HB 2067

Summary:
HB 2067 in the original form was to grant three additional powers to a county board of supervisors to further govern over their counties, on top of what they already could do. These three additional powers were: use county resources for search and rescue, contract out to provide search and rescue services, and to contract with an ambulance business to provide ambulance service to rural areas. HB 2067 was then amended to also give the county board of supervisors the ability to shop around for the best deal to contract out police services.

On 4/8/2011 The Arizona Board of Regents, who oversees the three state universities along with the board of UA Healthcare,  voted to reduce the size of the combined board of supervisors of UA Healthcare from 26 to 19. UA Healthcare is a conglomerate of University Medical Center and University Physician's Hospital. Originally UMC had 13 members on its own board, and UPH had 13 on its own board. The plan was to join the two hospitals along with a partnership with the health colleges of the UoA to form a large research and educational health care system in southern Arizona.

After this vote, Kevin Burns, who was Interim President and CEO of UA Healthcare submitted his resignation.

On 4/13/2011, an additional floor amendment was added to HB 2067 which would completely strip the Arizona Board of Regents of all control over the health-care conglomerate of UA Healthcare and it would be replaced by a new Board of Directors.

On 4/14/2011 HB 2067 passed the Senate (27 to 3) and is currently waiting for House voting.

My feelings:
Clearly this is a political power-play. Why would a floor amendment, which fruit-basket-upsets a specific established governing unit, which is on paper a philanthropic organization, be attached last minute to a bill, which basically does run-of-the-mill good amending to general county policies? The two acts of legislation clearly do not mesh.

What seems to be happening is that some on the original board of supervisors are upset with the potential of losing their positions, which lead to pulling the right political strings to get this amendment attached to a pretty decent act of legislation. There also seems to be animosity in State Congress toward the universities, because while in the end life will likely go on as usual, what essentially is being said is, "Bad UoA, bad!" As a student in pharmacy school, this really angers me that a conglomerate that could potentially be extremely beneficial, educational, and informational is told to "back off" because some people has a bone to gnaw. That being said, I do not know all that went on behind closed doors, but the fight is definitely out in the open now, and the whole principle of attaching one group's personal vendetta against another group onto a good piece of legislation is politics at its worst.

If you opt to contact the Governor Brewer regarding this, here is the information:

http://www.azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp
Telephone (602) 542-4331
In State Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)
Fax (602) 542-1381

Update (4/21/2011):
On 4/19/2011 HB 2067 passed the House.
It seems the major discontent and reason for this bill is the Legislature feels the Board of Regents did not communicate properly or well. Maybe something needed to be done. Still, using another piece of legislation as the vehicle for chastisement is not right.

Update (5/1/2011):
Governor Jan Brewer vetoed HB 2067 along with 28 other bills on 4/29/2011. She also signed into law 357 bills into law.

Taxing Poor Choices

Politics in Arizona is picking another major nerve to poke regarding health care. The proposal is to start taxing individuals who are on AHCCCS who make poor health-care choices regarding smoking, being overweight or regarding their diabetes. (More Information)

My Feelings:
From a economic, ethical and health-care stance I feel this measure barely scratches the surface. At issue here is the definition of what welfare should be. Does depending upon society for aid mean you still have the right to do whatever you want? Does it mean that you can continually harm yourself against medical advice and expect everyone else to pick up the bill for the consequences? Does it mean you should get care over someone else who is trying to take care of himself? Scarcity dictates that there is not enough money for everything, so who gets the care?

Also at issue here is incentives to encourage individuals to make better choices for themselves. Yes, taxes on indulgences can seem not nice, but by mere supply/demand they keep fewer individuals from doing them. As a health-care provider-to-be, I want to see people healthier, and logic dictates that means it may be a rough road for some. Of note, if individuals are healthier on average, that would decrease costs on the health-care system.

Finally, ethics play a major role. Coming from a Biblical background I will quote Scripture, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Since even Paul, who was physically handicapped (1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 12:7, etc.) knew that work meant more than just physical activity, even if someone cannot physically work, the mindset should be concern for one's fellow person. Those physically disabled can still encourage, give advice, develop their intellect, and, if you believe in the power of prayer, they can pray for others. If the mindset of welfare is "what can society give me?" instead of "what can I do with the help society provides?" the individual becomes a hole that only takes and does not give back. Why should this individual receive help over another individual who desires to give back? (again scarcity)

These are issue arguing questions, and I mean them as such. This issue is extremely important because it pokes at the very central nerve of why welfare provides health-care benefits.

Please feel free to post your comments regarding this below. Also please use this post to organize your thoughts, feelings and rationals regarding this issue and take a few minutes to write your legislators.