VA Health Care

The VA is in the news, so I thought I'd comment on that. As a state representative there won't be much I can do to fix the problems with this federal program, but I'll certainly use the pulpit to express my views and help affected vets when I can.  I am in the VA system, so I am familiar with how the system works or doesn't work. I do not have any disabilities, service connected or otherwise, and I have my own insurance, so any problems I have had are tiny compared to those that depend on the VA for vital care. I still feel qualified to comment.  The medical care available to me in the service was very low quality. The best doctor I saw while I was in was, no kidding, a DVM. Yes, a veterinarian. Medical care in the VA is no better. Some get good doctors and good care, but many do not. It is just luck of the draw. There simply aren't enough good doctors in the system to care for everyone, and the management system is so inefficient it makes quality care nearly impossible. The short term solution, I believe, is to scrap the system as it is entirely. Turn VA healthcare into an insurance program, and sell off all the physical assets with the possible exception of facilities to be used for long term/ hospice care. This will allow veterans to use any participating doctor of their choosing. Levels of insurance, deductibles, co-payments, etc... would be based on %disability and financial need, much as they currently are.  This would be a short term fix.  In the long term we have bigger problems. We simply aren't producing enough doctors to meet the needs of our population. The problems in the VA now will soon be plaguing everyone.  Until the healthcare system is drastically changed to adequately reward doctors for their efforts, and our education system is changed to produce people capable of becoming doctors, there will be nothing we can do to prevent this.   

Constitutional Amendments

There are three amendments to our constitution on the ballot this year.  The primary purpose of these is to increase the power of government and limit the ability of the voters to challenge that power.  They are worded deceptively so as to trick the voters into supporting it. Included is a proposal that claims to set term limits that in fact repeals the term limits already in place so that legislators can serve much longer in the assembly.  Also included is a provision to allow an unelected new branch of government to increase salaries with no way to hold an elected official accountable. This is also disguised in its language to make it seem like legislators are constantly raising their salaries. Representatives currently earn less than $18,000 a year - fair I think and hardly excessive. Expect this salary to at least triple if the amendment passes.  There is also an attempt to make it harder for the people to petition the government. I generally oppose constitutional amendments because few should ever be needed. Regular changes should be handled by passing and repealing laws, not amendments.  In this case however, the content is also detrimental to a free people.  I hope everyone sees through the deliberate deceit of our previous assembly and votes "no" to these amendments.
For the record, I support term limits. We have them now. They should not be repealed.
Legislators should be required to vote on pay raises, so they can face the consequences of such a raise from the voters in the next election.
It should be easier for people to petition their government, not harder.

Gay Marriage

With the most recent court ruling striking down prohibitions to gay marriage, I felt the topic needed to be revisited. My opinion on the matter has not changed. Marriage is a religious institution, a vow between man and woman before God.  Homosexuality is forbidden by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths; therefore gay marriage is forbidden by these religions.  I'm not sure how it is viewed in other religions, but all of this is irrelevant for the current argument on gay marriage.  As a religious institution there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in marriage. The government should not be performing, taxing, licensing, prohibiting, rewarding, approving, or in any other way regulating or involving itself in marriage. It is not a function of government.  This is akin to feudal times when all marriages had to be approved by the king.  We overthrew he king precisely to gain the sort of religious and tax freedom from government that we now are currently arguing for to some extent or another. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize gay marriage. It is unconstitutional for the government to prohibit gay marriage. It is a gross abuse of power for the government to be involved at all in marriage.