Politics | Tell Hetrick

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

A sign of censorship

Published

on November 4, 2009

. 12 Comments

Back in September, my wife Cheri and I walked to breakfast at a downtown restaurant. On our way home, we happened upon the about-to-begin Labor Day parade. Some of the organizers were handing out yard signs that said “Health Insurance Reform Now.” Cheri requested one from a volunteer and put it up in our front yard. As CEO of an organization with nearly all women employees and, therefore, with very expensive insurance, health reform is very important to Cheri.

A few weeks, later, we received a letter in the mail from the company that manages our neighborhood association. The letter was copied to all the members of our neighborhood association. It asked us to remove the sign. It said the only signs allowed in our neighborhood are real estate signs.

During last fall’s election, we had signs in our yard for political candidates. No one complained. But somehow, health insurance reform struck a nerve that neither Republican nor Democrat candidates could match. I also found no reference to signs in my copy of our neighborhood covenants. Nonetheless, out of respect for the offended party or parties, I removed the sign.

Should I have done so? In a nation with guaranteed rights to free speech, should any of us be limited in what we can and can’t advocate on our own property? If so, what’s out of bounds and why?

My Washington day in the war for health reform

Published

Bruce Hetrick

on October 26, 2009

in Healthcare and Politics

. 6 Comments

I awoke long before the alarm sounded Tuesday. It’s not every day one testifies before Congress, so I was eager and anxious.

When the waking hour arrived, I showered, donned a suit and grabbed my briefcase. My son Zach drove me to the airport for my flight to Washington.

Call me sentimental. Brand me patriotic. But I still get goose bumps in Our Nation’s Capitol. Despite cynicism about government and its ability to serve, I’m moved by Washington’s monuments and memorials, by words of wisdom and names of heroes carved in stone.

When my plane landed, I hopped on the Metro and disembarked at Smithsonian Station. On a beautiful fall day with a few hours to spare before I had to be on Capitol Hill, I wanted to walk the Mall and put my cause in context.

I headed first toward the World War II Memorial, one I’d not seen. I walked through tributes to the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. I found the Indiana column with its massive wreath. I read quotations from presidents and generals, admirals and authors—words about citizens who sacrificed selflessly—and as one—for the benefit of all.

The memorial’s announcement stone says: “Here in the presence of Washington and Lincoln, one the eighteenth century father and the other the nineteenth century preserver of our nation, we honor those twentieth century Americans who took up the struggle during the second world war and made the sacrifices to perpetuate the gift our forefathers entrusted to us, a nation conceived in liberty and justice.”

I wondered whether, in today’s divisive America, we could unite behind any struggle or even agree on what gift our forefathers entrusted to us.

A quote from Women’s Army Corps Commanding Officer Colonel Oveta Culp Hobby says, “Women who stepped up were measured as citizens of the nation, not as women … this was a people’s war and everyone was in it.”

I wondered what, if any, people’s war—defense against terrorism, teaching children, fighting poverty, saving lives, enhancing health—would get everyone “in it” today?

In a tribute to the Battle of Midway, author Walter Lord is quoted as saying: “Even against the greatest of odds, there is something in the human spirit—a magic blend of skill, faith and valor—that can lift men from certain defeat to incredible victory.”

As I headed toward Capitol Hill to discuss small-business health insurance costs, I wondered whether—after health-reform defeats dating back to Theodore Roosevelt—the skill, faith and valor of the human spirit will finally bring relief to human health and lives.

Inside the stately hearing room, I sat at a table with two other small business owners and a public-policy expert. In the tiers of seats before us sat nearly a dozen members of Congress—the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

As chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan had us stand, raise our right hands and swear to tell the truth, it felt like “Judgment at Nurembuerg”—or at least the Watergate hearings of my youth. But no individual was on trial here—just our nation’s health system and the potential remedies for reforming it.

After each representative made an opening statement—some in sharp disagreement with one another—we witnesses got our moment in the spotlight.

Norman Michael Landauer, who owns a muffler shop in Davenport, Iowa, talked of crippling price increases for health insurance due in large measure to his own medical condition. Next year, he’s pulling himself off the company policy to better control costs for his employees. Because he won’t be able to get insurance elsewhere, he fears that if his health gets worse, he’ll have to sell his business to pay his doctors.

Fred Walker, who owns a glass and mirror company in St. Petersburg, Fla., said that a business downturn had forced him to consider dropping his firm’s health coverage. When he notified his employees, his secretary raced out and got the breast exam she’d been putting off. She had cancer. The broker providing quotes on individual policies said no one would cover her until she’d been cancer-free for 10 years. So Mr. Walker retained his company policy, even though the cost makes his firm’s financial condition even worse.

I explained how our firm’s rates jumped 28 percent in one year largely because of one employee’s illness. But when that employee died prior to the policy renewal date, the price increase dropped to 10 percent. I addressed the need for larger risk pools, more competitive coverage and fairer tax policies.

Because health problems occur one person at a time, they don’t seem as urgent as world wars. But the impact on our lives, health and futures is no less harmful. I don’t envy the House, Senate or White House the difficult decisions they must make. I do know that our nation’s health is a people’s war and—like it or not—everyone is in it.

Will healthy workplace hopes go up in smoke?

Published

Bruce Hetrick

on October 12, 2009

in Healthcare, Indiana, Lifestyle, Politics and Workplace

. 0 Comments

This week, a City-County Council committee will consider whether Indianapolis should finish what we started five years ago: making all workplaces smoke free.

Having sat through myriad hearings in countless communities since then, I can predict as well as any seer what witnesses will say at the Oct. 14 council committee meeting.

Health advocates will cite study after scientific study showing that second-hand smoke is hazardous to life and health—even in small doses in a short period of time.

They’ll present evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, asthma, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome and more.

They’ll show that smoking-related illnesses are the number-one cause of preventable death in Indianapolis and America—more than crime, AIDS, H1N1 flu, texting-while-driving, etc.

Inevitably, someone will quote the U.S. Surgeon General as saying, “The debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.”

They’ll also quote the Surgeon General’s finding that “There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Next up will be the economic developers. These witnesses will tell councilors that 26 states, myriad cities and counties and many foreign nations have recognized the health benefits of smoke-free workplaces and cleared the air for all their employees.

They’ll say that in the battle for jobs and smart people to fill them, Indianapolis can’t afford to be an unhealthy place with high health-insurance rates—especially if we’re touting ourselves as a health and life sciences powerhouse.

These witnesses also will cite studies showing that smoke-free workplace laws have not had an adverse economic impact on communities and states that have gone smoke free.

Next, councilors will hear what the public wants—in the form of opinion polls showing strong preference for clean indoor air. There will be breakouts showing that this holds true in virtually every part of the city; among Democrats, Republicans and Independents; and among every age group.

The other side of the argument will be led by people who own or represent businesses where smoking is still allowed. Foremost among these will be bar owners.

Tavern representatives will tell councilors that most of their patrons smoke and that their businesses would be killed and jobs lost if a smoke-free workplace law were to be imposed on them. They will cite studies and anecdotes of their own showing bars, jobs and tax revenues lost in other places that have enacted such legislation.

Next up will be the “businesses-should-choose” argument. Its proponents will say that government should not impose more regulations on private companies. They will say that with a legal practice such a smoking, property owners should be able to decide what occurs in their establishments.

Next, councilors will hear the libertarian perspective. These witnesses will say that Hoosier adults have the right to make their own decisions and that no government should deny the right to impose and inhale smoke-filled air. They will say that if workers don’t like it, they should get jobs elsewhere, and if customers don’t like it, they should patronize other establishments.

Finally, councilors will hear calls for compromise and delay. Someone will say, “We have to balance jobs, revenues and health. While we know smoking is dangerous, we just can’t risk the job and revenue loss right now.”

The councilors will then contemplate this input, along with such factors as party position, personal faith and values, political contributions, family smoking/non-smoking history, etc. Then they’ll have to make, quite literally, a life-or-death decision for workers in our community.

I don’t envy elected officials calls like this, especially in our shrill, partisan, uncivil times. But such are the expectations of courageous elected leadership.

So what will happen?

Will councilors heed Thomas Jefferson, who called for “a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another”?

Will anyone consider George Washington’s advice that “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present”?

Will council members of faith consider the Golden Rule, and does imposing one’s smoke on patrons and employees constitute “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

Will they heed the advice of State Health Commissioner Dr. Judith Monroe, who said, “We know tobacco kills. We know it hurts Indiana’s economy. And our elected officials hold the power to make a positive difference in the health of thousands of Hoosiers”?

Will they consider what candidate (now Mayor) Greg Ballard wrote to me in October of 2007: “Second-hand smoke is a proven health hazard and I would support any legislation to limit the impact of second-hand smoke”?

Or will they set safety and civility aside, leave the life-or-death deciding to individual employers, and declare, “Don’t tread on me”?