In the waining hours of the 2011 Legislative Session, Representative Matt Ramsey (R-Peachtree City) found himself at the Speaker’s Rostrum with the gavel in his hand managing the business of the House. Speaker Ralston was busy getting pictures with the day’s Pages and as they say the show must go on. I commented to one of my seat mates that we were looking at this Legislative Session’s biggest winner.

Two of the highest profile pieces of legislation passed this year (dealing with illegal immigration (HB87) and the ability to purchase insurance policies sold in other states (HB47)) were navigated successfully through the Legislature by Matt Ramsey. Both bills elicited passionate opposition in the House from the Democrats but I suspect both poll reasonably well among Georgians of both parties. More importantly HB47 and HB87 were well thought out pieces of legislation. Ramsey listened to everyone who had something to say and tried to assuage their concerns as much as he could without violating the core ideals of both bills.

As you all know the debate over illegal immigration was a contentious one. There were protesters at the Capitol numerous times this year including last night. Yesterday one of our colleagues placed an article on our desk that called Ramsey a liar. The Speaker had it removed for violating House rules. There were many days when it looked like HB87 was dead. In fact moments before the Senate took the bill up again last night it looked to be dead. Yet not once did I hear of Ramsey losing his temper. In all the public statements I read and radio interview I heard him give, never did I hear him say anything that hurt his cause or embarrassed the Republican caucus. He gave his opposition no “locker room” quotes, and believe me on an issue like illegal immigration, with passions running high, that is quite an accomplishment. Matt Ramsey, on one of the most controversial issues facing our State, gave the people what they deserve: a thoughtful debate that didn’t inflame passions or play to the lowest common denominator. HB87 is a case study on how our political process should handle controversial issues.

Conservatives who were worried the House would suffer with the loss of conservative stalwarts like Tom Graves should really get to know Matt Ramsey.

Today’s “fresh political pickins from the Peach State”:

1.) Coming off a bitter campaign, Governor Deal and former Governor Barnes have forged an unlikely alliance over a good cause: ensuring that spouses of state employees killed in the line of duty are able to continue health coverage under the state’s plan. To quote Barnes: “It’s the least we can do, really”.

I didn’t vote for Governor Barnes and I don’t regret that decision. But it’s good to see this kind of unity from Speaker, Governor and former Goveror when it comes to something like this, which is doing the right thing.  It also more than makes up for these shenanigans last week by Barnes. “What a crock”.

2.) HB 92, sponsored by Rep. Mark Hamilton, R-Cumming, would reduce the early voting period from 45 to 21 days. Read the full article here. Personally, I think this is very necessary. I’d even support cutting it down to 14 or 7 days, but 21 is a good number. Cost-wise, it guts rural counties to have this long of an early voting period:

An ACCG survey found that counties with less than 10,000 registered voters spent an average $78.31 per early vote in the 2010 primary election, and $11.79 in the general election, compared with $10.76 and $3.63 for counties with more than 100,000 registered voters.

Plus, ya’ll know us rural folks have had problems with voter fraud in the past. A long period of early voting allows more ballots to be mailed out to cemetaries everywhere.

3.) Attorney General Olens, Congressman Westmoreland and Governor Deal held a press conference yesterday in response to the ruling in Florida on the healthcare law.

4.) HB 100, introduced by Rep. Allen Peake of Macon, creates a new court in Georgia to exclusively deal with problems regarding the Department of Revenue.

5.) There are two bills in the House looking to place more scrutiny on projects that “rely on transferring water from one river basin to another”. This idea is currently being worked on by Rep. Tom McCall and Rep. Alan Powell.

6.) In other positive news (not), a new report says that Georgia is 7th among states in total illegal immigrant population.

Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-83) sponsored HB 23 that would allow children as young as 14 to refuse medication their foster parents and doctors say they need.

49-2-33 Part 1, Section A states:
(B) A process for obtaining written informed consent from the child’s legal
guardian and the child, if he or she is age 14 years or older, in advance of the
child starting psychotropic medication;

(E) Requiring documentation of the child’s assent or objection to psychotropic medications if the child is under 14 years of age;

Written consent from the CHILD.

Rep. Oliver, according to her bio, has no real experience in the behavioral physiatric needs of juveniles. Sure, she has been on some committees, sponsored some bills related to children, and is a lawyer who teaches Child Law and Policy, but she went to school to be a lawyer, not a doctor or a physiatrist. Yet, she sponsored this bill alone according to the filing records.

As the older sister of a 14 year-old brother who is extremely intelligent and well-read and whom I love dearly, he is still a 14 year-old child. He does stupid 14 year-old boy stuff. Why on earth would we grant a 14 year-old who still sees the need to argue with his 9 year-old brother the ability to refuse psychotropic medication that his physician says he needs?

If we start with allowing 14 year-old kids to decide whether or not to take medication that could prevent them from not only harming themselves, but others as well, where do we end? Do we let them decide when to drop out of school? It’s more serious than fights over homework, T.V. and video game time limits, and bedtimes. But think about how ridiculous it would be to allow children to make their own decisions on those issues and how much more ridiculous it would be to allow them to decide whether to refuse or accept psychotropic medications.

And after reading Rep. Oliver’s bill at least four times, while not shocked that this is an actual bill-ridiculous bills are written all the time-it’s a bit disconcerting that such an educated woman would think that this idea was a good one.

What has ObamaCare done to Georgia? Bob Vineyard explains:

Since March when Obamacrap was signed in to law we have seen the following changes in the Georgia health insurance market. (Other states have had similar issues, but I am only familiar with Georgia health insurance plans).

All but two health insurance companies have withdrawn from offering maternity benefits.

Only a handful of companies will still write “child only” health insurance plans.

As of this date, it is almost impossible to find a rate for children’s health insurance if they are under age 19 and you are looking for coverage to be effective on 9/23/10 or later.

Some companies have either withdrawn from offering major medical business or are dropping hints they will be out of that market in 18 months or less.

Many have already indicated higher premiums for the 4th quarter of 2010 and later, especially on children under age 19.

Companies are starting to push limited benefit plans as “more affordable” alternatives to true major medical insurance.

Several companies have introduced new plans with stripped down benefits in an attempt to make their product look more appealing.

Drug formulary’s are changing, so the drug that is covered under your plan now may not be covered in the future.

Doctor and hospital networks are shrinking in an effort to further control costs but also has the effect of limiting access to a wide range of medical providers.

Given all this, why is Obamacare so great for the consumer?

This doesn’t even get into the impact on the state’s budget, which Roy Barnes alluded to recently. When ObamaCare was passed back in March, supporters talked about how it was under a trillion dollars, which is not true once you add the cost of the “doc fix” (that was removed from early versions of the proposal to bring the cost down). The CBO did not measure impact to health insurers, who are seeking premium increases to pay for ObamaCare’s mandates, and state budgets.

A federal judge today dismissed your Justice Department’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s case against Obamacare.

Georgia is part of a 20 state lawsuit using a similar defense, that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to enact many if not most of the parts of Obama’s heath care reform initiatives. The judge rules that it is an open constitutional question:

While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate – and tax – a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed the issue.

If I did this correctly, you can read the decision here. For now, consider the constitutionality of Obamacare officially under review.

Over the holiday weekend, frustration from the Governor and the House at the measures the Senate had to add to the Hospital Bed Tax to secure passage began to boil over. Travis Fain has statements from both the Governor and Speaker indicating their displeasure here, noting that Ralston has ruled the Senate passed version “not germane”, thus keeping the House members from voting AGAIN for a tax hike, only to have the Governor ultimately veto the package.

The blame from both inside the Senate chamber as well as from the House and Governor appears to be pointing toward Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, who the Gov and House think may not have been dealing in good faith (or has promised something he can’t deliver). Meanwhile, there are rumblings from inside the Senate about displeasure with the Lt. Gov putting them on the hook to vote for a tax hike that many privately do not support.

Weird things tend to happen in this state after showdowns like those of last week – and during Master’s week. This one deserves some close attention. We’ll see if the “Spring Break” allows tempers to cool, or for the forces of opposition to organize.

Note from Erick: Senator Hill submitted this to the AJC in response to one of the AJC columnists, Jay Bookman. The AJC told him it needed to be a 200 word letter to the editor. I’m posting the entirety of it here under his name.

Once again, Jay Bookman skews the facts of legislation to suit his own liberal tendencies. My proposed Constitutional Amendment does not prevent Georgians from having health care choices. The Constitutional Amendment will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices, whatever their choice may be. This is needed because threats of single–payer health care or an individual/employer mandate are not unique to Washington, DC. Fourteen states have introduced legislation calling for single-payer or a form of government payer health care. The Health Care Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment ensures this will never be the case in Georgia.

We believe the states are better equipped to reform health care. So, what role should Washington play? Congress should create an environment in which the free market can flourish. Congress should remove regulatory and legal barriers that restrict states from creating more competitive insurance markets. The taxing of individual insurance should be eliminated so everyone can save money and buy insurance with before tax dollars. Currently, only employer sponsored plans are able to utilize the before tax option. In addition, the federal government can act as a back-up or safety net for those who need more assistance such as participants in Medicare, Medicaid and PeachCare. Otherwise, let the States handle reform.

Bookman has chosen to attack a bill that never came out of committee three years ago. Several years ago a few states were considering offering a health insurance marketplace where individuals and businesses would be allowed to review and purchase health insurance. This was proposed as a potential mechanism to offer portability of insurance and avoid denials for pre-existing conditions when you changed jobs. After Massachusetts’ experiment with a version of the exchange concept many states, including Georgia, looked to other free market solutions. We don’t support individual or government mandates but rather freedom to choose both a health care provider and insurance plan that you want, and thus propose a Constitutional Amendment to preserve those freedoms.

Let’s clear up the issue of a health insurance exchange. There is a HUGE difference between a voluntary state-based exchange and a national health insurance exchange. For one, states (not the federal government) are the primary regulators of health insurance. It is within the regulatory authority of states for states to set up an insurance exchange or marketplace. It is absolutely out of bounds for the federal government to do so. Second, the national health insurance exchange, combined with the public plan, is a lethal combination. It creates a scenario where the government simultaneously plays regulator and competitor. This is like going to a football game and the referee owning one of the teams. Senate Bill 28 did not set up such a scenario. The Bill merely allowed private companies to come together in a common marketplace to sell insurance products; no government option was involved. It did not change the rules of the game in order to win, which is what the national health insurance exchange and the public plan could do.

If Bookman would spend more time focusing on what Georgians really want and less time on legislation that never even came out of committee, then he may realize that Georgians want the freedom to choose their healthcare providers, and they want to be protected against some government bureaucrat deciding what’s best for them and their families. If we begin with this concept then healthcare reform can truly offer more affordable, high quality accessible coverage for every Georgian.

Today’s Press Conference was held to present a constitutional amendment that allows all Georgians the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in any insurance plan and to prevent any government from punishing citizens for not participating. Today the Georgia Senate stepped forward to protect our citizens from an outrageous trampling of their rights by an out of control federal government. I believe that the Washington Democrat’s new scheme to mandate government run healthcare for every American is not constitutional and takes away our freedoms.

I have also offered legislation which would provide a financial scholarship for low income children on Medicaid and Peachcare so they can have private health insurance to give them better access to doctors.

This Constitutional amendment enables Georgians, who qualify, to continue to have the freedom to participate in government healthcare plans such as Medicaid, Medicare and Peachcare. We are not challenging the constitutionality of any existing government subsidized healthcare. This clarifies any comment which might imply otherwise.

I just got off the phone with Judson Hill about this AJC story on healthcare reform in Georgia. Sounds like the report misses the mark.

Senator Hill says his legislation does not contemplate nor does it have anything to do with medicare, but his legislation has everything to do with medicaid.

Under his legislation, the state would continue to fund insurance for Medicaid eligible children but give them a financial scholarship so they can stay on private health insurance to go to regular doctors rather than being turned away as medicaid patients which only makes their parents have to take them to the emergency room for treatment at taxpayers expense.

Senator Hill says this will actually save the state tens of millions dollars.

Today he also proposed a separate resolution in response to Obama’s proposal to make it clear that the federal government cannot force any employer or individual onto a government run healthcare plan and can’t punish you if you don’t participate.

On this bit:

Asked if Medicare, which is government-run health care for seniors, would also then be unconstitutional, Hill said, “That’s a good question. I don’t know yet. We’ll fight that battle when it comes before us.”

I think Hill would admit the response was poor. His legislation does not intend, nor does his amendment intend, to force any person into medicare, but it would not abolish medicare for anyone who chooses to go into it.

I think if Republicans can be fairly accused of using scare tactics when they bring up death panels, Democrats can be fairly accused of scare tactics by saying Judson Hill wants to get rid of medicare.

What he wants to do is provide greater access for kids to go to doctors with private insurance instead of having choices limited because so many top notch doctors refuse to deal with medicaid. And along the way, he wants to prevent people from being forced onto government healthcare plans, which will inevitably happen under H.R. 3200.

From my email box, Ms. Kidd sends this:

In 2007 and 2008, 2.9 million Georgians went without health insurance for six months or more. Today, 1.6 million Georgians do not have health insurance.

That’s simply disgraceful.

Fortunately, America is finally moving in the right direction on health care, under the leadership of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. But in addition to the reforms proposed by the Obama Administration, Georgia needs real leadership that is committed to solving Georgia’s health care crisis.

That’s why we’re launching a new campaign today to show Georgia’s two U.S. Senators that Georgians are serious about health care. We need your voice and your good name to help us get the message to them.

This bit is the kicker for me though. I’m hurt that I wasn’t listed as one of the evil Republicans.

Please take a moment today and visit www.GeorgiaDemocrat.org/sick. There, you can learn more about Georgia’s health care crisis, and sign our petition calling on Senators Isakson and Chambliss to stand with Georgians who need health care, even if it means standing up to Republican leaders like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.

Erick, I don’t have to tell you that a concerted effort from the extreme Republican minority in the U.S. Senate can derail or delay President Obama’s health care reform plan. It’s our duty to make certain that Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss are sticking up for Georgians, not obstructionist Republican party bosses and the special interests.

The Peach State, represented by Department of Community Health commissioner Rhonda Medows, has sprinted to the forefront of the effort to secure and safeguard the “right” of state bureaucrats to overrule diagnoses and prescriptions made by doctors to their patients.

In March, Georgia filed, and Florida and Alabama joined, an appeal of a 2008 U.S. District Court ruling that a patient’s physician was better positioned – and better qualified – to make decisions about that patient’s medical treatment than state bureaucrats. The case is currently being considered by a panel of the 11th U.S. Ciruit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Oral arguments were made on March 24.

The case, Moore v. Medows, has thrust into the spotlight debate about an issue that has long been confined to dark, smoky rooms in state capitals and Washington, DC, and to the back pages of legislation Members of Congress aren’t bothering – or being allowed – to read before their passage.

From state governments to the federal legislators and bureaucrats who had a hand in writing and passing President Barack Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” bill, more and more officials are beginning to make the public argument that it is not a trained doctor with years of experience and personal knowledge of a patient’s medical history and needs who should have final say when it comes to patient diagnoses and prescriptions, but some nameless, faceless bureaucrat inhabiting a cubicle in some nondescript government building, with nothing but an agency-developed cost-effectiveness spreadsheet to guide them in determining what is and is not medically appropriate or necessary for every patient seen within their jurisdiction.

The case currently being decided in Atlanta is evidence of this. In oral arguments before a panel of the 11th Circuit on March 24, attorney Robert Highsmith contended that, while bureaucrats “will consider doctors’ determinations,” the “final arbiter” of medical decisions is “the state.”

The thrust of the states’ argument is summed up in a brief written by the attorneys representing the state of Florida in the case. “Left to their own devices,” they write, doctors “advocate for their patients” – a fact that is clearly resented by state governments for its interference in the execution of their cost-effectiveness analyses.

It’s difficult to overstate the impact a decision in the states’ favor would have in this case. Medical professionals and health care advocates rightly fear doctors’ evaluations, diagnoses, and prescriptions would sink to the status of mere suggestions pending review and approval or disapproval by state bureaucrats.

Imagine, if you will, if every decision made about your personal motor vehicle, from the gas you put in it to the recommendations the mechanic makes for fixing your worn-out brakes or broken transmission, was subject to final review by a DMV-employee-clone state bureaucrat with no experience in the automotive industry. Now extrapolate that scenario to your health care.

Are you concerned yet?

Even if the judges of the 11th Circuit disagree with the appellants’ argument, the fact that three states are currently in federal court seeking official validation of their “right” to overrule physicians and arbitrarily ration medical care is frightening enough.

When government is given free rein to overrule a medical professional’s judgment of care based on their analysis of cost, physicians and their patients no longer have an active role in making decisions about those patients’ care.

The battle is not only being fought at the state level but at the federal, as well, where funding and authorization for “comparative effectiveness research” was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “stimulus” bill). That benign-sounding term refers, quite simply, to the drawing up of those comparative-effectiveness spreadsheets bureaucrats will use to approve or overrule physician diagnoses and prescriptions once the federal government’s power to do so has been affirmed, be it by legislative action or judicial fiat.

Given the track record of the faceless bureaucrats who make the majority of the government’s day to day judgments, the idea that they, rather than the doctor you know and trust, could be responsible for your medical decisions should be a very frightening prospect indeed — and the state government in Atlanta is leading the charge to make this a reality sooner, rather than later.

Note: A fuller explanation of the case itself, which centers on a disabled Georgia resident named Callie Moore, can be seen here.

They put it off this year.

The state Legislature provided $23 million for Georgia’s trauma care hospitals, less than half the money they received last year. That worries advocates who fear the cut will endanger service at the 15 trauma hospitals.

“It’s not enough to sustain the system, let alone build it,” said Art Kellermann, associate dean for health policy at Emory School of Medicine.

Wide swaths of the state, especially in rural North and South Georgia, are far away from the expert care of a designated trauma center.

More than 1 million Georgians live more than 50 miles from a trauma center, which offers more specialized services than a regular emergency room. That puts these Georgians beyond the “golden hour” when emergency caregivers have the greatest chance to save someone’s life.

State researchers say 700 Georgians die annually because of Georgia’s spotty trauma coverage.

Okay, whatever.

Health officials are hoping that the large increase in tobacco taxes that goes into effect today could be the spark users need to help them kick the habit.

Beginning today a 62 cents-per-pack federal tax increase — from 39 cents to $1.01 — will take effect.

The tax on smokeless tobacco also is increasing from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents.

Of course the reason it goes up is to help balance the budget, not actually to help people kick the habit.

I’m still, by the way, in favor of allowing employers to charge smokers more for health insurance. Make sense to me.

I guess it makes me cold hearted, but I cannot for the life of me see why it should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover autism. I think mandatory requirements on insurance companies already jack up the cost of coverage on the rest of us.

Now, I know the contrary arguments — spreading costs, rates of autism, possible linkage to vaccines, cost to handle the autistic in the system, etc. I get it.

But the arguments for making autism coverage mandatory can be made for a variety of other problems, though those others may not pull at the heart strings like autism.

We’re beyond a point in insurance policy and taxes where we add social policy heartstrings to what should be straight forward policies to provide access to insurance at affordable prices with the former and raising revenue with the later.

We should stop heading down this road and start back in the other direction.

So I’m watching the House live feed on the web while working on my secret project. HB523 came to the floor. It would require pharmacists to dispense the specific brand name of a immuno-suppressant drug and not a generic. Currently pharmacists can dispense a generic drug unless the proscribing doctor writes “Brand Only”.

Every single pharmacist in the House rose to speak against the bill. It was unnecessary for the health of the patient. If the doctor wanted a specific drug “Brand Only” would suffice. That is current law.

The problem is that many of these immuno-suppressant drugs are coming off patents and soon generics will be available. This bill would require insurance companies and patients to pay for the more expensive brand name drugs.

The House voted it down, 64-103. Good for them.

Pretty ballsy of him to want to raise taxes and run for Governor as a Republican.

State Rep. Austin Scott (R-Tifton) and Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Savannah) introduced a bill that would add a new $10 fee on car tags above the annual registration fee.

The money, estimated to be about $85 million per year, would go to the Georgia Trauma Trust Fund.

Supporters of a trauma care network say that’s the sum needed to adequately pay the cost of trauma care. If Georgia could reach the national average in trauma care services, it could save 600 lives per year, said Earl Rogers, senior vice president of Georgia Hospital Association. Doctors says deaths decrease if a patient is taken to a trauma center within a “golden hour” of an accident.

To be sure, he’ll call it a fee. But considering that everyone must have a tag to drive and most every adult drives, it is actually a tax. I don’t think it is that big a deal as we need to find funding for trauma care and this might just be the best way to do it (not sure of that, but I am sure it is better than the super speeder law at actually generating revenue).

Still, it’s ballsy of him to want to jack up taxes and run for Governor.

And it still comes down to Cagle v. Handel at this point. The more men who enter, the better it is for Handel I suspect.

As we’ve covered here before, this sounds like a good idea.

Gov. Sonny Perdue’s “Super Speeder” legislation has hit the track.

State Rep. Jim Cole, R-Forsyth, the Governor’s senior floor leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, introduced the legislation (HB 160) to the General Assembly on Tuesday. Under the proposed law, drivers caught driving dramatically higher speeds would pay higher fines in order to fund state trauma care.

The legislation would add an additional $200 fine for driving over 85 MPH anywhere in the state and for driving 75 MPH or more on a two lane road. The law also would increase driver’s license reinstatement fees for drivers committing a second and third offense for violations that result in a suspended license and for other negligent behaviors.

The problem is that those most likely to be super speeders are generally the people least likely to be able to afford to pay the fine.

Popular in Buckhead for at least a month, Cobb County finally has its own hookah bar, again. From the teaser on the front of today’s Marietta Daily Journal to the massive article on the front page of the “Cobb and State” above and below the fold, you would have thought that the Pyramid Hookah Bar and Lounge was the first such establishment in Cobb. At least the article does mention the fact that there has been a similar establishment in Kennesaw that has been open for a while, catering to the smoking habits of KSU students eager to experience a slice of Middle Eastern culture before America finally falls to radical Islam and we’ll all have to trade Starbucks for hookah bars as the social gathering watering holes for the pre-21 set.

Of course that discounts my theory that Starbucks will eventually take over the world, including areas where there is radical Islam, and we will all have to bow to the Starbuck’s mermaid, controlled by our universal caffeine addictions, but that’s a subject for another post.

Hey, the Ron Paul people can have their conspiracies about 9-11, I can have mine about Starbucks!

What got me thinking about the article, and my decision on sharing it, was this quote from Sam Abou, owner of the establishment: 

Abou, 39, is originally from the Gaza Strip, which borders the Mediterranean Sea in the Middle East, where hookahs, water-pipe devices used for smoking, are thought to have originated. Abou said hookahs are very common in cafes throughout that region.

“Kids these days love to find a place where they can just hang out and talk,” he said. “In the Middle East we’re very social people, and there’s a lot of socializing going on.”

So, fine, maybe hookah smoking isn’t exactly “for the children,” but “for the kids” is close enough. Well, at least Cobb County finally has a place where kids can gather together and smoke up, because, of course, that never happened in Cobb before. And to think it was only a few years ago that we were all worried about Joe Camel making kids think it was cool to smoke.

The only question now is how is the legislature going to figure out a way to tax this?

And I only mean that with half of the sarcasm that the headline may express.

I pretend to be an expert on many things.  One area that I do not attempt this is our bizarre and complex system of health care and its funding.    While our country still manages to deliver the world standard for medicine, the way we do so, and more specifically, the way we fund it, appears to be overly complex, bureaucratic, and inefficient.

I’ve been warning for years that if Republicans don’t come up with some kind of market based reform of the system, we would ultimately accept the reforms the democrats give us.   At the national level, we’re probably on the verge of that. 

But at the state level, Republicans are still in charge.  And the man most in charge, Governor Perdue, has apparently decided that the best way to generate the additional money hospitals need for a statewide trauma  network is to tax the hospitals themselves.

Wait, what?

Perdue has proposed a 1.6 percent fee on hospital revenues and health insurance plans to fill the state’s $208 million hole in Medicaid this year, and to provide $60 million toward a statewide trauma network.

Perdue told legislators he knew his plan would “not be universally acclaimed,” but said the federal government, “in its infinite wisdom,” created the problem. New federal law going into effect later this year would require the state to charge private insurance companies the same fee it charges the HMOs that serve the state’s Medicaid and PeachCare populations. Georgia charges its Medicaid HMOs a 5.5 percent fee on revenues. The state leverages the money from those fees to qualify for a federal match.

Rather than lose the federal match, making the Medicaid situation that much worse, Perdue opted to extend a 1.6 percent fee to hospitals and health insurance plans and recreate the “super-speeder” idea, which would impose a fine of $200 on those found guilty of driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit. A similar plan failed in the final days of the 2008 legislative session.

O.K., to raise money for hospitals, we’re going to tax those same hospitals, plus the insurance companies that reimburse those hospitals when they are lucky enough to have a “paying” customer.

The Governor adds this word of caution when judging this plan:

“Like most things we address here at the Capitol, this plan will not be universally acclaimed,” Perdue said. “But, I have arrived at this solution after thoughtful, careful deliberation. I implore you. Do not rush into a short-sighted cut that would have long-term consequences for Georgia’s most needy.”

O.K., I’ll try to give the Governor the benefit of the doubt here.  Perhaps I cling to logic too much, and am thus defeated in my understanding of this fix to an illogical system.

So, Peach  Punditers, I need your help.  Someone please help me understand how the  best place to get funds needed for medical care is from those who provide said care.

After a long wait for health care competition to arrive in Southwest Georgia, Americans for Prosperity finally has reason to celebrate. The Department of Community Health approved Palmyra Medical Center’s Certificate of Need (CON) application to provide obstetric services on Friday, which means Palmyra will provide Albany mothers with a choice in where to deliver their babies (covered here).

AFP released the following statement:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) commends the Georgia Department of Community Health for approving Palmyra’s application to provide obstetrical services in Albany.

The decision brings new competition and patient choice to soon-to-be parents in the area. Choice empowers patients, increases health care quality and assists in the managing of health care costs. Providing a choice in care for pregnant women and newborns is something that Americans for Prosperity believes strongly in. Today’s decision will have a positive impact on the health and welfare of the entire Albany community.

According to WALB TV, Phoebe Putney announced that they will appeal the decision in order to continue stifling competition in Southwest Georgia:

“We, of course, will appeal that,” said Dr. Douglas Patten, [VP of Medical Affairs for Phoebe]. ‘The board has taken a well thought out position long ago on this, that dilution of the key service in this community will not offer any community benefit and may actually contribute to dilution of quality of care.

The Coalition for Affordable and Competitive Healthcare (CACH) disagrees with Phoebe Putney:

Vince Falcione represents CACH and says he’s never heard of competition diluting quality, only making it stronger. He said, “Competition helps you get better quality. It’s just, in our opinion, a win for the consumer, a win for the community. I look at this as a start for things to come.”

Today marks a big win for Albany’s health care. I’ll keep you updated on things to come.