Colleges and universities, both public and private, have long fashioned themselves as beacons of academic freedom. The place where ideas are to be discussed and debated, and conventional wisdom is challenged and deliberated. A place where various and diverse opinions are welcomed, and the young men and women, who will soon enter the workforce, are better off because of that experience.
Now, back to reality.
That sounds like a wonderful utopia, but we know the unfortunate truth. We know that too often academic freedom is only extended to one side of the political spectrum.
And ideas are not to be debated. Rather, one ideology is to be the truth and everything else is wrong, and usually bigoted, racist, and sexist for good measure.
Conservative speakers are regularly shouted down or shut down. In some instances, we have even seen small riots. And colleges have little appetite for supporting freedom of speech that they don’t like, nor do they care to protect the speakers themselves from the riotous mobs.
After all, if the bulk of the administration, faculty, and student body all think the same way, they see little reason or benefit to accept differing points of view; even as college leaders claim to promote academic freedom.
But a recent state Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin just might strike a blow for academic freedom in America. Actual academic freedom; not just freedom in name only.
A professor at Marquette University, Dr. John McAdams, was effectively terminated for posting an opinion of a political topic on a blog that differs from the administration. The case is pretty simple. A graduate instructor, Cheryl Abbate, listed gay rights as an issue that “everybody agrees on” and “there is no need to discuss it.”
When a student, at this Catholic university, approached the instructor for debate, she called the student homophobic and said she was “invited to drop the class.” The student told McAdams about the encounter and he then wrote about it on his blog and named the instructor.
After Abbate received hateful messages, the school rallied behind the instructor. McAdams had to go in front of a Faculty Hearing Committee and suspension was recommended. The president of the university then added that McAdams could not be reinstated until he signed a letter saying his blog post was “reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University.”
He declined.
That is where the lawsuit began. With the help of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, McAdams won his case as the Supreme Court declared that the decision to fire McAdams violated Marquette’s own promise to protect his academic freedom.
Marquette is a private university. Private enterprises should have broad latitude on employment policies. A religious school, for example, should not be forced to hire a faculty or staff member who is of another faith or is atheist. Just as an employer should be free to require his or her employees to stand when the National Anthem plays.
But a university cannot make up the rules as they go along. Nor can they selectively enforce policies to fit what they do or don’t like. If a university wants to offer its professors academic freedoms, such professors must be allowed to say what is not popular among the administration or faculty.
This ruling represents one professor at one college in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And as the new school year begins, there will certainly be new examples of conservative students or speakers who have had their rights restricted. But the hope is that in a world where the left has virtually unilateral control, liberty and freedoms may emerge.
And freedom of speech may enjoy a platform on our college campuses, again.
This year’s U.S. Supreme Court term is drawing to a close this week, and one thing is plain: this is the best Supreme Court—thanks to Justice Gorsuch and the general trend of the judiciary in the Trump Administration—that our country has had in my lifetime.
For proof, look no further than two cases handed down this week, NIFLA v. Becerra and Trump v. Hawaii.
The first case, NIFLA, was about whether California could require pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about where patients could receive abortions. Forcing the centers to put up that information is forcing them to speak and therefore violating their First Amendment rights. California wanted to require people making pro-life statements to post abortion messages in up to 13 different languages. Even if you just wanted to put up a billboard saying “Choose Life,” you would also have to put up a poster with abortion-related messaging.
The Court found California had overstepped its authority.
Policies like California’s show how extreme the pro-choice movement has become. Thankfully, we have a Court that will protect our right to not be forced to say something we disagree with. You could see the same penchant for respecting speech in the Mansky case earlier this term, where the Court said Minnesota could not ban ideological statements, like “Don’t Tread on Me,” on clothes worn to the polling place.
In the second case, Trump v. Hawaii, the State of Hawaii challenged the Trump Administration's travel ban, which blocks some people from eight countries from coming into the U.S. The reason these eight countries were chosen is they refused to share information with our government to ensure that their travelers are not a threat. The countries are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Chad, Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela.
Despite handwringing from the Left, the Court found that this policy was squarely within the powers of the President. The President has the power to ensure our country is safe, and even if some want to try to spin this policy as bigoted, the truth is that it mirrored policies from past administrations, like the Carter Administration, and was obviously constitutional.
The most encouraging takeaway from this term of the Court is that the Court clearly does not seem to mind making the hard decisions that would be unpopular in the media. Ruling for someone who opposes same-sex marriage, as the Court did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, is an example doing the right thing even though a swath of big corporations and media coverage will be against you. Defending the Trump Administration’s right to have a reasonable immigration policy is another example. This Court cares about following the law and staying within its designated powers, regardless of what names they get called (or what restaurants they get kicked out of). That’s good for our country and good for the judiciary.
Which brings us to the definition of a “good” Supreme Court. A good court is one that does not bend to what is politically popular or even what the justices think the best policy outcome should be. A good court understands its role, follows the plain text of the law, and doesn’t bend the words of the constitution to fit some desired result. Trump v. Hawaii provided an example of this approach. The Court knows that the law and constitution provide the President with broad authority in the areas of national security and immigration. It’s not for them to question decisions like the travel ban.
NIFLA and Trump v. Hawaii were close votes—both 5 to 4—so if we want more rulings like this, we need more backup for the five justices who stood for the rule of law. But while we wait for more appointment opportunities for this White House, let’s hope for more Supreme Court terms like this one in the meantime.
The latest development from Washington, D.C. includes a northern Virginia restaurant named the Red Hen and White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.
Shortly after Sanders arrived at the restaurant last week, co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson told her that they would not serve her and her party because they disagreed with her politics. Specifically, the owner was unhappy with the Trump administration’s refusal to have taxpayers pay for elective surgery and hormones for transgendered soldiers.
So Sanders and company left and only made note of it in a Tweet:
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) June 23, 2018
The owner would then go on to defend her actions saying, “People have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”
After the incident we then learned that the owner followed Sanders and her party to another restaurant to continue harassing her.
The difference between Red Hen and Masterpiece
The refusal by a business owner to serve a member of the Trump cabinet, and the celebration of this decision from the left, is oh-so ironic considering the reaction to a Supreme Court decision just a few weeks ago concerning a cake baker and who he would or wouldn’t make wedding cakes for.
The state of Colorado said Jack Phillips would have to make wedding cakes for anyone, regardless of his religious beliefs. Or face punishment for refusing. But in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips in determining that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views.”
But there are two main differences between Masterpiece Cakeshop and The Red Hen.
Masterpiece served customers who were gay. Phillips would make a cake for any reason other than for their wedding. The equivalent would be if Sanders asked the restaurant to cook for a Trump campaign event. The restaurant should have the right to refuse to do that, because they disagree with the President’s political message. But the restaurant won’t serve Sanders simply because of who she is and her job. That’s the exact opposite of what Masterpiece did. Red Hen said we won’t serve Sanders under any circumstance. Phillips just said he wouldn’t serve someone under a certain condition.
And the Masterpiece decision also centered around the deeply held religious views of Phillips. The Supreme Court has time and again protected the religious freedoms of Americans, which are guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the case of Red Hen, the refusal of service wasn’t related to anyone’s religious beliefs; rather purely to political differences.
The market always works
And Red Hen has plenty of encouragement, even from elected members of Congress. For example, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) recently said this: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
But the truth is when it comes to Red Hen or Masterpiece, the market will sort itself out. Kicking someone out of a restaurant, particularly for no reason other than political differences, may be reprehensible. But for someone just outside of Washington D.C. surrounded by a sea of anti-Trump vitriol, it might not be a terrible business decision.
The same is true in the case of Jack Phillips. If his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding bothers you that much, and you don’t understand how someone could have religious beliefs that run counter to the endorsement of gay marriage, then don’t frequent his business. My guess is there are plenty of other options in Colorado.
Just like there are other options for restaurants in northern Virginia.
As Mississippi was passing legislation to protect individuals like Phillips from discrimination for their religious beliefs, restaurants and businesses in the Fondren and Belhaven areas of Jackson began putting up stickers on their front door or window that said something to the extent of “if you’re buying, we’re selling.”
Which, of course, any business is allowed to do, whether a state passes religious freedom laws or not. In fact, if a restaurant refused to serve someone simply because they were gay, odds are the media firestorm that that would create would cause real harm to the business.
Businesses should never be forced to promote a message that stands in opposition to their beliefs. Masterpiece shouldn’t be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding if they disagree with same-sex marriage, and Red Hen shouldn’t be forced to make a party tray for a pro-Trump rally if they disagree with Trump.
Over the past month The Clarion-Ledger has highlighted aspects of Medicaid that make the program feel indispensable, with Sam Hall proclaiming that anyone who questions Medicaid’s “valuable services to deserving people” is just plain ignorant. As someone who cares about improving health care for the poor and disabled, however, I find Medicaid’s poor health outcomes shocking. With flexibility from Washington and a focus on quality, states like Mississippi could provide better care for families in need.
It’s difficult to argue with heart-wrenching stories about how Medicaid is helping Mississippi families. For the price — $8 trillion over the next 10 years — one would hope advocates could find a few good stories. Not every Medicaid story has a happy ending, though. A University of Virginia study found that Medicaid patients are more likely to die than the uninsured, and far more likely to die than those with private insurance.
Another story we are not hearing is what the “gold-standard” Oregon Health Insurance Experiment found: that Medicaid recipients, compared to the uninsured, use a lot more health care services without experiencing improved physical health outcomes. The Oregon study also demonstrated that the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid are not patients but hospitals.
The worst thing about Medicaid is that it is crowding out innovative solutions that could deliver better care — not just more services. Breaking up this big-government Medicaid monopoly is going to require hard work from all of us. Here are three questions to start the conversation.
First: Does Medicaid provide good insurance for low-income families?
As many as 50 percent of primary care physicians in Mississippi are not accepting new Medicaid patients, as compared to 7 percent not accepting new patients with private insurance. As mentioned, Medicaid patients also have, at best, the same health outcomes as the uninsured. Clearly, Medicaid is inferior insurance. State and federal policymakers should facilitate the development of better insurance products tailored to low-income customers.
Second: Is Medicaid a cost-effective way of reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care?
In spite of studies (and common sense) showing otherwise, hospitals claim they are losing money on Medicaid. Under federal law, hospital emergency rooms are prohibited from turning patients away. Medicaid is a pricey backdoor mechanism for funding this mandate. Tax credits might be part of the solution for private hospitals. In addition, nonprofit and public hospitals should offer more charity care — certainly far more than the tiny amount provided now under vague “community benefit” provisions.
Third: Is Medicaid the best way to help families facing extraordinary medical costs?
Prior to Obamacare, Mississippi had developed a high-risk insurance pool to help people with significant health care challenges. We need more creative thinking about risk pools (for instance, an income tax credit for donations to nonprofit-managed risk pools); and we need to focus on supply-side deregulation (encouraging telemed, expanding scope, and eliminating certificates of need) that will lower costs and unleash new medical technologies. These reforms are better than depending on a Medicaid program that will be sorely tempted to ration care to high-need populations even as it expands coverage to able-bodied childless adults, for which the Obamacare Medicaid expansion curiously offers a higher federal match.
Finally, I appreciate The Clarion-Ledger trying to inform readers about Medicaid, but I urge a good dose of old-journalism-school skepticism. When the director of Medicaid boasts that there is virtually no eligibility fraud, perhaps it would be helpful to note that other states are uncovering significant irregularities. Or when a Medicaid activist asserts that Congress’ repeal-and-replace bill is going to remove thousands of children from Medicaid, it would be appropriate to fact-check this number, or at least note that these children are going to go back on CHIP, a different insurance program run by the Division of Medicaid.
I am confident we can all agree on the necessity for fresh thinking about health care. Instead of just thinking about it, though, I hope Congress gives states freedom to demonstrate how they can either radically improve upon Medicaid, or even better, develop targeted solutions aimed at helping the diverse populations Medicaid is currently failing.
Jameson Taylor is vice president for policy at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy in Jackson. He can be reached at [email protected].
Now on SeeTheSpending.org
Visit SeeTheSpending.org and see how your county is spending your money!
|
Mississippi’s Internet Sales Tax: The explosion of online retail sales has fostered a debate about whether and how to collect taxes on those purchases from companies that are not currently required to collect them. During the 2017 legislative session, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed a bill regarding this issue. That bill, HB 480, died in the Senate Finance Committee, but the issue itself is not going away. The Mississippi Department of Revenue (DOR) has proposed a regulation very similar to the legislation. A major difference between the regulation and the legislation is that HB 480 would have directed that the taxes collected by certain out-of-state sellers be spent on road and bridge repair. Although there are many aspects to this debate, this paper is intended to explain only a few of the policy matters involved. It does not seek to take a side, but to impartially explain the pertinent facts. For the most part, we will deal with things as they are, not as they should or should not be.
Is this a new tax? Is it a tax increase? The answer to both questions is no, at least as applied to the tax itself. The process to collect the tax will be taxing – logistically, financially, and emotionally – especially for small businesses. But the use tax on the purchase itself is neither a new tax nor a tax increase. Here’s why. For every item you buy right now that is subject to sales or use tax, you are the one who owes the tax. It would have perhaps been more accurate to call it a “purchase tax” than a “sales tax.” The tax is not on the business from which you purchased the item. The tax is assessed on the item itself, and you as the purchaser owe the tax. In order to make it easier to identify and collect the tax, the state requires sellers (retail stores, for instance) to collect it for you. That’s why it’s not included in the price of the product but is identified as a separate item on your receipt. (In contrast, businesses include the cost of their own taxes, such as income or property taxes, in the underlying price of the product, not as a separate item on the receipt.) Consider this analogy. You owe tax on your income. In order to increase compliance, the state requires your employer to withhold money from your paycheck and send it to DOR. That’s not a tax on your employer. You are the one who owes the tax. If your employer doesn’t withhold enough, you still owe the full tax on your income, and you are required to remit it when you file your tax return. In the same way, if a retailer – in-state or out-of-state – collects an adequate amount of sales or use tax for you, you owe nothing more. But if the retailer does not collect it, you still owe it. Whether you have noticed or not, or whether you have answered it truthfully or not, your Mississippi tax return asks you to identify the amount of purchases you made from out-of-state companies for which you did not pay sales or use tax. You are supposed to pay 7% of that amount to the state. Apparently, not many people do that. If you buy an item in another state and the seller charges you sales tax in that state, you can deduct that amount from the use tax you would otherwise owe to the state of Mississippi. The very important exception to this: you cannot deduct sales or use taxes paid in another state on most motorized vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc.) whose first use will be in Mississippi. In other words, if you buy one of those items in another state, and it has not been used before, you will owe the full use tax in Mississippi even if you paid sales tax in the state where you bought it.
To summarize: the tax on purchases from out-of-state sellers is a tax that is owed now; it is not a new tax, and it is not a tax increase. If the tax is already owed, what’s the problem with requiring sellers to collect it? If that’s the case, has Congress shown any interest in allowing it? Since Congress has not acted, what governs internet tax collection?
If Congress does eventually pass a bill, what safeguards are likely to be approved for small businesses to deal with the complexity?
Are those safeguards in the proposed DOR regulation? If the U.S. Supreme Court has said states cannot require out-of-state businesses with no physical presence in-state to collect these taxes, why would DOR attempt to do so anyway? For the legislature, the apparent motivation behind HB 480 was to increase the amount of money being directed toward road and bridge repair, by allocating to that purpose the amount of use taxes collected and remitted by out-of-state sellers. Of that amount, 70% would have gone to the state Department of Transportation for state-maintained roads and bridges, and 30% to cities and counties for local road and bridge repair. Normally, the use tax goes into the General Fund, which is the primary source from which the legislature appropriates funds to schools, Medicaid, prisons, etc. Road and bridge funding comes primarily from the tax on gasoline and other fuels, generally referred to as the “gas tax.” Other Common Questions Those who would answer “no” say it is wrong to place the tax-collection burden on out-of-state sellers because the sellers don’t use water and sewer infrastructure, or fire and police protection, or other benefits provided by local and state government to brick-and-mortar establishments. They also say buyers generally choose to purchase online more for convenience than price, so the 7% difference would not change the purchasers’ buying decisions. In addition, they say sales tax collections have not declined despite the rise in online sales. I noticed Amazon is now charging me 7% on the items I buy from them. If they aren’t required to collect tax on their sales to Mississippians, why are they doing so? Do we know whether Amazon is receiving any special benefits as a result of their agreeing to collect a use tax? March 1, 2017
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
