President Trump signs ACA executive order Administration will need legislation or personnel change to effect reform President Donald Trump will need legislation or to change personnel if it wants its new executive order on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) to make a significant policy change. That's according to Mississippi Attorney Pepper Crutcher who writes at the "Affordable Care Act Review," an insightful resource for anyone wanting to keep up with the ACA requirements or reform. Crutcher writes, "Perhaps President Trump hopes by this Order to induce current DOL, IRS and HHS staff to delay and relax already overdue ACA enforcement efforts.  But this Order does not command any waiver, delay, relaxation or other, particular, sub-regulatory guidance, which means, practically speaking, that the new President is asking the former President's appointees to cooperate to undo years of their work.  We expect few volunteers. If that's a good guess, then the new Administration will need legislation, or personnel change, or both, to effect significant policy change." Source: Affordable Care Act Review

Save Our Schools Watch the Video - Sign the Petition Charter schools in Mississippi are changing lives and this video tells some of the stories. But a lawsuit threatens to close charter schools and force children back into schools that were not meeting their needs. The Save Our Schools coalition is made up of students, parents, teachers, and concerned citizens who want children in Jackson, Mississippi to have access to high quality public charter schools. Watch the video and visit the Save Our Schools website to sign the petition to keep charter schools open. Charter School Families Tell Their Stories Source: SaveOurSchools.org

Mississippi earns "F" in forfeiture National study says state lacks transparency   Mississippi received an "F" on 36 metrics and an "incomplete on one metric for forfeiture transparency and accountability. That grade comes from a recently released report by the Institute for Justice. From the report: "Every year, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies across the United States seize and keep billions of dollars in cash, cars, homes and other property using a legal tool called forfeiture. With civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can typically seize property on the mere suspicion it was involved in a crime. Most often, no charges or convictions are ever required to permanently deprive people of their property. Most of this forfeiture activity happens with little legislative or public oversight. So does most spending from forfeiture funds." Read the full report here. Source: Institute for Justice

The "Mother, May I" Government Federal bureaucracies "guidance" avoids oversight Federal agencies use "guidance" to dictate policy that is not approved by Congress or even promulgated through the Administrative Procedure Act which requires review, input and advance public notice. Clyde Wayne Crews writes when bureaucrats make up the rules as they go along, it puts citizens and businesses in a "Mother, May I" society, unsure of what can or cannot be done. Read his perspective here. Source: The Cato Institute

Obamacare promises largely unmet Healthcare costs have increased; options have decreased The promises and projections of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have been largely unmet. Christopher Holt and Juliana Darrow write at the American Action Forum, "We were promised that we could keep our insurance plan, but at least 4.7 million people lost their plans when the law went into effect. We were promised we could keep our doctors, but the proliferation of narrow network plans has made that another false promise. We were promised the typical family would see their insurance premiums reduced by as much as $2,500. The reality is that since 2014, average premiums for exchange benchmark plans have increased by 37.1 percent. We were told that the ACA would 'bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs', but it hasn't happened either. In the year prior to Obamacare's passage, health care spending grew at 4 percent, but in 2015, the second year of full implementation, it increased by 5.8 percent." Source: American Action Forum "Obamacare: Promises Versus Reality"

Download the PDF of the Letter

October 27, 2016

Dr. Virginia Young, Superintendent
Newton Municipal School District
205 School Street
Newton, MS 39345

RE: Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion

Dear Dr. Young:

My name is Mike Hurst and I am the Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute ("MJI"). We are a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, an independent, non-profit, public policy organization based in Jackson that works to promote and protect the concepts of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families. MJI's mission is to represent

Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened or violated, and to defend the principles and ideals of MCPP within and throughout the courts.

I read with astonishment the October 13, 2016, letter addressed to you from an out-of-state group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation ("FFRF"), threatening legal consequences for the actions of a high school football coach baptizing one of his players.

The facts as they now stand: Newton High School football coach Ryan Smith engaged in private religious expression outside school hours, after his official duties as a coach had ended, on private property, not during a school-sponsored event, and with other individuals wishing to express their own privately-held religious beliefs. He did not request, encourage, or require anyone, including his players, to attend or participate in this private expression of his and others' religious beliefs. Under these specific circumstances, there was absolutely no constitutional violation by Coach Smith, as he, like all of us, have a First Amendment right under our Federal Constitution and a right under our Mississippi Constitution to freedom of religion.

The allegations by FFRF, taken to their logical conclusion, would prevent any school or government employee from being able to attend a church where a student also attends and prohibit that government employee from ever speaking to students or others at their church about their private religious beliefs. Such allegations are outrageous, ludicrous and in direct contravention of the religious freedoms upon which our country was founded!

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion of private individuals. U.S. Const., Amend. I. This restriction applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 (1938). In addition, the Mississippi Constitution states that "the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall be held sacred." Miss. Const., Art. III, Section 18 (1890). The United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that public school employees relinquish First Amendment rights by virtue of their government employment. See Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) ("It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968).

Government may not exclude or suppress the speech of private individuals for the singular reason that their speech is religious. See Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). As the Supreme Court explained in Pinette:

[P]rivate religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. ... Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.

Pinette, 515 U.S. at 760. While the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is established by the government, it also protects religious activity that is initiated by individuals acting privately. As the Court explained in numerous cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality op.).

These assaults on our religious freedoms by those with an agenda to dismantle our Constitution and our founding principles are the exact types of cases MJI was created to litigate. Thank you for your courage in the face of such threats to protect everyone's right to express their religious beliefs privately in accordance with our federal and state constitutions.

No one likes a bully, and we will not stand by while some out-of-state group threatens our fellow citizens with legal actions for doing nothing more than exercising one's constitutional rights. The Mississippi Justice Institute stands ready, willing and able to defend the actions of those like you who seek to protect such rights as well as others who simply want to exert their unalienable rights privately, which our state and federal Constitutions were intended to secure.

Sincerely,

Mike Hurst, Director
Mississippi Justice Institute
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Telemedicine: High-Quality, Affordable Care for Mississippi Families
Hearing on Telemedicine
Testimony before the Miss. State Senate, Public Health & Welfare Committee
October 18, 2016
(Unabridged version)

I am Dr. Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

This is what we believe about telemedicine: Telemed needs to be allowed to flourish and grow and respond to consumer needs. Burdensome regulations will hinder this growth and reduce access to high-quality care. To repeat: We believe telemedicine needs to be allowed to flourish and grow and respond to consumer needs. Burdensome regulations will hinder this growth and reduce access to high-quality care.

You might say we believe in a free market for healthcare. What this really means is that we believe that a light regulatory touch will promote the supply side of healthcare and solve the problem of access by increasing quality and lowering cost. In other words, if government stays out of the way, healthcare innovation will massively increase the supply of affordable, high-quality care. This strategy has worked for computers and cell phones. Why not healthcare?

But I am here today, not as a healthcare policy analyst, but to share my own telemed story with you.

I am married and have two children. Over the past few years, our family has paired telemed with a High Deductible Health Plan. Our family deductible is typically $5,000 a year. What this means is that my insurance company does not cover a dime of my healthcare until I spend $5,000 out of pocket. In this respect, my family is not different from many others in Mississippi. For instance, if we look at the health insurance policies on the ACA exchange, we see deductibles ranging from $4,000 to $13,000.

Just yesterday, I pulled up a plan for a family of four in Hinds County. One option was a bronze plan from Magnolia Health at a cost of $800 a month and a deductible of $13,600 a year.

I guarantee that if you have a deductible of $13,000 a year, you are going to act like an informed consumer for healthcare because you are going to be paying cash, almost exclusively, for your care. That, at least is how my family and I shop for healthcare. We approach healthcare as consumers and believe that a free market for healthcare is the best way to attain high-quality care at a fair price.

When we consider taking our kids to the doctor for the usual problems: sniffles, an ear infection, a stomach ache, we have a choice between using telemed at $40 a visit or going to our pediatric specialist for $165 or going to MEA for around $120. Depending on the situation, we choose the option we think is best for our family. Sometimes it is telemed, sometimes it is an in-office visit, sometimes it is MEA.

Let me walk you through a typical telemed visit for us. Our usual provider, by the way, is connected with Blue Cross Blue Shield and is called Doctor on Demand.

Last year, our daughter had the typical crud that turned into a fever. We had a family event coming up, and my wife wanted to make sure we did all we could to get our daughter feeling better. That said, it wasn't a very serious illness. At $40 a visit, we chose to use telemed. The alternative would have been an in-office visit at $165. Under those circumstances, we would not have gone to the doctor.

I want to make this point very clear: This is not an apples to apples scenario. If you hinder access to telemed, you are not necessarily generating new business for brick-and-mortar doctors. You are, for some people - the single mom with no cash to spare, a family on vacation down in Biloxi, a truck driver on the road -eliminating that doctor's visit altogether.

Money and time are not infinite resources - at least not in my world and not for the hardworking people of Mississippi. If we did not have the option of using telemed in this case, we would not have gone to the doctor at all. We would have waited things out and hoped our daughter recovered.

Again, our situation is not unusual. We all know access to healthcare is a problem in Mississippi. One-third of our population is underserved because we do not have enough primary care physicians and rural doctors.

This problem will not be resolved by giving everyone an insurance card - whether it be private insurance or government-sponsored insurance, like Medicaid.

According to a recent study by researchers at the Social Science Research Center at Miss. State:

• "32% of adults covered by private insurance (ages 50-64) reported difficulties in obtaining an appointment when seeking an initial appointment with a primary care physician";

• "35% of Medicare-insured adults (ages 65 and older) reported problems when seeking a new appointment"; and

• "Up to half of primary care physicians' offices in Mississippi are not accepting new Medicaid patients."

All of these people have insurance, but they are having trouble obtaining primary care.

I believe we are making a fatal mistake in approaching healthcare in Mississippi from an attitude of scarcity and protectionism. We have an abundance of healthcare needs. We have so much need we can't handle it all. Why regulate a telemed market that is clearly working to address some of these needs?

The study from Mississippi State also notes the following:

"Even with health insurance, access to care may be limited by several factors, including whether one can contact doctors' offices by telephone during office hours, whether one can receive a scheduled appointment within a reasonable amount of time, lengthy waits in doctors' waiting rooms, restrictive clinic hours, and patient access to transportation."

Telemed can help with all of these access problems.

In our case, we usually use telemed early in the morning or late at night, when we are trying to figure out just how sick we are and whether we need to take a sick day from school or work.

Likewise, the wait for a telemed appointment is usually 10 minutes or less. In our case, we are able to pull up a screen full of doctors - all of them licensed in Mississippi - and choose the doctor we want. Usually, we choose the same doctor. Her primary practice is in California.

As far as waiting rooms go, I also want to add that, frankly, as a parent, the last thing you want to do is expose your child and yourself to other sick patients in the waiting room. The last time my wife took our kids in for a routine checkup, our doctor informed her that she was seeing a lot of children with hand-foot-and-mouth disease. That is not a comforting thought when you are in a crowded waiting room trying to keep your toddler from chewing on and handling everything he can reach.

Indeed, in my research on this issue, I found several medical sources that suggested simply avoiding the waiting room altogether. Advises Dr. Hansa Bhargava, medical editor for WebMD:

"As a doctor, here are some guidelines I use for myself:

"Stay home if you can. Ask yourself: are you sick enough to need to go in? Granted, this can be a hard decision. ...

"If you are not sure whether you need to come in, try calling your doctor's office. This way, you may be able to save yourself a visit."

Telemed delivers the best of both worlds. It allows you to stay home and see your doctor. My family and I value the convenience and, if you will, additional safety, telemedicine provides. For me, a quick telemed visit may mean the difference between missing a morning of work or not. For my kids, it means the same when it comes to school. For my wife, it means access to high-quality care at the touch of a button. Imagine that, at the touch of a button. ... But isn't that the kind of service we expect today?

You can order all manner of life-saving products online - for instance, that last-minute wedding anniversary gift ... at the touch of a button.

You can book a dream vacation - instead of going to a travel agent - at the touch of a button.

You can sit in on courses at MIT and radically change the direction of your entire life - at the touch of a button.

Why is healthcare so radically different that we are going to deny consumers this same choice?

To get back to our routine telemed visit, during the last three visits, we have been offered a prescription twice. In my limited research, this is on par with the national average for in-office visits.

And, let me be honest, if you are going to pay $165 for a doctor's visit, you kind of expect to walk out of the office with some kind of vindication that you were right to go to the doctor - a prescription. Many patients want that antibiotic, even if it's just for a bad cold. When you pay $40 for a visit and you hear that all you really need is some sleep and orange juice, you feel a lot better about the hit to your pocketbook.

Before I end, one thing I want to mention is that we prefer to connect with our telemed doctor over the phone, as opposed to video feed. I live in Jackson. I have a decent internet connection. Many Mississippians do not. Just like any technology, you want multiple options: both phone only and video.

I suspect, too, that my wife prefers the phone consult because, then, she doesn't feel like she has to do her hair and make the kids picture perfect before seeing our doctor.

In any event, the phone consult has worked well for us. Indeed, I imagine nearly every person here has been on one end or another of a phone-only consult with their brick-and-mortar doctor.

Of course, most doctors doing telemed ARE brick-and-mortar doctors. As I mentioned, they are also licensed by the state of Mississippi.

And that is, really, what all this comes down to. If the state is going to license doctors, it needs to trust these doctors to serve their patients in whatever setting they choose.

Whether it's in a telemed setting or an office setting, we have to trust the doctors to make the best decisions for their patients. Otherwise, the state shouldn't license doctors to begin with. We also have to trust families like mine to make the best healthcare decisions we can for our children. ... Because I guarantee that I care a lot more about my kid's safety and health and my own health than any other person in this room.

Finally, I want to end with a quick story about Billy Durant. Durant co-founded General Motors. But before he founded GM, he worked for a carriage maker. As a carriage maker, he vehemently spoke out about how dangerous automobiles were. He called the new technology "smelly, noisy, and dangerous." He even refused to let his daughter ride in a car. Less than four years later, Durant co-founded GM.

Like the automobile revolution during Durant's day, the healthcare revolution has already begun. We can use our smartphones to monitor blood sugar levels and measure heart rates. Patients increasingly want to text and web chat their doctors. Soon, we are going to see nanotechnologies that can be implanted in patients, perhaps making routine doctor visits a thing of the past. Government cannot regulate all of these innovations. And Mississippi shouldn't let bureaucracy be the reason we don't share in this progress. Take a cue from Billy Durant and join the winning side - the side that promises to expand the supply of high-quality, low-cost care for the people of Mississippi.

Thank you.

Statement of Forest Thigpen on the Lawsuit to Kill Charter Schools in Mississippi

(JACKSON) --

Jackson, MS, July 12, 2016 - Forest Thigpen, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit filed yesterday by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The suit alleges that charter school funding violates the Mississippi constitution, in part because the plaintiffs say charter schools are not "free" schools:

Charter schools are public schools, and since they charge no tuition, any rational person would conclude that they are "free" schools as referenced by the state constitution.

Parents are responsible for their children's education. It is immoral for the government to force parents to send their children to schools that do not meet their academic and related needs, especially when other public options are available, including charter schools.

Parents who have enough money to move to a better district or to send their children to private schools already have options. Charter schools, as demonstrated by the student population at the two schools that opened this year, primarily serve families who cannot afford either of those options.

Improving educational outcomes is one of the most important ways to lift children out of poverty, and charter schools offer that hope to parents who want a better future for their children. By pursuing this lawsuit, it appears as though the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to perpetuate, not alleviate, southern poverty.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is an independent, non-profit organization based in Jackson. It works to advance the ideals of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families. Its work, including the Mississippi Justice Institute, is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations. To learn more about MCPP, visit www.mspolicy.org.

--30--

By Forest Thigpen

To hear this commentary click here.

What happens when two Constitutional rights are in conflict?

After the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, the federal government and almost all states enacted conscience protections for health professionals whose deeply-held beliefs or moral convictions would not allow them to assist in performing an abortion.

Last year, another Supreme Court decision created potential conflicts for people of faith. There now exists the freedom of religion and the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. What happens when those two rights conflict?

HB 1523 provides the framework for addressing that question so that both of those rights can be exercised.

If bakers and florists choose not to be involved in a same-sex wedding, the same-sex couple will still be able to exercise their right to get married. But if the government were to force the bakers and florists to participate, those business owners would not be allowed to exercise their right to the free exercise of religion.

For more perspective on this issue, and to read the bill for yourself, go to mspolicy.org.

Protecting Freedom of Conscience
from Government Discrimination

Why is the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" (HB 1523) needed today?

Before the Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), we saw states discriminate against people who believe in one man/one woman marriage. For instance:

• California judges were barred from joining organizations that affirm one man/one woman marriage.

• A Washington state judge was admonished by the state judicial commission for saying he was "uncomfortable" with performing same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs. He was ordered to not make such statements in the future.

• Governments in Illinois, Mass., and D.C. cancelled contracts to Christian-run adoption agencies because they only place a child with a married mother and father, even though the agencies referred other couples elsewhere.

Then, during oral arguments in Obergefell, the U.S. Solicitor General admitted that the tax-exempt status of private universities and colleges (and, by implication, all religious organizations) that define marriage as the union of one man/one woman would "be an issue" if the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage -- which it did.

Following the Obergefell ruling, the pressure to approve of same-sex marriage has only increased for religious schools, nonprofits, public employees, small business owners and others. All of these individuals and organizations should be protected from government coercion that would force people with sincerely held beliefs about one man/one woman marriage to violate their conscience.

What does HB 1523 do?

The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act (HB 1523):

• Protects individuals and entities from being penalized by the state or local governments for their moral or religious beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

• Protects individuals and entities who believe that sexual relationships are properly reserved to such marriages -- such as a religious school that requires students and faculty to refrain from engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage.

• Protects individuals and entities from being penalized for believing that "male" and "female" are biologically based.

• Is supported by a majority (63 percent) of Miss. voters from both parties and every major demographic.

What does HB 1523 NOT do?

The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act does NOT:

• Change the legal definition of marriage.

• Hinder or slow the process for providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

• Prevent the government from providing benefits or services authorized under state law.

• Create a "license to discriminate."

The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act is focused on preventing government discrimination. States should not be in the business of forcing pastors, business owners and public employees to affirm conduct or practices that violate their sincerely held beliefs. Our government should never discriminate against, punish, or penalize people based on their sincerely held belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.