these services, but we want someone else to pay for them. For example, despite our crumbling infrastructure, the voters overwhelmingly rejected a fuel tax hike to pay for better roads. Forcing the folks who actually use the roads to pay an increase in direct proportion to their use of the roads? Outrageous, right?

The fact is that there is not a lot of difference in the per capita percentage of income paid by Oklahomans and Texans. It's a .4% spread.

I don't think a professed right winger has even engaged on this thread because it's awfully fact-specific. I'd sure like to hear from one of those folks as to how they think the state is going to make up the revenue that's lost and continue to pay for our vital services. Are we supposed to cut back on the number of child welfare workers? Shut down state funded rehab facilities for mothers with addiction problems? Increase class sizes? Those things are actually happening. Does anyone think that's a good thing?

Sometimes the cause of lack of government performance is a lack of funding.

As to the topic at hand though, do I understand our resident dittoheads have only responded by saying that Fallin's actions were not precipitated by a lobbying effort? I haven't heard anyone actually defend her actions. Whatever her motivation, I'd like to hear from someone who thinks Fallin deserves another term.

I don't know if I fit right winger except on energy and immigration but I'll give it a go.

I don't know Fallin's motivation beyond the apparent effort to aid the insurance companies. So if that is only the reason for this act then she should be held accountable (admittedly I have only given a cursory review to this thread). I don't know the underwriting and rating dynamics behind this move and how it ties into Obamacare so she may have had some real economic concerns to deal with on the matter.

Now Askins did endorse Obama didn't she? Didn't Obama give unions a $60,000,000,000 exemption on taxes on cadillac healthcare plans regardless of tax brackets (unless this has changed)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575004992410621692.html

So non union joe schmoe that makes $75,000 a year with a cadillac plan is taxed while the union worker that makes $75,000 isn't. Oklahoma has a very low percentage of unions in this state so this was certainly not helping the Oklahoma workers now was it?

Obama has been out to punish the oil and gas industries in the nation and this state (see cap and trade and tax incentives). Obama campaigned for these positions so there are no surprises as to what he has sought as president. Again, who did Askins endorse? I actually kind of like Askins and think on most issues I could agree with her.

If Fallin ran against Askins again I would still vote for Fallin. Fallin certainly doesn't impress me and Askins may be the smarter of the 2. As is usually the case, the lesser of 2 evils. I don't care about a lot of OK's legislators stance on many social issues whether that is concerning gays or prochoice. I do like most repubs stances on energy and immigration so it is hard to vote for a dem that will endorse an Obama. Now maybe if a Dem would actually break that chain and not support the national party candidate then I might give them a serious look. Dan Boren almost did that 3 years ago when he said he wouldn't endorse Obama but would vote for him. Fence straddling to be sure, but a lot better than his dad.

[Midtowner]

My voting record probably looks a lot like yours. I voted for a few Democrats last year, but only because our Republicans have gotten so far right of center, and that I find the idea of single-party rule to be distasteful. In truth, I think Oklahoma's tendency to go with single-party rule (be it 'pubs or dems) is why our money tends to be so corruptly spent. As Lord Acton said, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," our political institutions being all controlled by one central party have begun catering exclusively to their benefactors.

The tag fee is a bad example. From the outset, that tag fee was earmarked for education. There's no requirement anywhere that the taxed activity be related to the funded activity.

The reason our politicians feel so comfortable squandering our money is that they aren't held accountable for it. Our history has been single party rule for 90+ years, then switching to the other party with no indication we're not in for another 90+ years of rule by the other party.

But back to specifics. We've been cutting education by double digits for the past few years and now schools are finding themselves unable to meet long term obligations, they're laying off teachers, eliminating programs and increasing class sizes. Our adult protective services departments are discharging severely disabled patients, shutting down facilities and laying off workers. Our child protective services department is being sued for conditions which lead to the deaths of children. Our infrastructure is crumbling (including our state capitol building). All of our retirement programs save judicial retirement are severely underfunded and projected to go bankrupt.

So some want to eliminate income taxes? Okay, what should the state stop doing in order to not spend the $2.5 billion in revenue which will be lost?

[okie52]

So some want to eliminate income taxes? Okay, what should the state stop doing in order to not spend the $2.5 billion in revenue which will be lost?

I could be wrong but TX makes up for the loss of income tax by substantially higher property taxes than in OK.

[Ike]

I would like to see a list of companies that bring back, or begin to offer, child-only policies because of this new rule, so that I can avoid doing business with them ever in the future.

[okie52]

I would like to see a list of companies that bring back, or begin to offer, child-only policies because of this new rule, so that I can avoid doing business with them ever in the future.

That would probably be most of the available ones.

[Midtowner]

I could be wrong but TX makes up for the loss of income tax by substantially higher property taxes than in OK.

You're right, but don't think for a second that Oklahoma's legislature has the power (or the political will) to raise property taxes or anything else. First of all, I don't know how many of them have signed the Norquist tax pledge, but I'd assume the number is substantial. Secondly, the Constitution requires a supermajority or a vote of the people in order to raise taxes.

We have a single subject rule, so it's likely that any bill which does two things, i.e., eliminating the income tax and raising some other tax(es) would be constitutional. It'd have to be two votes, and I just don't see it happening that way. What we'll probably do is continue to have these bills which gradually eliminate the income tax without replacing it with other revenue.

[okie52]

You're right, but don't think for a second that Oklahoma's legislature has the power (or the political will) to raise property taxes or anything else. First of all, I don't know how many of them have signed the Norquist tax pledge, but I'd assume the number is substantial. Secondly, the Constitution requires a supermajority or a vote of the people in order to raise taxes.

We have a single subject rule, so it's likely that any bill which does two things, i.e., eliminating the income tax and raising some other tax(es) would be constitutional. It'd have to be two votes, and I just don't see it happening that way. What we'll probably do is continue to have these bills which gradually eliminate the income tax without replacing it with other revenue.

Could they not put in the vote that without the passage of question A then question B would be null and void?

OKC has shown the capability of raising taxes on itself with the MAPs program. Whether that would also be expressed by the rural areas would remain to be seen.

[Midtowner]

Could they not put in the vote that without the passage of question A then question B would be null and void?

OKC has shown the capability of raising taxes on itself with the MAPs program. Whether that would also be expressed by the rural areas would remain to be seen.

I really doubt it. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has been very clear about the policy of the single subject rule--to allow proposals to stand on their own merit. The only way I see us responsibly retooling our taxation issues (and I'm not really convinced on the necessity to do that, we're talking about a .4% disparity between us and Texas) would be to hold a Constitutional Convention, but with all the money in politics, I'd be scared of the result of such a thing.

As to rural interests voting to raise their own taxes, that really hasn't been their culture. Rural interests have often seen OKC and Tulsa as foreign aid coming to town. Let's not even talk about rural, even suburban taxpayers have shown just about zero interest in self-imposing taxation to improve public services and infrastructure.

[badger]

Could they not put in the vote that without the passage of question A then question B would be null and void?

Perhaps you need to have a single question rather than a two-question ballot. Rather than:

1- Do you want no income taxes?
2- Do you want higher property taxes?

The single question needs to be:

1- Do you want effed up streets, rundown schools and sh!tty services the rest of your life in Oklahoma?

;)


OKC has shown the capability of raising taxes on itself with the MAPs program. Whether that would also be expressed by the rural areas would remain to be seen.

Tulsa had a "something for everybody" tax called Vision 2025 a few years before NP and I moved here that passed in Tulsa County... and that was the only way it would pass --- something for everybody. You target one area and everyone else feels left out, like they get no benefit themselves so they shouldn't be paying for it.

I think OKC's tax passed because of a good campaign showing the benefits for everyone as well... and they trust their leaders a little bit more than Tulsa trusts theirs.

[badger]

As to rural interests voting to raise their own taxes, that really hasn't been their culture. Rural interests have often seen OKC and Tulsa as foreign aid coming to town. Let's not even talk about rural, even suburban taxpayers have shown just about zero interest in self-imposing taxation to improve public services and infrastructure.

Oh yeah, it's why tiny towns have speed traps. :mad:

I wonder if Oklahoma is too Republican to want higher taxes at this point... rural areas are especially red everywhere in the country, so, y'know, taxes that go down have a hard time going back up.

Another solution? Maybe make the tax cuts temporary a la the stuff that Congress just had to renew.

[okie52]

Perhaps you need to have a single question rather than a two-question ballot. Rather than:

1- Do you want no income taxes?
2- Do you want higher property taxes?

The single question needs to be:

1- Do you want effed up streets, rundown schools and sh!tty services the rest of your life in Oklahoma?

;)



Tulsa had a "something for everybody" tax called Vision 2025 a few years before NP and I moved here that passed in Tulsa County... and that was the only way it would pass --- something for everybody. You target one area and everyone else feels left out, like they get no benefit themselves so they shouldn't be paying for it.

I think OKC's tax passed because of a good campaign showing the benefits for everyone as well... and they trust their leaders a little bit more than Tulsa trusts theirs.

About our effed up roads...I thought our roads and highway funds were getting raided to the tune of 50% of the funding (if memory serves) but I could be all wrong on that, too. If it is a matter of being raided then it needs to stop.

I like our turnpikes so I have no problem supporting them that way.

[Midtowner]

About our effed up roads...I thought our roads and highway funds were getting raided to the tune of 50% of the funding (if memory serves) but I could be all wrong on that, too. If it is a matter of being raided then it needs to stop.

I like our turnpikes so I have no problem supporting them that way.

I doubt that very much, but let's say that's true--take that funding away from education/DHS/whatever, what are you wanting to replace it with and still cut taxes?

[Sooner5030]

my current plan automatically covers newborns for the first 60 days. After that you need to enroll them using a BC.

Not sure which plans would actually say "FU.....we wont cover you newborn".

As a responsible future parent you should probably research these things prior to birth.....or even better prior to conception.

[Ton Loc]

I doubt that very much, but let's say that's true--take that funding away from education/DHS/whatever, what are you wanting to replace it with and still cut taxes?

More lotteries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's worked out so well...

We could sell those Scratch off tickets and have them themed to what they support. Education scratchers where you match 3 buses to win - good times.

[Midtowner]

my current plan automatically covers newborns for the first 60 days. After that you need to enroll them using a BC.

Not sure which plans would actually say "FU.....we wont cover you newborn".

As a responsible future parent you should probably research these things prior to birth.....or even better prior to conception.

Your carrier will now be able to change that since the new emergency rule has gone into effect.

I'm sure a lot of them will be saying FU, otherwise they wouldn't have lobbied our Insurance Comm'r and Governor to promulgate such a rule and said officials wouldn't have issued a press release about how they were doing this to bring more insurers into Oklahoma, or somesuch lameness.

[okie52]

I doubt that very much, but let's say that's true--take that funding away from education/DHS/whatever, what are you wanting to replace it with and still cut taxes?

I am just going by ads done by Norman Nobody some years ago making that statement. We have also passed lottery/gambling that was supposed to be a windfall for schools. I still support that but it was certainly misrepresented to the public on what it could deliver.

I am not advocating a tax cut.

One thing I would do is reduce by at least 50% the number of school districts and/or school superintendents, etc...Largent suggested that and Henry ripped him on it in the rural areas yet it was a truth that should be repeated again and again. We are way too top heavy.

[Midtowner]

More lotteries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's worked out so well...

We could sell those Scratch off tickets and have them themed to what they support. Education scratchers where you match 3 buses to win - good times.

The lottery would have been a better thing than it was if the legislature hadn't cut education's budget so much. Instead of the lottery being the gravy it was intended to be, it's now being used to plug leaks caused by budget cuts.

[Ton Loc]

The lottery would have been a better thing than it was if the legislature hadn't cut education's budget so much. Instead of the lottery being the gravy it was intended to be, it's now being used to plug leaks caused by budget cuts.

I'm not a big fan of the lottery. It never worked as was intended and everyone knew that going in. So lets get rid of it.

On topic though - Fallin whored herself out in more ways than you can count to get to where she is. This is just another example. The great thing is there is no possible way to support this decision without sounding like a horrible human being. Good Luck to all who try the impossible

[badger]

The lottery would have been a better thing than it was if the legislature hadn't cut education's budget so much. Instead of the lottery being the gravy it was intended to be, it's now being used to plug leaks caused by budget cuts.

I'll one up you: Not only being used to plug budget holes, but they are basing education funding off of lottery projections, not the money it has already taken in. Thus, if lottery sales fall short of projections (which are probably high projections in this economy of people desperate for an extra cash grab), education is screwed even further.

So, if we were California, we would be like "The Lottery will make $1 billion this year, which will more than fund all of education!" and then include a stop-gap that if it does not make $1 billion by Dec. 15, the budget will be cut... ouch!

But, we didn't base our model on California, we based it on Georgia, one of the highest (at the time) lottery revenue states in the country, which funded college scholarships to the point that even wealthy family kids could attend in-state on zero tuition (they are now scaling this program back to need-based as the money dries up... less lottery revenue, higher tuition, etc).

The lottery... my gawd, what an awful idea... but Oklahoma voters voted for it. :(

[Ton Loc]

I almost feel like we voted for the lottery just because it was one more step towards the real thing - Casinos.
I'm not sure why people voted for Fallin.

[badger]

Fallin whored herself out in more ways than you can count to get to where she is.

Have you ever seen the court report of her affair with the trooper? It is one of the most disgusting reads ever involving a politician... I've seen worse, with cases of assault or rape, but picturing a drunk governor (OK, she wasn't governor at the time), who is married, with a trooper giving her a ride home and she reaches.... I CAN'T DO IT! It's too gross!!!!! :(

[Midtowner]

One thing I would do is reduce by at least 50% the number of school districts and/or school superintendents, etc...Largent suggested that and Henry ripped him on it in the rural areas yet it was a truth that should be repeated again and again. We are way too top heavy.

The gains which could be made in cutting the administrative waste are really pretty negligible. I'm all for cutting back to 5 or 6 school districts for the entire state, but the cost savings there just isn't what some think it's going to be.

[okie52]

I almost feel like we voted for the lottery just because it was one more step towards the real thing - Casinos.
I'm not sure why people voted for Fallin.

Most probably did because they didn't like the alternative.

[badger]

The gains which could be made in cutting the administrative waste are really pretty negligible. I'm all for cutting back to 5 or 6 school districts for the entire state, but the cost savings there just isn't what some think it's going to be.

yeah... those rural superintendents usually do about 3 or 4 jobs that larger districts have filled by 3 or 4 (or more) people. The Skiatook embezzlers that cash in on smaller districts are not the norm, I don't think.

PS: In case you hadn't heard about that, there was significant kicking back on school supplies in Skiatook... a grand jury later and the super pleaded guilty while they're trying to nail the supplier now. Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=331&articleid=20111212_331_0_Afreka631731)

[okie52]

The gains which could be made in cutting the administrative waste are really pretty negligible. I'm all for cutting back to 5 or 6 school districts for the entire state, but the cost savings there just isn't what some think it's going to be.

I can't remember the gains that were being touted but they were significant enough...particularly for a strapped education system. And it is mostly pure waste with duplication of jobs and efforts. But its been a while since I looked at that issue.

[Midtowner]

yeah... those rural superintendents usually do about 3 or 4 jobs that larger districts have filled by 3 or 4 (or more) people. The Skiatook embezzlers that cash in on smaller districts are not the norm, I don't think.

PS: In case you hadn't heard about that, there was significant kicking back on school supplies in Skiatook... a grand jury later and the super pleaded guilty while they're trying to nail the supplier now. Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=331&articleid=20111212_331_0_Afreka631731)

That kind of BS goes down in mid and large sized schools as well. I believe Ponca City's School Board gave their Super a MASSIVE raise, paying him $227K to run a school district with about 5,100 students, lots more than his peers in the same job got. And then there was the whole Karl Springer debacle in OKC.

But anecdotal incidents of corruption and school boards which abused their discretion are still the exception and not the rule.

The biggest problem with consolidation is lack of trust. I recall a few years ago, Stigler was trying to absorb Keota's school district. Would it have made a lot of sense? Yes, absolutely, but Keota's residents were worried (and rightfully so) that such an absorption meant they'd be bussing all their kids to Stigler, and the system would be about promoting Stigler-first policies and treating Keota like a client-state.

The school districts have to be large enough that football rivalries and lack of trust for the shady folks down HWY whatever don't cause the system to fall apart. You can't really understand the difficulty of consolidation just from an urban/suburban point of view where you can say it'll save x amount of dollars. We have to worry about quality too. That's why I'm more in favor of large administrative districts. In fact, if push came to shove, I'd use the 9 judicial districts for the election of supreme court justices. Those are pretty well drawn up.

[Ton Loc]

Most probably did because they didn't like the alternative.

I read your reasons, but I'd expect better from you than just the old she doesn't support Obama thing.

Plus, the governor of the state is going to have way more effect on your life than the President.

[okie52]

I read your reasons, but I'd expect better from you than just the old she doesn't support Obama thing.

Plus, the governor of the state is going to have way more effect on your life than the President.

So when Henry and Askins endorsed Obama as best for the nation and for Oklahoma you disregard their statements? Henry was writing Obama a letter just a few months after Obama was elected to backoff on his attacks on the oil and gas industry yet Obama only did what he said he was going to do in his campaign.

When you say whoring yourself out does that not include espousing the party line too even if it is detrimental for the state and your constituents?

So where is a repub governor going to be more injurious to me than a dem? Given my top 2 priorities, energy and immigration, which party "whore" is going to best represent my interests?

[Ton Loc]

So when Henry and Askins endorsed Obama as best for the nation and for Oklahoma you disregard their statements? Henry was writing Obama a letter just a few months after Obama was elected to backoff on his attacks on the oil and gas industry yet Obama only did what he said he was going to do in his campaign.

When you say whoring yourself out does that not include espousing the party line too even if it is detrimental for the state and your constituents?

So where is a repub governor going to be more injurious to me than a dem? Given my top 2 priorities, energy and immigration, which party "whore" is going to best represent my interests?

That's more like it.

I didn't have a problem with Askins and Henry endorsing Obama. He was and still is better than the alternative. I didn't vote for Fallin because of personal reasons. Like knowing she's a terrible person who is easily bought and sold. She is our own Rick Perry.

Of your top two priorities - 1 will go completly un-noticed and the other will continue on in this state much in the same way it would have under Askins or Henry.

[badger]

I didn't vote for Fallin (one of only two times I've ever not voted for the Republican) because Askins had more qualifications. I loved the fact that the two ladies were very cordial and mudslinging was practically non-existent. I also loved the fact that we were gonna have a woman as governor regardless. :D

[Midtowner]

Given my top 2 priorities, energy and immigration, which party "whore" is going to best represent my interests?

Those are both federal issues. Oil and gas is partially a state issue, but the power there is with the corporation comm'n, not the Governor. The Gov. can't much affect either one.

[okie52]

That's more like it.

I didn't have a problem with Askins and Henry endorsing Obama. He was and still is better than the alternative. I didn't vote for Fallin because of personal reasons. Like knowing she's a terrible person who is easily bought and sold. She is our own Rick Perry.

Of your top two priorities - 1 will go completly un-noticed and the other will continue on in this state much in the same way it would have under Askins or Henry.

Well you have your priorities and I have mine.

I'm sure energy independence is not really important to you so you don't see the harm in Obama.

Obama is just bad for energy period or for the notion of energy independence. He campaigned for an unsound approach to energy independence and has lived up to his campaign promises. Had he had his way OK would very much be affected by his policies. Henry and Askins knew this when they supported him. I have failed to see what has made Obama the better alternative in 2008 or in the coming election.

Henry supported instate tuition for illegals. I believe Askins did too.

[okie52]

Those are both federal issues. Oil and gas is partially a state issue, but the power there is with the corporation comm'n, not the Governor. The Gov. can't much affect either one.

You are right about the CC controlling most of the oil and gas activities in OK...almost totally apart from federal laws they must abide by. The state really controls most oil and gas operations in OK (or is the oversight anyway). The only time I deal with the feds is on federal lands or Indian lands. The governor can intervene in some situations but it is unusual.

But to have a governor support someone that is virtually diametrically opposed to most of OK's energy interests is logically hard to swallow.

[Ton Loc]

Everyone knew Obama wasn't going to get what he seeked in the way of energy. Just like there is no way Henry and Askins would have been able to pass instate tuition for illegals. Now, without Askins we're missing a balance of power in the state government.

I hope common sense prevails and this gets punted back at Fallin. Hoping for common sense is like winning the lottery when politics are involved.

BTW, I work in oil and gas and from the sound of things I probably deal with the same things you do.

[okie52]

Everyone knew Obama wasn't going to get what he seeked in the way of energy. Just like there is no way Henry and Askins would have been able to pass instate tuition for illegals. Now, without Askins we're missing a balance of power in the state government.

I hope common sense prevails and this gets punted back at Fallin. Hoping for common sense is like winning the lottery when politics are involved.

BTW, I work in oil and gas and from the sound of things I probably deal with the same things you do.

Instate tuition actually passed several years ago and was repealed.

The majorities for the dems that came with Obama didn't make it seem unlikely for Obama to get much of what he wanted. The house passed the idiotic version of cap and trade. Had the senate followed suit the OK industry would have been harmed as would our energy position nationally.
I certainly don't want to vote for a candidate on the basis his objectives hopefully won't pass.

Sometimes I like the idea of a repub congress/state legislature to go with a dem pres/governor. Clinton and the repubs seemed to be a good balance. Whether that was a 1 time thing remains to be seen.

[Midtowner]

You are right about the CC controlling most of the oil and gas activities in OK...almost totally apart from federal laws they must abide by. The state really controls most oil and gas operations in OK (or is the oversight anyway). The only time I deal with the feds is on federal lands or Indian lands. The governor can intervene in some situations but it is unusual.

But to have a governor support someone that is virtually diametrically opposed to most of OK's energy interests is logically hard to swallow.

I look at that choice like I look at my choice to support Ron Paul. He's bat**** crazy in some areas, but those are the areas, e.g., the repeal of the XIVth Amendment which he could never ever accomplish. As far as the stuff he could immediately impact? He's a Godsend.

[soonercruiser]

I look at that choice like I look at my choice to support Ron Paul. He's bat**** crazy in some areas, but those are the areas, e.g., the repeal of the XIVth Amendment which he could never ever accomplish. As far as the stuff he could immediately impact? He's a Godsend.

So, you would vote again for someone who is bat a** crazy!
Makes sense to me.

[soonercruiser]

Saw in the OKlahoman today where Fallin is trying to get the Legislature to drop the $100 tax fee on CNG vehicles.

[Midtowner]

So, you would vote again for someone who is bat a** crazy!
Makes sense to me.

He ain't crazy, and he sure beats the hell out of the stupid/fake alternatives.

Tell ya what.... I like Huntsman best out of all comers. He'd make an excellent President as he's fiscally conservative, but believes in books and science. I'll be voting for him.

[Midtowner]

Saw in the OKlahoman today where Fallin is trying to get the Legislature to drop the $100 tax fee on CNG vehicles.

Wonder how much she made for that?

[okie52]

Wonder how much she made for that?

I don't know but it sounds like the right move.

[okie52]

I look at that choice like I look at my choice to support Ron Paul. He's bat**** crazy in some areas, but those are the areas, e.g., the repeal of the XIVth Amendment which he could never ever accomplish. As far as the stuff he could immediately impact? He's a Godsend.

That may be true in some cases but I'm not going to vote for someone that would publicly throw OK under the bus just to score party points.

[okie52]

He ain't crazy, and he sure beats the hell out of the stupid/fake alternatives.

Tell ya what.... I like Huntsman best out of all comers. He'd make an excellent President as he's fiscally conservative, but believes in books and science. I'll be voting for him.

Huntsman does sound smart but he has backtracked on some issues that are top priority with me.

He vowed to veto a repeal of instate tuition for illegals in UT. The bill never got to him. Now, he has taken the secure border and fence position even though he says he finds it deplorable.

More importantly he was a cap and trade guy and supported it years ago. Like so many others, he wants his state to be the renewable/green energy capital of the US. But his support for cap and trade had no caveat as to China or India (back then). Now he states due to the economy that cap and trade must be shelved and China and India have to be on board. He has even gotten on board with natural gas...hopefully on a more educated basis than Pelosi.