Ryberg: surgery program is example of waste
August 31, 2010
Many South Carolinians and a growing number of Americans have come to expect the worst from politicians because they too often receive it. Every time taxpayers think things cannot get any more bizarre, then a politician somewhere raises the bar.
The latest example appears in the decision by your state government to spend $2.4 million for lap band surgery for state employees. South Carolina unfortunately already bears the scars of wasteful spending, especially during the past brief period of prosperity.
South Carolina government failed to set aside adequate funds for the inevitable downturn, and it likewise failed to prioritize spending on core functions of government such as education and law enforcement and transportation infrastructure.
Now, in the second year of the recession, South Carolina government has had to make tremendous cuts to the services provided by vital agencies. These include public schools and prisons and the highway patrol and Medicaid.
The surgery program, meanwhile, received no debate in the health care committees of either the House or the Senate. The House Ways and Means Committee inserted it as a proviso into the budget, and it received no debate on the House floor.
The South Carolina Employee Insurance Program covered and studied weight reduction surgery from 2001-2004 and health care costs following the surgery in fact rose. The cost of health care four years following the surgery was three times greater than prior to surgery.
I learned this when I actually asked state health plan officials during a Senate subcommittee meeting on the budget proviso. They testified to the costs incurred with the last trial and did not support this program.
I successfully removed this proviso from the Senate version of the budget. I at that point, based on the facts and the Senate vote, considered it to be properly vetted and resolved.
But when the final version of the budget appeared there was the surgery proviso. House leadership insisted that it be tucked back into the 550-plus page budget.
This is why people distrust politicians. This is the reason they think that politicians are crazy. And politicians prove taxpayers right when they spend their money like this.
Obesity cost S.C. taxpayers over $71 million in state health care charges in 2007. That cost was almost identical then to smoking-related charges. The cost has risen.
The state Budget and Control Board approved in August 2008 a $25 per month surcharge on smokers covered by the state health plan. It took effect this past January. Legislators rightly defend it on the grounds that taxpayers should not shoulder the cost of poor individual decisions.
We have not heard one complaint. Citizens and legislators agree that taxpayers should not have to pay for the choice of state employees to smoke.
I proposed in 2009 a $25 per month obesity surcharge for state employees on the same grounds that taxpayers should not have to pay the costs of unhealthy life styles. This did not pass, but be assured that we will revisit this in January.
People all over South Carolina successfully maintain healthy lifestyles. I drive by parks, tracks and neighborhoods, and at every hour of the day there are people walking, jogging, cycling, rollerblading, etc. These are the lifestyles we should be rewarding. We all want state employees, and all South Carolinians, to be healthier. I want a reduced cost of state health insurance for both state employees and the taxpayers who fund over seventy percent of
employee insurance.
South Carolinians realize, however, that ultimately we are responsible for our own actions. We must not expect government, i.e. the taxpayers, to rectify a situation that results from unhealthy life style choices.
Spending $2.4 million for something that state employees could and should do for themselves simply reflects a disregard for other people’s money.
Experimental surgery is not a function of government. Righting the wrongs of poor individual decision-making is not a function of government. Taxpayers deserve better.
This $2.4 million would pay for 41 classroom teachers, or for one class of 50 new state troopers, or it would eliminate the mandated five-day furlough of 3,200 uniformed correctional officers.
Your government should have done the same. Your elected officials should listen to you. Call, write, and be heard.
Stop the madness.
jMint visits Anderson
August 23, 2010
DeMint calls for ‘constitutionally limited government’
By Nikie Mayo
Monday, August 23, 2010
ANDERSON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint said Monday that the best thing the federal government can do to help people recover from the recession is to get out of their way.
DeMint, a Republican from Greenville, was in Anderson to give an update on activities in Washington, D.C. But he said the people who have the most influence in what the county and state become are the leaders at the local and state level.
“When you send out the message that South Carolina is the best place to do business,” he said, “the roads, the schools, the other problems take care of themselves.”
Speaking to a group at the Civic Center of Anderson, DeMint said he supports a “constitutionally limited government” that has less of a regulatory reach.
He said people are attracted to Anderson because of its quality of life and because it is midway between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C. It is legislators’ responsibility then, he said, to make sure the “weight to live here — the tax weight and the regulatory weight — is as minimal as possible.”
Of the happenings in Washington, DeMint said, “I guess the update is: It’s worse than you think.”
He said regular people are “riding a roller coaster” as they wait to find out whether their taxes will go up or down and how health-care reform will affect their businesses.
He said he believes health-care reform measures will be repealed in the coming months.
“If we allow the federal government to take complete control of health care,” he said, “I feel that you won’t recognize it in five years.”
He said federal stimulus money really amounts to a loan that will have to be paid back by future generations.
“There is not a county in South Carolina that does not need money for roads and infrastructure,” DeMint said. “You have to kind of balance that with: What do you want to do to your children and grandchildren?”
State Sen. Billy O’Dell, a Republican from Anderson, credited DeMint with calling leaders at First Quality Enterprises to woo them to come to Anderson.
Leaders of the New York-based business announced in May that they would make a billion-dollar investment during the next decade to build a paper products plant in Anderson.
“When a U.S. senator calls a CEO, he listens,” O’Dell said. “He is one that can move mountains, you might say.”
Tommy Dunn, the chairman of the Anderson County Council, said he thought Washington would be in better shape if there were more leaders who thought and worked like DeMint.
“I wish,” Dunn said, “that we had a few more like him.”
Spartanburg Herald opines on 24 hour
August 23, 2010
Still safe, still legal
New abortion law outrages those whom it should please most
For decades, abortion-rights advocates have trumpeted “safe, legal and rare” as their goal for abortions. If that is the case, they should be overjoyed by the bill Gov. Mark Sanford signed Wednesday in Spartanburg.
The new regulations require that women be given the option of looking at an ultrasound of their fetus before they have an abortion, but does not require them to look at the ultrasound. It also increases the required waiting time for abortions from one hour to 24 hours.
It does not impact the safety of abortions. It does not impact the legality of abortions. It could potentially impact the rarity of abortions.
Even if abortion is viewed as merely a serious elective medical procedure and not the taking of a life, the 24-hour wait makes sense. No ethical doctor would perform any significant medical procedure the same day a patient first came in the door unless that patient’s life were in danger.
You cannot simply walk off the street into the office of an ethical doctor and get a nose job or a breast reduction that same day. An ethical doctor will give you the information, both in his office and to take home, and the time necessary to make sure your decision is appropriate.
Surely an abortion deserves just as much consideration.
You cannot get married in South Carolina on the same day you apply for a wedding license. You cannot get divorced in South Carolina, in most cases, without living apart from your spouse a full year to be sure it is the right move.
That does not mean the state is anti-marriage, nor does it mean the state is anti-divorce. It simply means there are actions in South Carolina deemed momentous enough to require significant, informed reflection.
And unlike abortion, neither divorce nor marriage are permanent. Both can be reversed.
Opponents of the 24-hour wait have said the period of enforced reflection is unnecessary because women already give abortion much thought before seeking the procedure. This is probably true in many cases, but for other women, seeking an abortion may be an impulsive choice, born of fear. Given information about the process itself and other options, like putting a child up for adoption, her troubled mind may slow to consider them, and she may someday be glad she had those 24 hours to think.
Being given the option to look at an ultrasound is another form of information women may choose to consider.
With such laws, we must look at the stakes. The downside of the law is that a woman has to wait 24 hours for an abortion. The downside of not passing it is that a woman may abort a child she would have, upon reflection, chosen not to abort.
The law makes sense.
That doesn’t mean abortion-rights activists have to support it. They can oppose it, as long as they are willing to admit “safe, legal and rare” is a disingenuous slogan and come up with something new.
planned parenthood isn’t about choice
August 20, 2010
You can always count on the left for their consistent inconsistency. A perfect example is Sen. John Kerry registering his boat out of state to pay less taxes.
Here’s another goody for you. On Wednesday morning (08.18.2010), Gov. Sanford signed into law H. 3245 (the 24 hour waiting period) at the Crisis Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg. This is one of 20 crisis centers across South Carolina that offer FREE services, FREE ultrasounds, and FREE counseling to expectant mothers in crisis situations. They even offer FREE post abortive counseling (a condition abortion clinics deny exists).
Evidently, the truth seems to cut into the nations largest for PROFIT abortion provider. Read the response to the signing location:
Planned Parenthood issued the following statement about the signing:
“Mandatory delays are medically unnecessary and wrongly suggest that women make the decision to have an abortion flippantly,” said Jessica Bearden, Director of Public Policy. “We’re disappointed, though not surprised, that Governor Sanford would commemorate the signing of such egregious legislation at a crisis pregnancy center—many of which are notorious for misleading and misinforming women faced with unplanned pregnancies. It’s time that South Carolina’s elected officials stop the constant attacks oncomprehensive reproductive healthcare and instead promote policies that prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.”
So, as you see its not at all about informed choices, its about the money. Plain and simple.
op/ed on Kagan
August 19, 2010
Kagan Confirmation Sanctions Dishonesty
The recent vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court may well represent the last gasp of an ultra-liberal Senate rushing to fulfill the ideological agenda of the most radical president in American history.
The vote also does damage that may take decades to repair.
Elena Kagan is not just another progressive jurist. Elena Kagan also readily discards the truth in her quest for a liberal utopia.
Two examples of her dishonesty in favor of radicalism stand out.
Kagan, while dean, said in a 2003 email that ROTC activity on campus “causes me deep distress….” She barred ROTC from using the law school Office of Career Services following a court ruling favorable to her in 2004 and noted that, “I am gratified by this result….”
Kagan then, during her confirmation as Solicitor General in 2009, said in a written answer to Senator Tom Coburn that, “I never expressed a position on the exclusion of ROTC from Harvard.”
The most glaring dishonesty from Elena Kagan appeared in her recent testimony concerning her pivotal role in extending by nearly a decade the legality of partial-birth abortion.
We know that the “medical necessity” argument for partial-birth abortion has always been a ruse. Elena Kagan, however, actually invented some of the “science” by which it gained legitimacy for a time.
While Bill Clinton vetoed two different partial-birth abortion bans during the late-90s several states began to pass their own bans. The court fight that ensued from the passage of such a law by Nebraska made it to the Supreme Court in 2000.
The Court struck down the ban citing, in part, a 1997 statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) which said at the time that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”
The ACOG statement, however, had been altered in 1997 from its original version. Diligent work during the Kagan confirmation hearings produced the documents wherein the original ACOG statement declared that it “could identify no (my emphasis) circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
Into to the breach stepped Elena Kagan, then a staffer in the Clinton White House. Kagan literally wrote on the original ACOG documents that its statement “would be a disaster.”
She adroitly then offered some “Suggested Options” in a document so-titled. One of the suggestions—“best or most appropriate procedure”—indeed became the final verbiage of the ACOG document.
Elena Kagan actually tried to deny her authorship during her recent Supreme Court confirmation testimony.
Kagan said that, “there did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe…. And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things.”
Kagan said that ACOG believed both although only one appeared in its final statement. Kagan said that ACOG believed that partial-birth abortion is valid both under “no” circumstance and also under “a particular circumstance.”
The audacity is breathtaking, but we know that her current boss has a thing for audacity.
One of the Bush White House lawyers who successfully fought to uphold the eventual federal legislation that bans partial birth abortion recently said that, “Miss Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process.”
Elena Kagan fails the “qualification” test on several levels well documented by others. But, the fact that she would lie to perpetuate the killing of innocent children, particularly by such a horrific method, absolutely disqualifies her to serve on the Supreme Court.
An unborn child is a person just like you and me. Elena Kagan and her friend Sonya Sotomayor will spend the next few decades denying unborn children their constitutional rights. The irony, of course, is that they will spend those same years inventing all kinds of new rights for groups they favor.
Senator Jim DeMint recently said of the Kagan nomination that, “Americans don’t want their country to be reinvented, expanded and transformed by a ‘living’ Constitution.”
Most Americans do not want that. The United States Senators who voted for Elena Kagan, however, apparently do—even if it comes with a pack of lies.
24 hour waiting period signed!
August 18, 2010
Here’s a first time I’ve gotten a pen that’s signed a bill.
I supported and fought for this legislation for one simple reason. An unborn child is a person just like you and me. We must do what we can in South Carolina to recognize and cement the rights of the unborn, and this law is another step in that journey.
The timing of this ceremony is appropriate inasmuch as we very recently suffered the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Justist Kagan will spend the next few decades denying unborn children their constitutional rights. This issue is most important to me when I vote for justices to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
I would also like to commend Governor Sanford for standing up for the unborn child, and thank the countless pro-life activists and crisis center volunteers who stood with us during the legislative debate.
Here’s the Governor’s Press Release:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Contact: Ben Fox 803-734-2100
Governor Signs Bill Establishing 24-Hour Waiting Period Before Abortions
Columbia, S.C. - August 18, 2010 - Joined by state lawmakers and pro-life advocates at the Carolina Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg, Gov. Mark Sanford today signed H.3245, a bill establishing a 24-hour waiting period before abortions. The new law requires that a woman considering an abortion be given a full day to review materials objectively explaining what an abortion is and how to determine the age of an unborn fetus.
“I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins, I think we as a society should always err on the side of life,” Gov. Sanford said. “Given current federal law, I think it’s imperative that a decision of this magnitude only be made with the fullest and most accurate knowledge available. It’s our hope and expectation that this new law results in a substantial decrease in the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina. Accordingly, I’d give credit to Sen. Kevin Bryant on the legislative side, and on the ‘grassroots’ side I’d thank Oran Smith of the Palmetto Family Council, Lisa Van Riper of SC Citizens for Life, Alexia Newman here at the Carolina Pregnancy Center, and a host of others for the work they put into this.”
“This legislation requires 24 hours to expand the amount of information that is being considered before a very important decision concerning the life of a child is made,” Senator and Chairman of the Conference Committee Kevin Bryant said. “I’d thank those in the legislature and concerned citizens throughout the community for helping push this effort, and in the same light thank the Governor for signing this significant legislation that further recognizes the sanctity of life for all.”
In the United States, about a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion, while in South Carolina around 10 percent of pregnancies end in abortion.
-#####-
24 hour waiting period to get signed
August 17, 2010
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Ben Fox 803-734-2100
Governor Sanford to Sign Bill Establishing 24-Hour Period before Abortions
Columbia, S.C. - August 17, 2010 - Gov. Mark Sanford will join state legislators and other advocates in Spartanburg tomorrow (Wednesday, August 18) to sign H.3245, a bill that establishes a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be administered. The bill signing will take place at the Carolina Pregnancy Center 10:00 a.m. (103 Metro Drive, Spartanburg). For more information or directions from your location, please contact Ben Fox in the Governor’s Office.
-#####-
