Anti IM17/Pro-House Bill 1067 e-mail blasts hitting members of the legislature. Not a scam, but don’t trip over the astroturf.

Is Superbowl weekend coming up? Because it looks like someone is getting plenty of astroturf ready.

Well, not so much in Santa Clara, California where the game is being played. I’m referring to what appears to be playing out in Pierre over House Bill 1067.

What started this is that I received an e-mail from a legislator last night who said he and many others had been getting a string of e-mails all day from people howling about 2014’s IM17, and how they needed to get right on fixing it with House Bill 1067.

Here is the e-mail I received from a legislator

Pat, House members have started to receive email today regarding HB 1067.  I could be wrong, but this smells of a Sanford scam to me.  I’ve attached the email received so far.  You can make up your own mind if it smells or not.  It would be interesting to learn if the addresses and email are real. Anyway, the email is attached for you.  We’ve been getting one periodically since this am.

And here are the e-mails he was asking about and provided to me (editing note – I’ve redacted last names, e-mail or any physical addresses that were sent along in these e-mails)

Dear Legislators,

You have the opportunity to strengthen the mandate and support the will of the people by supporting HB1067, while preserving the ability of South Dakotans to purchase health benefit plans tailored to their needs and budget.  The current statutory language did not go far enough in mandating choice as to a patient’s provider.  It needs to be changed to make clear that health insurance companies need to offer a broad network plan – a fact made plain by the fact that the matter is currently in litigation.  HB 1067 fixes that by mandating that health insurance companies offer a broad network plan which includes ALL providers in the health insurer’s panel.  The beauty of HB 1067 is that it not only offers choice as to provider BUT ALSO offers choice as to health benefit plan.  Without HB 1067, South Dakotans could be put in a position of ONLY being able to purchase a broad network plan, which may not be what they want, need or can afford.  HB 1067 is a common sense bill that offers voters the choice as to provider they were promised with IM 17 and keeps health insurance options open and affordable.  It is the best of all possible worlds, and I fully expect you to support this common sense bill.  Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Blayne H.

____

I am writing because I just learned the truth about what happened with IM 17 and I am shocked.  I am asking you to protect my choices of insurance by supporting HB 1067.  We South Dakotans expect our legislators to guard against this type of self- dealing activity even when the self- dealers are physicians as is the case with IM 17.  Please tell me you will do the right thing on this important issue.

Dana C.

____

To whom it may concern:

I have never written a legislator before but when I learned that I was taken advantage of with a misleading marketing campaign promising choice I was compelled to contact you. If you don’t protect us against those types of activities in South Dakota, who will?!?! Please support House Bill 1067 and give us BACK the choice to make our OWN decisions of health plans and not let a group of doctors who want to make money have total disregard for what I can and cannot afford!!!!

Katrina W

____

Dear Elected Official,

I outraged after hear the truth about what happened with IM 17. I am asking you to protect my choices of insurance by supporting HB 1067.  We expect our legislators to guard against this type legislation and do what is best of the people and not to be miss led by miss information by physicians.

Please tell me you will do the right thing on this important issue.

Concerned South Dakotan
Beth P.

____

Dear Legislators:

In my past 40 years as a South Dakota voter I have never gone public with my opinions other than at the polls with my X in the box for my vote. I am writing to all of you today about the Initiated Measure 17 vote in 2013 that was a farce to the people of SD. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, this is a real people of SD issue. I am tired of hearing what is going to be good for me from my Representatives and then to find out you have lied to us in being blindsided. I have paid more attention this go-round and have looked at the You Tube videos of Black (Blake) Curd and am so disappointed in his untruths. I didn’t get a choice, where is my promise from all you who said this would get me a voice and a choice in my healthcare. Nothing changed except if I change insurance companies. I am really disappointed in the Legislators of SD. Look at the mess on TV for the Presidential campaigns, I always could say well that is Washington and I am from SD. In SD we don’t do crap like that, I am beginning to think SD has its very own Donald Trump in DR. CURD. PLEASE, please correct this mistake and vote for House Bill 1067 and give me back the choice to make my decisions of insurance plans and not let a group of physicians who want to totally disregard what is so important to me, the VOTER.

Terry & Chris H..

____

I don’t, typically, write legislators but feel the need to do so this year to ask you to support House Bill 1067 – “An Act to Promote Quality, Competition, and Freedom of Choice in the Health Insurance Marketplace”.

I feel voters were tricked by the people who campaigned for IM17 stating that by voting “yes” to IM17, would allow me to choose my own doctor without additional cost to me.  Had I known IM17 would force me to purchase a broad network plan and pay more, I would have fought this Initiative more aggressively.  As I look back, I now understand why the doctors who own their clinics paid $2 million dollars to pass this Initiative.

I can’t afford an increase in health insurance costs and don’t need or want to see a special doctor at one of their expensive clinics.  The only reason IM17 passed was because they lied and made people think it was about choice.

IM17 was a dirty campaign and now a dirty law.  It was funded by self-interested doctors and politicians looking to line their pockets while making South Dakotans think it was a good and fair law.

Please vote for HB1067.  As a constituent, I understood I would have a choice in my health care provider but that’s clearly not what IM17 provided.  Instead, a vaguely worded law was put into place that requires me to be part of a broad network insurance plan.  How is that “patient choice”.

Thank you,

Lynn J.

The legislator was not sure why and how they were getting a pile of e-mail in this manner, and I didn’t think it was a scam, as opposed to some sort of automated constituent communication program. But Its kind of tough to judge without knowing whether these were real people or not.

Just out of curiosity, I looked a few of them up on Linked-in.  And that’s where a really interesting pattern emerged.

… HB 1067 is a common sense bill that offers voters the choice as to provider they were promised with IM 17 and keeps health insurance options open and affordable.  It is the best of all possible worlds, and I fully expect you to support this common sense bill.  Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Blayne H….

BlayneH

Well, that’s funny. In the e-mail she wasn’t identified as Corporate Counsel at Sanford Health.

And we have the next e-mail….  My emphasis, btw.

I am writing because I just learned the truth about what happened with IM 17 and I am shocked.  I am asking you to protect my choices of insurance by supporting HB 1067.  We South Dakotans expect our legislators to guard against this type of self- dealing activity even when the self- dealers are physicians as is the case with IM 17.  Please tell me you will do the right thing on this important issue.

Dana C….

DanaC

Darn those self-dealing self-dealers…. Wait a minute… Is that a Sanford employee demanding “Legislators to guard against this type of self-dealing ” as she asks for passage of a measure being promoted largely by her employer? Without identifying herself as such, of course.

I am beginning to think SD has its very own Donald Trump in DR. CURD. PLEASE, please correct this mistake and vote for House Bill 1067 and give me back the choice to make my decisions of insurance plans and not let a group of physicians who want to totally disregard what is so important to me, the VOTER.

Terry & Chris H….

CHrisH

I’m really getting the sense of a pattern here.

I outraged after hear the truth about what happened with IM 17. I am asking you to protect my choices of insurance by supporting HB 1067.  We expect our legislators to guard against this type legislation and do what is best of the people and not to be miss led by miss information by physicians.

Please tell me you will do the right thing on this important issue.

Concerned South Dakotan
Beth P….

bethP

I’m assuming that none of the doctors she works with would miss led anyone. And here’s one of my favorite excerpts… (my emphasis again)

IM17 was a dirty campaign and now a dirty law. It was funded by self-interested doctors and politicians looking to line their pockets while making South Dakotans think it was a good and fair law.

Please vote for HB1067. As a constituent, I understood I would have a choice in my health care provider but that’s clearly not what IM17 provided. Instead, a vaguely worded law was put into place that requires me to be part of a broad network insurance plan. How is that “patient choice”.

Thank you,
Lynn J…

LynnJ

So, we’re talking about concerns over the self-interested here, at the same time someone is participating in blast e-mailing legislators… while not exactly being candid about at least a facet of their interest.

And then here the kicker – there’s the concern over the writer of the letter being required to “be part of a broad network insurance plan. How is that “patient choice”.”  Is she kidding?

To my knowledge, the vast majority of these people, as employees of Sanford Health I’d wager there’s a good chance they’re not actually on a plan regulated by the state, but on a self-funded plan that’s only barely regulated (if at all) by the federal government under the Federal ERISA act.  I don’t know that they would be governed by IM17.

So what are are these Sanford employees complaining about!?! 

I’d pass on to my friends in the South Dakota Legislature who are concerned about getting hit with all of these e-mails out of the Sioux Falls area – I am quite convinced that they are not a scam, and are all absolutely from real people.

But, at the same time, mind your step. You wouldn’t want to trip over the astroturf.

Charlie Hoffman is in the house. At least, he’s running for it.

As promised earlier, former State Representative Charlie Hoffman has turned in his petitions to run as a Republican in the District 23 House race, where Justin Cronin is termed out.

Who else is running? So far….

Race Name Party Petition Filing Date District
         
State Senator Ernie Otten REP 1/6/2016 0:00 District 06
State Senator Deb Soholt REP 1/26/2016 0:00 District 14
State Senator Jim Bolin REP 1/12/2016 0:00 District 16
State Senator Joshua Klumb REP 1/19/2016 0:00 District 20
State Senator Jim White REP 1/25/2016 0:00 District 22
State Senator Ryan M. Maher REP 1/26/2016 0:00 District 28
State Senator Bob Ewing REP 1/5/2016 0:00 District 31
State Representative Tom Holmes REP 1/26/2016 0:00 District 14
State Representative Mike Stevens REP 1/25/2016 0:00 District 18
State Representative Tona Rozum REP 1/12/2016 0:00 District 20
State Representative Charles B. Hoffman REP 1/27/2016 0:00 District 23
State Representative Oren Lesmeister DEM 1/6/2016 0:00 District 28A
State Representative Sam Marty REP 1/25/2016 0:00 District 28B
State Representative Travis Lasseter REP 1/19/2016 0:00 District 30
State Representative Charles M. Turbiville REP 1/13/2016 0:00 District 31
State Representative Dan Dryden REP 1/21/2016 0:00 District 34

 

The 36% Affidavit – So, on what basis is the 36% petition being challenged?

I had to pay for a copy of it, but here’s the affidavit filed today by a “Craig Olson” and former Secretary of State Director of Elections Aaron Lorenzen as to why the petitions for the Hickey/Hildebrand ballot measure should be rejected. They’re contending over 7500 signatures are bad, which they believe should invalidate their submission:

36 Percent Affidavit

Thoughts?

The Invisible Congressional Candidate Paula Hawks and the Locker Room Bill.

House Bill 1008, An act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools was heard on the House floor yesterday, with a largely block voting cast by either party. Tona Rozum defected on the Republican side, and Ray Ring defected on the Democrat side.  But otherwise, it was R and D straight down the line.  The bill passed as amended on a lopsided 58-10 vote.

And among that block of ten people voting no, was Democrat Congressional Candidate Paula Hawks. Hawks voted along with the rest of the Democrats on their party line, in favor of boys and girls showering together in schools.  It was a vote popular with the Liberals and ACLU crowd, but as noted, they lost, and lost badly.

I'm running. But just ignore me on the controversial bills.
Paula is running for higher office. But please, just ignore her on the controversial bills.

So, this person leading the Democrat party and carrying the blue banner as the sole statewide candidate for the party voted against it.

But, curiously, she didn’t stand up, and raise her voice on the measure. She made no note of it on social media as she did today declaring that “a resolution for equal pay passed!”  She hasn’t brought it up on Facebook or as one of the extremely rare Twitter posts she makes. She didn’t talk to the media about it.

Voting in favor of boys and girls showering together will probably prove not popular with the church going folk across South Dakota.  But she made the vote. And there has been silence. It’s as if she just decided to hit the mute button, and hopes the issue passes her by before anyone notices.

Last year, she took a similar stance on HB 1195, which required a Student’s Gender Identity to be Determined by a Birth Certificate. She voted no on that one as well. Not a shock. She’s a pretty liberal Democrat.

But the difference this year is that she’s carrying the Democrat party on her shoulders. She’s got their flag. But, she’s not waving it too proudly.  It’s as if she’s folded it up, and put it in her desk.

This standard bearer seems to have done little more than hunker down, and hope people aren’t noticing. I wouldn’t want to be noticed either, considering how utterly liberal her voting record is. But if she’s the Democrat standard bearer, isn’t she supposed to believe in this stuff?

After her daughter’s December surgery, Hawks promised her supporters that “she anticipates putting all of her attention back into campaigning in January.”  Yet… I can’t help but have the sense that she hasn’t. Over the course of the last month, she’s had ample opportunity to step up to the plate and take her place at the head of the table. Yet, supporting a non-binding resolution for equal pay, and agreeing with the Republican Governor noting ” I agree with Governor Dennis Daugaard, this is the year to get South Dakota out of last place”  is all she’s been able to muster.

It’s as if Hawks is doing everything she can to avoid leading the liberal charge. She had more fire last summer when she was first mentioned for the candidacy.  Even before session, she was proclaiming her support for Bernie Sanders proposal for debt-free college.

Ever since? Crickets. It’s as if she’s moved back into her special stealth/invisibility mode, and is content with it.

In the first few weeks of session, Hawks is acting like a lot less than someone who voters can consider a legitimate choice for a higher office, and more like a drone in the Democrats’ liberal rank and file; pushing the red or green button as she’s instructed by party bosses, and just waiting for the congressional campaign to be over with.

Given what’s constituting “putting all of her attention back into campaigning,” I wouldn’t be surprised to see Democrats to start asking for someone else to run.

Because it’s tough to get behind someone who is invisible.

House Bill 1076 sent to 41st day on 9-4 vote. What we learned.

House Bill 1076 had a lot of crash and thunder surrounding it, but after testimony today, it died an appropriate death as we learned some things about the measure.

First, we learned that the measure sponsor Lynn Hix-DiSanto puts a lot of stock in facebook, as she based popular support on the measure on how many people viewed her facebook page, and how people commented.

Next, we learned that the sponsors of the measure probably didn’t bother to consult with DSS when they wrote it, because they dropped the bombshell that the 100,000 people the bill wanted to drug test are barred from it under federal law.  Because SNAP is a federal program, and states cannot put further restrictions on it under federal law. Oops.

We also learned that the genesis of this measure came when people went to Senator Betty Olson concerned about drug use on the Cheyenne and Standing Rock reservations. It was actually related that someone said “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”   I doubt that helped their case today.  (I gasped when I heard that one).

I also learned that you could have taken all of the Democrats from the room, and the bill still would have been rejected by a strong Republican Majority of 7, as they and 2 Democrats voted against it, and it was only supported by 4 Republicans, three of which were sponsors.

It’s done. And with good reason.  It was bad legislation which would have been worse law.

Secretary of State receives petition challenge

Secretary of State receives petition challenge

Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that a challenge was submitted January 27 on the initiated measure To Set A Maximum Finance Charge for Certain Licensed Money Lenders.

The Secretary of State’s office will verify the petition challenge in the coming months. There is not a deadline in state statute as to when the verification process must be completed.

The challenge was submitted by Craig Olson and Aaron Lorenzen.

For more information regarding the challenge process please visit: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-ballot-questions.aspx

#30#

Listening to HB 1076. The sponsor is basing this on facebook views, and her expert wants everyone to get treatment on the county’s dime.

I’m listening to the testimony on HB 1076. Is DiSanto really citing facebook views and facebook likes as support for her bill?

Annette Bosworth tried that in her election, too.

It wasn’t convincing then, either.

…..

And here comes the expert, who seemed a bit scattered….

I love the part where this 2nd gal testifying wants to add to the bill that people testing positive are sent for addiction counseling…. Her very profession… And notes they’ll probably qualify for indigent care.

So.. she wants an amendment for an expansion of government to be expanded even further, have a huge drain on county resources, only to end up in her pocket!

…..

And now we have Florence Thompson, a big supporter of Lora Hubbel, testifying in favor of it.  Yeah… need I say more?

…..

Oh God. Sen. Betty Olson is talking about how the reservations have rampant drug problems, and people went to her saying “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”  And she keeps saying “these people.”   Please. Stop.

And she’s comparing the drug test to voting, talking about driver’s licenses, and having to prove who we are for voting. “We always have to prove who we are to get..”  Aside from the fact, poll tests were also found unconstitutional, Betty.  Jeez.

…..

Lynn Valenti, DSS – Opponent.

Federal Law apparently prevents testing for SNAP. Oops…   And 86% of people on TANF are children, 79% of them live with people, who are not their parents.

Adult TANF recipients are required to work, and they’re probably being tested anyway. But barring that, private employers are not subject to due process as states are. (Cites my Florida case).

Huge fact – IN OUR STATE, DRUG FELONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TANF.

Talks about other state’s experience on suspicion based testing, and considerable administration costs against catching so few to make it not worth it.

Drug test cost is $45 each for people making $7000 a year.

State will have to spend money defending what is clearly an and absolutely unconstitutional law, and it does nothing for getting people off of drugs, aside from no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population.  And alcohol use is even lower.

…..

Terry Dosch – represents 18 Behavioral Health agencies, statewide.

Says it lacks merit. Imposes impediments to people receiving the care that they need. And also reiterates that no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population.

…..

Rep for Presentation Sisters from Aberdeen –

Finds it unnecessary, offensive, etcetera..  Says it seems that it is focused find on those on drugs, than assisting those in need.  (Rep. DiSanto, you’re making the nuns angry.)

…..

Rebuttal….

Lynne DiSanto – Going back to public feedback, and her facebook responses, and regurgitating her tropes on the measure, and how people will supposedly “clean up in preparation of the test,”  And repeats previous testimony despite it’s prion refutation.

…..

Committee questions.

Rep Sly talks about reservation statement. Asks Valenti – Does State have jurisdiction over SNAP TANF on reservations.  “Yes… we do have quality assurance in place, and office of fraud & recovery investigations unit. We have a very low incidence of fraud in this state.  If issues, we investigate, if fraud, not allowed to participate.”

Rep. Soli – Proponents say will help people who are identified as addicted. How would treatment be paid for? DiSanto – “Federal Government doesn’t allow us to drug test SNAP. Medicaid in SD only covers substance abuse for pregnant women and adolescents. A few programs, but limited. Costs prohibitive.”

Rep Lana Greenfield – SNAP & TANF; for sponsor – other areas where the welfare could be affected? “specifically addressing SNAP & TANF, nothing else.”

Rep. Chip Campbell – for Valenti – questions on numbers…  If benefit to the state, SNAP would be the area to focus on?  Valenti – “SNAP a Federal Government Program. Federal Law prohibits additional conditions on eligibility. Drug testing is prohibited as a qualification. It’s off the table. Not legally permissible. Would put federal benefits in jeopardy.”  Campbell noting it happened in Wisconsin, and the state sued the federal government for clarification.

Committee discussion.

Haugaard – Hawaii reviewing possibility of drug testing. Talking about numbers and costs for DSS. Coming to point in time where we’ll have to limit services. Should provide services without accountability. DSS is a creation of the state in more recent years.  Churches need to step up to the plate and do these things.  Appropriate to have the discussion.  Wants to move this to the House floor.

Rep Lana Greenfield – also wants to move this to the floor for further discussion. Who are we protecting and who are we serving? Not protecting police, ER people who have to contain these people, not protecting families. Children suffering, kids come into classroom and can’t focus on classes.  Need to move this on to the house floor.

Call for action….

Haugaard/Greenfield – do pass. Haugaard, we should move this to the House floor. Discussion that should be aired out.

Sly/Soli – Defer to 41st day.  We recognize there is an issue in the state, but it doesn’t just reside in TANF/SNAP recipients.  Lots of other public assistance going on. Pell grants, tax subsidies, etc. A lot of public assistance dollars go out from the state, but this is a narrow focus on people who are struggling to get their lives together.

Munsterman – Voted in past, but there’s a lot more data now. Or more wiser. Now more states with a track record. Not worth the squeeze. Put to 41st.

Soli – I wish this could work. But this plan is not going to advance this for any of these folks. We find someone who is addicted, but no funds for treatment? It’s a black hole. Drug rate use is lower among this population.  Send to 41st day, but refocus on what’s keeping people in poverty.

Haugaard – Controlled substances defined by statute. Deterrent factor worthwhile.

Roll call vote puts this measure – 41st day – 9 ayes, 4 nayes.

I think every time I appear in the Argus, my picture should be that huge.

Good Lord! Are they trying to scare the rats in the basement!?! I think every time I appear in the Argus, my picture should be that huge!

scary_picture

… I think I had a razor burn or zit or something on my chin when this was taken…. Seriously, I know it’s what I sent them, and they just plugged it into their web site. But I don’t think I was prepared to review every blemish in my skin!

And yes, I’m writing about the offensive House Bill 1076, and encouraging legislators to reject it.