I’m working on the pre-sale side, obtaining quotes, creating marketing materials, doing research, and providing any other support that might be needed to help close the sale (since I am not a licensed agent, I do not actually write coverage or give advice). It’s a very small business, which means I also sometimes pitch in with post-sale support and general business operations as well.

To say that it’s great to be back in my field again puts it very mildly, and I’m excited to have the opportunity to learn the broker side of the business. I’m also pleased to be employed at the particular business I am; I started out looking at this as a job but I’ve come to develop a lot of respect, and even some caring, for the people I work for and with.

So why, you might ask, don’t I identify this new employer anywhere on this site?

It’s simple: because I respect them too much to want to inadvertently undercut them by expressing an opinion with which they might not agree. I reserve the right to have my opinions, but I absolutely support their right to run their business as they see fit — even when I might not have made the same decision or take the same position.

I did this same thing when I worked for The Castleton Group (2004-2006) and the situation wasn’t academic; that company’s official position was in support of the then-newly developed CDHP concept as a way to improve the health care coverage situation. In my personal blog, I openly called them blatant cost-shifting and nothing more than a way to reduce benefits.

Castleton had no idea I felt that way. It eventually did come out by accident, but only after I’d already been an active participant in the development and implementation of Castleton’s own CDHP. When my very surprised boss asked, my answer was that it wasn’t my place to question managerial decisions. My job was to carry them out, and if I ever got to a point where my conscience gave me a problem with doing that, I knew how to look for another job¹.

I never heard a word after that. But said boss knew I had a blog, and I imagine I’d have heard plenty if I’d identified Castleton as my employer while speaking poorly of CDHP designs. I would have deserved it.

The same situation applies with my current employer. I’m well aware that the owners of the company oppose PPACA in favor of a purely market-based setup; they make no secret of it. They also make no secret of their disdain for political liberals. In my online activity and personal life, I make no secret of the fact that I’m a political liberal who thinks that PPACA doesn’t go far enough and that access to basic health care is a matter of human dignity.

This could be a recipe for trouble, but that’s where the respect comes in.

I’ve had to make myself scarce during a couple of break-room conversations, but the owners of the company have never attempted to force me to do anything explicitly political. The one time I thought I might have to face it — during an educational meeting about the current Supreme Court case — I was pleasantly surprised when they took a neutral “just the facts” approach.

In addition, in the months since I’ve been there, I’ve seen case after case of them doing the best they can to make sure their clients’ employees get access to health care — and then some. The owners of my company care, and it shows.

I’d give them a certain amount of respect anyway based on their position as the owners of the company. But it’s behavior like this that has led me to develop more than just baseline respect. It’s also the reason that I believe I can contribute to their company and do my job with a clear conscience, even though I might not necessarily agree with some of what they do and say.

And it’s because of that that I don’t identify them online. If I’m going to work for this company, I’m going to work for them. That means making sure that outsiders understand that my personal opinions are just that: mine, and personal.

They deserve it.

1. If Castleton had chosen to exclusively offer a CDHP or not contribute to the HSA portion, I would indeed have started looking.

But not for the reasons you might think. I didn’t follow every move via the media, and I haven’t been posting to (or even reading) the many places online where it is under discussion. I’ve simply been checking headlines periodically to see the progress. So I’m not familiar enough with all of the ins and outs of the legal case to be able to guess as to whether Casey is guilty of murder.

I’m far from alone. Nobody else is that familiar either, except for the judge, jury, and perhaps the relatively few trial-watchers who made it into the courthouse every single day.

But according to the Associated Press, some of the reactions have included people accusing the jury of murder, including calling for their arrest, and making death threats. I’d like to believe that those are extreme reactions. But it dismays me to see them happening at all.

The only long-term effect of violence is more violation.

Let me make it clear: based on the bits and pieces I’ve seen in the media, I don’t think Casey Anthony is innocent. But the jury couldn’t declare guilt based on their feelings or Anthony’s character. They had to convict based on firmly established and supported facts — and their decision is that those facts weren’t there.

Some people are saying that this means the system is broken. I claim it as evidence that the system is working perfectly. Our legal system was designed in response to a system that functioned on presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. A lack of guilt doesn’t necessarily mean innocence; it only means that we don’t punish based on assumed guilt.

This kind of system means that guilty parties sometimes aren’t punished. But the alternative is a system where innocent parties sometimes are. Our system has punished innocent people in the past, up to and including execution. Even one instance is too much, but failures to convict the guilty are more common than convictions of the innocent.

I prefer it that way. So should any other ethical person.

Further, I should note that the protesters are, by definition, basing their opinions on information disseminated by the media. There’s no such thing as an unbiased media source, and as such the facts as reported by the media cannot be the facts as compared to the burden of proof “beyond the shadow of a doubt.”

In other words, the protesters have tried Casey based on media reports, not the facts. Many commentators have noted the concept of “trial by media” before, particularly with high-profile acquittals such as those involving the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases. The same thing is happening here, and it dismays me.

Trials are properly conducted in courthouses, not newspapers.

The final thing that dismays me has to do with the common attitude that the death of a child at the hands of his/her parents is shocking and unusual and that those who are guilty of such are highly deviant individuals. I wish that were the case. But unfortunately, child deaths at the hands of their parents are all too common. Conservative estimates suggest it happens once every three days in the United States.

This doesn’t count all of the non-lethal but horrifically damaging incidences of child abuse. In a recent, the abuse has been so bad that the child has seen death as a welcome release. There is ample evidence to show that being a parent does not automatically translate into being protective and nurturing toward one’s children.

The truth is that, while they are loath to admit it, most parents have had destructive thoughts toward their children at some point or another. They don’t want to accept that this is normal. The problem with abusive parents isn’t the way they think or feel; it’s the way they act. Unfortunately, that distinction makes a tremendous difference.

Given that, I can’t help but wonder if the protesters are protesting a little too much. I’d also be interested in hearing how they are helping potential abusers learn how to manage their impulses toward violent behavior or otherwise taking steps to assist with child abuse prevention.

By the time we start discussing trials and convictions, it’s already too late for the child.

That’s something I think has gotten lost in this case. Regardless of reason, regardless of method, regardless of culprit, Caylee Anthony is dead. Nothing anyone does now is going to change that, and the aftermath is just that — an aftermath. It’s not a cause for celebration, even negative celebration; nor is it a cause for protest.

Rather, I would have wished that the situation lead to an increased awareness of the need for prevention. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen that much of that. That, in my estimation, is the final reason for dismay. In the long run, Caylee Anthony’s death may not make any difference.

That’s the true tragedy.

Dear Commissioner MacGinnitie:

I just had the pleasure of viewing the voting page for the new Georgia license plates and want to thank you for the preliminary selection of plates that are ALL much better than our current completely-unstylish plate. You’ve done a great job!

But there’s a not so great problem with some of the templates. There are firm indications that the county stickers are on their way out on the plates, which isn’t a problem since the renewal stickers have the county noted on them. But the words “In God We Trust” most emphatically DO NOT belong in their place. The last time I checked, no religious test was required to be a citizen of either Georgia or the United States and I believe the Constitution specifically and explicitly states that one is not required for public office.

Although #5 was my favorite, I voted for #4 because I will NOT place a license plate with this phrase upon my vehicle. I should mention that I am a faithful Christian; I’m just not so insecure in my faith as to believe it’s okay to force it upon others.

Please either retain the county stickers or remove this phrase from the final license plate blank. While I have no objection to the OPTION of displaying it on a license plate, forcing people to do so is a total contradiction of this country’s founding values.

Hat tip to the folks in the Atlanta LiveJournal Community for spreading the word (although the post itself is protected). Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll note that I got my license plate in 2006 — it’s on the 2003-2007 “gradient” template — so it’s unlikely I’d personally be forced to change plates anytime soon.

I’ve made my voting decisions based on this Southern tradition before. But not this time. Electing Herman Cain as President would be a disaster. Here’s why.

• Herman Cain believes that government should be run as a business¹. Given that Cain is a successful businessman, it makes sense to me that he might think business principles can “save” the government by simply spending within its means. There’s a big problem with this: business and government exist for two entirely disparate reasons. Businesses exist to make profits, and if something cuts into profits they can simply eliminate it. Governments exist to provide services, and not all services can be cut (for example, it’d likely be un-Constitutional to dissolve the armed forces).
• Herman Cain supports a market-based health care delivery system². Despite the fact that malpractice issues only constitute about 2% of actual health care costs³ and the fact that Health Savings Accounts have been shown to do little more than reduce consumption of health care (even at the cost of employee health)⁴, Cain believes that a combination of tort reform and HSAs are sufficient to solve the health care delivery system problems in this country. Forty years of the development of a market-based delivery system say otherwise.
• Herman Cain supports the so-called “FairTax⁵.” The FairTax scheme, which involves ending all income taxes in favor of a 30% national sales tax⁶, is essentially trickle-down economics: it works by reducing the tax burden on the wealthy⁷ under the theory that they’d then spend the money on charitable contributions and job creation. Anyone who lived through “Reaganomics” should know better, although I’m not surprised to see a former corporate officer suggesting such an idea.
• Herman Cain is naïve about legislation and earmarks. I nearly burst out laughing when I saw the first headlines proclaiming that Cain would veto any bill longer than three pages; it was so unrealistic as to be incredible⁸. Under some circumstances, the definitions page alone can be longer than three pages. In addition, the SCOTUS decisions that give corporations the same right as individual citizens⁹, by definition, create special interests. Ignoring corporate constituents is as perilous as ignoring citizen constituents. Until we have true campaign finance reform, we will have special interests.
• Herman Cain believes we can sustain current energy consumption levels¹⁰. Not only has energy use consistently been on the rise since the 1970s, but energy costs cost is also rising¹¹. This is not sustainable, and “letting the market decide” obfuscates the real issue behind energy consumption: the rising costs (which are driven by scarcity) combined with the decrease in real income mean more and more people are simply getting priced out of the energy market. Anyone who’s tried to fill up their car recently can confirm that.
• Herman Cain supports prejudice. Over this weekend, he lost his cool at a reporter who asked him to explain some relatively controversial comments made about Muslims this past March. In his rebuttal, he explicitly said that he wouldn’t rule out “extra precautions” before including Muslims in government¹². There are already Constitutional protections to ensure that cabinet members and legislators are required to put Constitutionality before their religious beliefs¹³. Requiring Muslims to undergo extra scrutiny or deal with “special precautions” is treatment of them differently as a class. That is the definition of prejudice.

I’ve frequently seen Herman Cain compared to Ronald Reagan, particularly by Reagan admirers. It’s true that, under Reagan, the United States economy grew larger. But it came at a great cost: a ballooning deficit and a “bubble” that, when it burst, threw us into a series of recessions from which this country has yet to recover.

We can’t afford that again. That’s why it would be such a disaster to elect someone who would essentially go back to the use of methods that have been already tried and shown to be of questionable value. I see nothing new in Cain’s positions, and plenty to be worried about. That’s why I can’t vote for him.

Notes:

1. Interview with Sean Hannity, May 5, 2011
2. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
3. Limiting Tort Liability (Congressional Budget Office)
4. Findings From the EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey (Commonwealth Fund, citing a study jointly conducted with the Employee Benefits Research Institute)
5. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
6. Unspinning the FairTax (FactCheck.org)
7. Ibid.
8. Indeed, as this link shows, he recognized that right away.
9. Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending (New York Times); also see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
10. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
11. Short-Term Energy Outlook (US Energy Information Administration)
12. Herman Cain Defends Controversial ‘Muslim’ Comments (Fox News)
13. See Article VI, Paragraph III, which also explicitly outlaws religious tests.

Would you want your city to outlaw smoking on public streets? Why or why not?

This question, no doubt, was sparked by the recent beginning of the ban in New York City. I understand the point of said ban, but I think it’s misguided. It’s not going to put a stop to smoking in public.

I’ll admit I am biased due to having grown up in tobacco country. But I still remember just how shocked I was to see how frequently people smoked on public streets in Seattle and Vancouver. I saw it quite a bit more often than I was used to seeing it back home in the South.

People who want to smoke will find a way to do it. Banning it in some places will simply lead to smokers finding a place where they can smoke and becoming more concentrated there. That means the secondhand smoke issue will be more significant for those who can’t avoid the places where smoking is permitted.

When it’s banned in private establishments, people will go out in public. When it’s banned in certain public places, people will go to other public places. It won’t simply go away.

Being from tobacco country means that I prefer smoking permissions to be associated with private property rights. By extension, that would mean that any public location is fair game. Seeing the alternative while visiting the Pacific Northwest only reinforced that opinion. Bans aren’t the answer; freedom of choice is.

Do you consider yourself patriotic? If so, how do you express it?

I do consider myself patriotic, but I also get very irritated when it comes to expectations of “traditional” expressions. I don’t have to wave a flag or recite meaningless (and false) words or blindly defend my country.

My country is stronger than that. It includes being strong enough to withstand the fact that this particular citizen does have a higher allegiance: to God. I don’t make the mistake of combining the two; the United States is not, has never been, and never will be a Christian state.

But I see nothing wrong with working to help my country reach an ideal that is informed by those values. That means I express my patriotism by rolling up my sleeves and trying to help the poor and under-served; by calling out errors in the country’s practices or morals and promoting alternatives; and by standing in solidarity with others who choose to express their patriotism by working toward improving our society versus giving what almost amounts to worship. It doesn’t matter to me if their underlying reasons aren’t informed by faith; what matters is that they want to improve our society.

If I had no patriotism, I wouldn’t care about the current state of the United States. But I am patriotic, and I do care. Very much so. We’re a world leader and we should lead by our example. This country doesn’t deserve anything less than the most admired, and I mean to do everything I can toward reaching that goal.

That, in my mind, is just as patriotic as waving a flag or observing a minute of silence on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day. It’s also far more lasting.

I should be specific: in North Carolina, state employees can join unions (and, a few years after I left government, SEANC did exactly that). But N.C.G.S. 95-98 prohibits the North Carolina state legislature from negotiating with collective bargaining agents. This effectively makes union activities moot. SEANC effectively evolved from a grassroots effort to hire lobbyists.

What was the result of being cut off from union activity?

Shortly before I myself was attracted away, I saw a study that showed that, in counties with competitive job markets, the average tenure of a state employee was between five and nine years. There was a clear trend that people were using government to get experience and then “jumping ship” for the better opportunities in the corporate sector.

In other words, state government had become nothing more than a training ground for the corporate sector, meaning that state employees in general had less experience. The taxpayers thus got short shrift when it came to those who serviced them.

I was with state government long enough to see both good and bad tax years. In good years, the raises and benefits were squashed in an effort to lower taxes and “refund the taxpayers.” In bad years, the raises and benefits were squashed to balance the state budget. Had I not been promoted a couple of times, I would have left state government with a lower salary in terms of real dollars than when I started.

I never understood the general public attitude about “overpaid government employees” until I found out how well other governmental employees were paid. State employees in North Carolina made significantly less — sometimes by as much as fifty percent — than their corporate counterparts. By the time I left, only the leave benefits were competitive¹.

As a general rule, I’m not particularly pro-union because the presence of a union means an automatic antagonism between management and the employees; and because of traditional union corruption. I favor a partnership model. But I should make it clear that I support the right to unionize and act collectively. If management won’t listen, then employees have no choice.

However, when the senior manager is an elected official (most government employees are in the Executive branch), my outlook changes. I know what it’s like to be subjected to political whim. That manager really doesn’t listen; in a lot of ways, he or she can’t.

It’s not always about keeping your job. Sometimes it’s about a job worth keeping. I wonder what will happen in all those states where government employees lose their collective bargaining rights (make no mistake: it will happen). Somehow I suspect that they, too, will effectively become training grounds.

1. State and local government employees in North Carolina are subject to FICA withholding. That’s in addition to, not in lieu of, mandatory withholding for the state retirement system.

It’s an interesting juxtaposition because, while neither side seems to be explicitly bringing this up, there are free speech issues involved.

Should a group of Muslims have the right to build a center to promote their beliefs? Or should the owners respect the emotional impact of Ground Zero? Should gay couples have the right to demand use of the word “marriage?” Or should they respect the deeply held beliefs of many secular and religious groups, and limit their formal relationships to exercises in contract law?

There are very few limits on free speech in the United States, but they do exist¹ and, in general, are situations where restrictions have been found necessary for the public good. The question, then, is what constitutes the public good.

Is it protection of the public good to prevent a minority of citizens from expressing their religious beliefs? Is it protection of the public good to protect a minority of citizens who hold a belief that homosexual relations are acceptable?² The entire idea behind freedom of speech is protection of a minority, but where does minority protection cross the line into a danger against the public?

I don’t believe that two persons of the same sex can marry before God³, and my opinion is that the mosque near Ground Zero is, at minimum, tasteless⁴. But when I consider both of these issues in the light of freedom of speech, I’m reminded that the minority opinion doesn’t threaten the public good in either case. That line hasn’t been crossed.

Since I support freedom of speech, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose either action. It doesn’t matter whether or not I agree; what matters is protection of the civil liberties that Americans value.

1. There’s a dense but readable PDF document that nicely outlines First Amendment restrictions at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.
2. Proposition 8 wouldn’t have passed if gay marriage supporters were a majority.
3. Call me homophobic if you must, but I don’t have a problem with secular civil unions. It’s the word “marriage” that makes me drag my feet.
4. I have no problems with Islam or the mosque, either; but I also wouldn’t think it smart for the NAACP to build a center next to an Aryan Nation stronghold.

Of course, a properly executed search warrant may always be used to reach any items, including medical records, that constitute “instrumentalities of a crime,” but this recent court decision opens the door to law enforcement gaining access to personal medical records that are not themselves evidence of crimes [...]¹

When I first read the column, I was pretty alarmed, especially in light of recent legislation putting certain mental illness diagnoses on Georgia driver’s licenses. Georgia’s not a particularly friendly state when it comes to medical privacy, and it seemed this court decision was simply one more assault against those with diagnoses that could reflect a person in a negative light.

But a look at the actual decision causes me to wonder if there’s as much cause for alarm as Mr. Barr seems to think. A look at the actual facts of the case suggest that the medical records in question were, at the very least, pertinent; and it reveals a gray area with respect to whether the records were evidence of criminal activity.

Appellant was involved in a vehicular collision [and] the responding police officer arrived at the scene in time to smell alcohol [...] notice appellant’s belligerent behavior, and to find evidence of alcohol consumption in [the] appellant’s truck. [...] The officer did not ask appellant to submit to a blood-alcohol test, and [...] was unable to continue his investigation at the hospital to which appellant was taken because appellant was receiving medical treatment. Five months later, the Gwinnett solicitor general’s office obtained and served upon the hospital a search warrant for Brogdon’s medical records for the date on which Brogdon had been treated at the hospital following the vehicular collision. The hospital provided the records [...]²

It appears that Gwinnett County only asked for records that were created on the date Brogdon was treated for a suspected alcohol-related car crash. That’s a pretty narrow limitation and one that seems relevant to this non-legally-trained blogger³. As such, I have a hard time believing that the records aren’t “evidence,” although an argument could be made for hearsay.

It’s also significant to note here that HIPAA privacy rules do not protect medical records that are subpoenaed by the courts⁴. HIPAA doesn’t speak to the courts’ authority to subpoena.

While it’s true that this court ruling struck down an argued privacy protection, I don’t think this one is opening up the floodgates when it comes to medical records. The fact that the court’s ruling was based on the location of the medical records (at the hospital) doesn’t affect questions about their relevance and thus whether they constitute information of interest to the court.

I absolutely think medical privacy is becoming an important issue. But concern about this legislation is a bit of a false alarm. There are other legal issues that carry a far greater threat.

1. Georgia Court: Personal medical records are fair game for government snooping
2. http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=ingaco20100712138. I’ve edited this for length but all of my omissions had to do with irrelevant details and “wordy” phrasing.
3. That we’re talking about an issue related to public safety — drunken driving — also seems relevant to me. In this case there do seem to be issues related to the common good.
4. HIPAA FAQ

As it happens, both of my parents are citizens so I can also prove citizenship by heredity. But I need only go back four generations to find an ancestor that wasn’t a citizen. I know many people who can’t even go back that far.

This is why I don’t understand the movement to eliminate birthright citizenship. Eliminating it means eliminating the sole basis of citizenship for a large number of U.S. citizens. Even restricting citizenship to heredity past the parents’ level will exclude a considerable amount of the population.

Do those who argue against birthright citizenship realize that they may very well be arguing against their own citizenship?

I can certainly understand the argument against “anchor babies” and, to an extent, I actually agree with it. But I don’t think eliminating birthright citizenship is the answer. There’d be too much of an unintended consequence.