It is time Washington employers and workers have the same choices that those in 46 other states have. Vote Yes on I-1082 and bring competition to the workers’ compensation insurance in Washington State.

Time for choice

Competition a key part of workers’ compensation reform

BY MATTHEW CLARKSON Building Industry Association of Washington

It’s been working successfully in Oregon for 20 years… so why not bring reform to Washington state’s workers’ compensation program?

That’s the reasoning behind Initiative 1082, scheduled to appear on this November’s ballot, which would allow private insurers to compete with the state Department of Labor and Industries and sell workers’ compensation insurance to employers in Washington state.

There has been a growing frustration in the business community because of ever-increasing workers’ compensation costs – with rates rising 54 percent since 2000. And employers are bracing for a possible double-digit increase next year to prop up a program that even the state auditor has warned is facing insolvency in the near future.

If you look across the U.S., you’ll find that Washington is only one of four states left in the country that still has a government monopoly on providing workers’ compensation. 46 other states give employers the choice to purchase workers’ compensation coverage from whichever insurer offers them the best product at the best price.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of business knows that a lack of competition leads to complacency, increasing costs and consumer frustration.

Employers in Washington state pay the second-highest cost per employee in the nation for workers’ compensation. Injured workers stay off the job more than twice as long as the national average. And Washington is one of only a handful of states that increased workers’ compensation taxes this year.

Higher costs of doing business are exactly what Washington employers do not need in the current economic climate.

By contrast, employers in Oregon haven’t had a rate increase in 20 years-in fact, their rates have decreased 18 percent during that time. And this year Oregon’s state fund handed out $100 million in dividend payments to participating employers. The benefits of competition haven’t just been for employers – Oregon’s injured workers enjoy some of the best claims management and care of any state.

Fears of a reduction in worker benefits or fears that more worker claims will be denied if privatization is allowed have not played out in Oregon or in states like West Virginia or Nevada, two states that most recently allowed competition.

I-1082 would create a workers’ comp system similar to Oregon’s and bring Washington in line with almost every other state. These states have already figured out allowing competition in the workers’ comp marketplace yields lower workers’ comp rates for employers and better care for employees. That’s why more and more states have moved away from a government monopoly on workers’ comp and embraced competition from private insurers.

Like our neighbors to the south figured out 20 years ago, it’s time to give businesses that need coverage to protect their workers a choice when it comes to providing workers’ compensation.

Clarkson, a principal in Soaring Eagle Homes, a local custom builder based in Camas, is president of the Building Industry Association of Washington.

Bullet Points:

• I have no idea how many attended, over 500 I would guess
• I estimate 65% – 70% were against ObamaCare, an easy majority
• The questions were civil, pointed and well thought-out
• I did not get to ask my question
• I knew over 30 people there and only one person I knew got to ask a question (great question Dave)

I have now personally heard Baird speak to the Health Care bill 3 times and here is what I have learned

He agrees that tort reform and background checks should be part of any health care reform out of congress, but he will support the bill even if neither are included. To him the importance of getting a bill done takes precedence over these desires.

Baird also says that he will not support a bill that is not revenue neutral, forces citizens into the government option and must be firewalled from “alternate” federal revenue.

The obvious problem with this statement is that the CBO states clearly that HR 3200 will not be revenue neutral and will in-fact add $239 billion to the deficit. It also states that the bill will force citizens out of private insurance and into the government “option”. He dismisses the CBO numbers.

Baird is very well spoken and will answers questions politely  and attentively often beginning the answer with “good points” and “I agree with x”. He is very good at speaking to the other side of the critics point, he does not however complete the linear logic of questions, follow-up is necessary.

Make no mistake, despite his INCESSANT use of “center-right” buzz words,  Baird is in favor of and wants to pass health care reform that guarantees insurance to all Americans, regardless of desire, income or need.  He does want to pay for it (how???) and does want some freedom in the market, but dismisses the eventual outcome the American people are very aware of.

He dismisses any problems with the government option (like subsidization, rationing, forced participation) with the quip that all those problems exist in the current system and 45 million are uninsured.

He also dismisses the argument that government does a poor job of managing and delivering services, claiming that Medicare does a good job, as does other agencies like the CDC.  Beside, the private sector does a poor job as well, just look at AIG and GM!

Baird only claims the “Commerce Clause” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) as the power necessary for congress to regulate all health care and provide a tax subsidized government option, the same power that allows congress to manage and fund SS, Medicare and VA care.

I believe Baird has  blurred the lines of logic and common sense that the average American sees clearly. While not as bad as other members of Congress, Baird has lost touch with his constituents.

Congressman Baird apologizes (sort of) to ObamaCare opponents on Wednesday. Congressman Baird released an “apology” for his remarks calling the Town Hall “protesters” un-American, brown shirts (tactics) and Timothy McVeigh “like”.

You can read the apology here: http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/08/12/breaking_news/doc4a83521378f98293357175.txt

He has also announced that he will indeed hold town hall meetings of his own, stating “My hope and trust is that we can have the kinds of informative exchanges that I have valued for so long and that reveal the very best of public discourse,”

The first Town Hall will be held in Clark County:

Date: Tuesday August 18

Time: 7:00-9:30pm

Location: Skyview High School Auditorium

1300 NW 139th St Vancouver, WA 98685

Unlike many of my fellow 3rd Congressional District voters I had an opportunity to speak with Congressman Baird during this August recess.

I am a member of the Longview, WA Pioneer Lions (www.pioneerlions.org), we meet weekly for lunch and each week we have a guest speaker. This week it was Congressman Brian Baird. This was a scheduled meeting and the Congressman has visited our club often over the years.

Baird was given about 20 minutes to give the Lions an update on congressional business. He of course discussed his recent comments on the Town Hall “protesters”, his decision not to hold Town Halls of his own and his observations regarding the “lies” about the health care plan.

He also talked about his work on environmental issues (specifically the oceans) and the tax payer funded trips he took educating himself on the subject.

Briefly he covered the topic of the TARP and Stimulus monies.

Assuming that others would raise questions regarding health care and that I would try to speak to him privately about his and Pelosi’s comments, I quickly began formulating a stimulus question as Baird began his presentation. (Confession: had I read the Pioneer Lions newsletter I would have known well in advance that Baird would be our guest speaker today)

For the highlights of his comments read the piece written by Tony Lystra of The Daily News, it includes some additional comments made during an interview after the meeting:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/08/11/area_news/doc4a82259ac6a41777658939.txt

Baird did little to distance himself from his earlier comments about Town Hall “protesters” such as their use of “Brown Shirt tactics”, being “un-American” , “hearing comments like that of Timothy McVeigh before the bombing” and domestic terrorists. Instead he “clarified” by stating that “he never would characterize opponents of health care as “Nazis or something like that.” But that those who would disrupt the Town Halls and shout down others are un-American.

He went on to complain that “web-sites” are encouraging and giving direction to people on how to disrupt and shout down others at Town Halls. These web-sites “say such things as, ‘Don’t let there be any intelligent discussions. … Try to intimidate as early as you can,’ Baird said.

He told the audience that his staff had received death threats and that at some Town Halls effigies of Congressmen were being hung.

He then went right into his defense of the Health Care plan, after prefacing his comments with “I am not sure how I’ll vote on a final health care bill after the August recess”.

He tried to assure the audience that there would be no “death panels” just (paid for) end of life discussions between a doctor and patient. That the Health Care bill would be revenue neutral and that nobody making less than $250,000 would be taxed to pay for the program. He disavowed any plan that would implement a “single-payer” system or any system like Canada (with waiting periods) and stated that citizens would have the same “menu” options as congress when choosing health care.

He said that nobody would be “forced into the government option”, that everyone would have a choice and that the competition would be good for lowering the cost of health care.

He said the rationing argument is a straw man and that the only rationing that would happen would be the same as what goes on in private insurance.

He said that the most important thing that the bill does is prevent any insurance company from denying coverage to any American for any reason.

He made no mention that I heard of how he would pay for the health care plan, other than that businesses that make over $250,000 (gross) that did not provide health care for employees would be required to pay into the “health care exchange” program. He did however mention that “small” businesses that did provide health coverage to employees would receive a tax credit to help cover the cost.

I was fairly underwhelmed with the DNC talking points and I had hoped that he would open up with some details such as the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, the astronomical CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cost projections, the funding plan and the proposed bureaucratic nightmare of the plan.

During the question and answer period Baird fielded a couple of question from the audience regarding the health care plan, mostly referring back to his previous comments and again bristling at the “lies” and misinformation being spread via “chain-emails”.

My question was in regard to the prevailing wage requirements any time stimulus dollars are spent on infrastructure projects (effectively doubling the wage of many workers on these projects). My example was the increase from ~$20/hr (County average) for truck drivers to over $40/hr on stimulus jobs. My point was that if these drivers were paid more in line with the normal or average wages of our county we could effectively put twice as many workers to work on stimulus projects. He said that Congress was “working on the problem”, but that prevailing wage requirements on Federal projects dictated the huge wage increases.

Once the meeting was adjourned I took the opportunity to approach Mr. Baird privately on the health care issue and more directly with his comments regarding Town Hall “protesters”. I told him that I agreed with him that the shouting down tactics at town halls and effigies were inappropriate, but that Democrats had little credibility when for 6 years they never stood against all the same behavior by left wing groups on issues like the war, immigration, social security reform and prescription drug reform in Medicare. (The fact of the matter is that they resorted to riots and destruction of property.)

I told him that I had video of being attacked in Pioneer Court House Square by “anti-war” protesters, that I received threats in the mail and harassing phone calls after letters to the editor. I reminded him of town halls and speeches that were disrupted by code pink, anti-war and other groups including unions every time a Republicans had a town hall during the Bush years, evidence that he saw for himself after taking a stance on Iraq that the “left” despised.

I told him that if he wanted credibility when discussing the “appropriate” way to engage in Town Halls he needed to point his finger at all of the offenders on either side (like the Democrat thugs beating people up in Tampa last week).

I also asked him to stop using the actions of a few people across the nation as an excuse to not engage his constituents on the important issues and that I thought that this gets to a deeper problem where we can’t have dialog and that I believe that some of his party insiders don’t want this dialog to happen.

He of course responded that “Your point is well-taken,”, “Whether it’s on the Left or the Right, it’s not acceptable.”

He went on to say that people like Rush Limbaugh are stoking the fires, making things worse. To which I responded that I did not care what Rush has to say, he is not an elected U.S. Congressman, that I hold him (Baird) to a higher standard.

I suggested to him that he choose his words carefully. That a majority of voters in my circles are against the health care plan, but that they are angry that their elected officials will not answer their questions and even angrier that their Congressman is calling them Brown Shirts, the Speaker of the House is calling them un-American and the President is telling them to shut up. However he meant the comments, they should not have been made.

At this point a good friend grabbed my shirt collar and suggested that I give others a chance.. so I walked away.. my point was made.

I was passionate but cordial, I did not raise my voice, but I am sure he knew my anger.

I can only hope that every voter in the 3^rd CD will have an opportunity to have a frank and direct conversation with their Congressman. Please email, call or write Congressman Baird and remind him of his duty to face his constituents.

Be blunt, be forceful, and be respectful.

http://www.baird.house.gov/

Is there a new class of Americans and are we at war with them?

Dianna Cotter thinks so, Read Here.

Wednesday April 22 saw a very interesting poll released by Rasmussen. This poll shows that 60% of Americans believe that the Government has too much power. 60% also say they believe that tax cuts help the economy. 51% have a favorable view on the Tax Day Tea Parties that were held last week. Clearly, more than half of Americans are at the very least concerned with what the government is doing, and how much power it has………..Read More Here.

April 15th, 2009 Portland, OR Tea Party Report

By Joe Day

So the first thing I see when I get home from the Portland Tax Day Tea Party is an AP story that says that “tens of thousands” showed up for various tea parties nationwide. Yeah, maybe as of early this afternoon in the eastern time zone. There were damn near that many at this one, and there were over five hundred more just like it across the nation today, in all fifty states (maybe even in the seven extra ones that exist in Obama’s mind). According to the early estimates, at least ten thousand showed up in Oregon alone – a sparsely populated, not-terribly-conservative state. Two thousand showed up in Medford. If they had two thousand in Medford, I can only imagine how many showed up in, say, Tuscaloosa.

And let me tell you, when I rounded the corner to enter Pioneer Courthouse Square, I was absolutely gobsmacked by the mass of humanity that I saw – not just the number, which was staggering, but the variety. I saw families with young children. I saw professionals in suits and good ol’ boys in Carhartts. I saw grizzled old veterans and twentysomething hipsters in skinny jeans. I saw every race and ethnicity of people, and I saw every rung of the economic ladder represented. I saw horrified and regretful Obama voters, carrying signs begging our forgiveness. I saw individuals who were all there for their own reasons, but with a common purpose. I saw a cross-section of America that could not have been cast any better by Hollywood. (I also saw a grossly outnumbered cadre of counter-protestors who looked stunned, if not horrified, by the turnout.)

You may have heard that this was some nationally organized, well-funded operation. I can only speak for the one I attended, and it was sincerely a grassroots effort. I saw very few manufactured signs, and few of the speakers were affiliated with any large organization. I know I was not recruited to participate by any organization, and I damn sure wasn’t one of the “paid protestors” the left literally employs for their pet causes. I am one single, solitary, pissed-off taxpayer looking for some way to channel my disgust at what I see happening in the halls of power in this nation. I went looking for this tea party, and if I hadn’t found one, I’d have thrown my own. As it turned out, I was far from alone, and someone was way ahead of me.

And from what I could tell by the general spirit of the thing, as well as the conversations I had with other people, I was seeing thousands upon thousands of people who, like myself, had probably never been to a protest before. In my case, it took thirty-seven years for something to make me angry enough to make a handmade sign and petition for a redress of grievances. That is the lesson to take away from this, America: people who don’t normally have time to join a socio-political rally are pissed off enough to get together and make one happen – big ones – all across the fruited plain.

So laugh all you want, if you’re one of those who likes to poke fun at “teabagging,” and believe the condescending media coverage if you dare. But remember – this was not in some conservative enclave, but in one of the most politically and socially liberal major cities in America. If this many people showed up for such an event in The People’s Republic Of Portland, don’t be surprised by anything that happens in your town.

Check out a video of the Portland Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action protest by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and has often been referenced in other political protests.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

This original Tea Party was instigated by 168 protestors and was a turning point in the Colonial attitude toward action against the tyranny of the British Government.

Fast forward to April 15th 2009 and more than half of a million tax payers have come out to protest the out of control, maniacal spending and borrowing of the U.S. Government.

Certainly the original Tea Party participants were lambasted by the British “media” and Government as “Radicals” and “Malcontents”, as our Tea Party brethren are today.

They were seen as a small percentage of the otherwise content population, ranting against fair taxes used for fair purposes.

That underestimation lead to the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence.

Today, I see members of the media, politicians and partisans either ignoring the Tea Parties or dismissing them as “Republicans” upset about the 2008 election.

That too would be a grave underestimation.

These Tea Parties are the physical manifestation of a populace movement that originated in the intra-webs and social networks, feed by the fustration and shock of ever increasing spending, taxation, borrowing, earmarks and government interference in the free markets.

As one of the original organizers of the February 2009 Tea Party in Portland, OR I can say without question that the group was a cross section of America. We had in attendance families, working class, middle class and upper middle class, we had Republicans, Independents and Democrats.

The event was sponsored by two groups you may never have heard of, TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) & Oregonians for Prosperity. It was organized by Libertarians, Republicans and Independents. We used Facebook, Twitter and other electronic media to spread the word.

At that time we got little attention, Hannity and Fox News were not reporting much and the other news outlets ignored us completely. Only a few local Radio stations, radio hosts and bloggers made an attempt to report on our little group of 200.

Since then of course Fox News and others have seen the news worthy nature of more than 800 of these Tea Parties springing up with over 500,000 people attending (the February Tea Party day had 50 cities and 30,000 people). Other so-called interest groups and political activist have join forces with us. All realizing that there is something to this, and that not long can it be simply ignored or dismissed.

Make no mistake, this is a non-partisan, grassroots movement, regardless of who jumps on the bandwagon, and it is significant.

The people of this nation are not going to sit on their hands while the White House & Congress borrows 11 trillion dollars and counting, spends that money on Bank & Corporate bailouts, spend $19.6 billion on pork, fires employees of privately held corporations and limits pay to private citizens.

Keep your eye and ears open, this movement will continue, and you must add your voice.

And Congress (Republicans & Democrats) will listen and will reign in spending, borrowing and the power grab or they will be looking for new jobs in the next few years.

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

Update: cap and trade
Ed Orcutt
State Representative, 18th District

The governor’s cap and trade proposal, House Bill 1819, passed the House Ecology and Parks Committee this week. Here are a couple things that I like to keep in mind as I talk to my colleagues about why we don’t need this job-killing legislation:

* Washington is one of the lowest producers of CO2 in the nation with only three-tenths of one percent of global emissions. Of that total amount, a majority of our emissions are due to automobiles on the highways. Trying to place punitive and costly restrictions on manufacturing and energy-producing businesses makes no sense.

* It would take just 50 days for China’s growth in CO2 emissions to equal Washington’s emission for an entire year.

* Now is not the time to add costs and burdens to Washington businesses. Doing so will force companies out of business or to move to other states.

Nucor Steel, here today...

In an effort to take a leadership role in the WCI the Washington State legislature is holding committee hearings on House Bill 1819 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 5735.

These bills introduce a Statewide Cap & Trade “market” system for greenhouse emission on manufacturing & industry designed to meet the standards of a regional cap and trade program. Washington State is in partnership with six other states and four Canadian provinces, under a coalition called the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

The basic idea of a Cap & Trade system is to restrict or cap the total greenhouse emissions allowed by a plant or facility, but then allow that facility to “purchase” emission credits from other companies who have room under their “cap”, allowing them to emit above the restricted levels.

There is a couple of issue with the legislation that the bill sponsors want to pass.

First, the legislation is vague, and purposively so. The fact of the matter is that many questions, standards and methods are still in discussion in the WCI. This legislation cannot be specific or clear because the authors really have no idea what the regional WCI agreement will look like.

Kyle Davis, environmental director of Pacific Power, a utility that serves Yakima and Walla Walla, said that the proposed cap and trade design would be a “risky recipe for paralysis.”

Second, Washington State, with this legislation, would impose a system not currently in-use nationally or even regionally (via WCI). Industry in Washington State will be held to a standard second to none globally, nationally or even regionally.

This will impact productivity and competitiveness for Washington business. Either through the cost of expensive upgrades to “smoke stacks” or the purchase of allowances or credits, Washington State businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage at a time when every single job should count.

The trickle down effect of this legislation may not be measurable. Take Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc. for example.

Nucor manufacturers steel products in Seattle. These products include bar, angle and other construction grade steel. They are a regional steel producer supporting a litany of downstream business and jobs. They are the only steel manufacturer in Washington State and are providing living wage jobs.

Nucor has expressed serious doubts about their future in Washington if this legislation passes. They will be at a competitive disadvantage with other national producers, not to mention the market pressure from global producers that have little or no environmental controls (more on that later).

If Nucor were to leave, what will be the cost effect on construction in the state? What of the additional carbon that will be belched into the air by the trucks and rail moving steel from further distances?

Another example of unintended consequences is the effect on Cardinal Glass. Cardinal Glass has three Washington state plants and produces residential and commercial glass (energy efficient products) as well as glass components of solar panels.

Steve Smith, manager of Cardinal Glass, has said “Glassmaking is an energy-intensive process,”. When expressing serious concerns about a statewide or regional cap & trade system Smith said. “There are no other alternative energy techniques … within the industry.” Cardinal Glass will have two choices with this legislation: purchase credits or move out of the state. Only one of those choices will allow the company to stay competitive.

Here again we have to ask the downstream questions. What cost effects will the Cardinal Glass decision have on local construction and what carbon effect will we incur with the additional transportation of glass into Washington? What of the “green jobs” that will be gone with the loss of the manufacturing of solar panels components (panels that are already too expensive to manufacture in the state)?

The third issue that I see is the obfuscation of the state legislature’s ability to change, amend or tailor rules, specifications or methods. By passing vague and open ended legislation the legislature is punting the details, leaving that to the WCI workgroups. This would severely limit the states ability to address real problems that may (will?) arise for Washington state business and jobs.

Gary Chandler, vice president of governmental affairs for AWB, said they would rather have a national program because conflicts could arise between states and provinces since they would all have to follow the same design if the proposed regional program took effect, which may leave little flexibility if one state or province wanted to do things differently.

“Even if the (Washington) Legislature wanted to make changes in the program, they could not,” he said.

Many industries will be affected by this system (Pulp & Paper, Food Packaging, and Manufacturing of all types); many jobs will be in jeopardy. It is already difficult to compete in the global market and now the proponents are looking to make that job nearly impossible.

This brings me to my final point. I am generally against any form of Cap & Trade, especially regional or state mandates. Like many other environmental policies the cost to affect ratio is just too high.

It is simply not enough to raise standards or reduce emissions on such a small scale (when compared to global standards and emissions) to positively effect climate change. And with the inevitable rearrangement the deck chairs (the manufacturing simply moving to unrestricted regions/nations) the impact is further reduced, if not worsened.

The United States has some of the highest environmental standards in the world, but we also have some of the highest costs of production. It is becoming increasingly cost effective to manufacture in China or Mexico and that manufacturing is much worse on the environment.

My proposal would be to focus energies on the production of goods in the U.S. where we know higher environmental standards already exist. If we could reduce the total production in China or Mexico and shift it to U.S. facilities not only would we have a global impact on emissions, we would bring much needed jobs back to U.S. soil. This can be done in a number of ways.

1. Invest in Nuclear & Hydro power production. This would be a clean and renewable energy production with lower environmental impact and lower cost to industry.

Power costs in this nation are skyrocketing, affecting our competitive advantage in all type of manufacturing. The cost of environmental impact mitigation with these technologies is much lower than other forms of energy production and the infrastructure already exists.

2. Reduce regulation/bureaucracy (cost of government). By streamlining necessary regulation and “burdens” we can increase the productivity of business. Elimination of duplicated and unnecessary regulations and burdens will have the same effect on a larger scale.

3. Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and reduce employment taxes, remove the Washington B&O tax.

By lowering the overall cost of doing business in the U.S. & Washington State we can have a real, positive impact on the global climate and the environment as a whole. Not just in lowering emissions from manufacturing, but also by shortening transportation lines and with better waste/recycle management.

In the meantime we will be bringing jobs back to our nation and state, reduce the trading deficit with countries like China and make longterm, high ROI investments in our future.

This is a recent posting by Roxanna Huff. This family is under attack by what is in my estimation a power drunk Health Department who is punishing them for asking questions and holding the department to the letter of the law.

What would be funny, if it were not so sad, is that throughout the D.O.T process (Direct Observed Treatment) not once has any representative from the Health Department “Observed” the complete treatment. Why? It would require them to sit and watch medication being dripped for over an hour. This is a clear case of process and power health care, not outcome based health care.

Unfortunately this is what we all have to look forward to as the government turns our healthcare over to the domain of government bureaucrats.

December 29th, 2008
Roxanna Huff

We are enduring a search of our personal property (medicines), invasion of privacy (the county’s presence to watch us give our children their medicine), restriction of movement ( we have to check in with the Health Department of whatever location we are in if we are not at our residence at 8:30AM/PM), a government taking (we provide (refill/pay for the medicines but have not control over their use), disruption of our health care ( M (the head of Clark county HD) states he is in total control of our children’s TB treatment and will override our physicians advise if he does not agree).

All this and we have not been charged with a crime, we have not been convicted of a crime, we are not under investigation for a crime and NO ONE IN THE JUDICIARY has reviewed or is even aware of this situation.

While our ONE child was contagious she was on isolation (that we complied with and agreed with) but now she has been taken off of isolation because she is no longer a threat to the community and has 3 negative Sputum and 3 negative Sputum cultures to prove it. She is still sick but NOT a threat to the community…. however, by a supposition of guilt that WE (Tony and I) will not give her her medicine and she possibly, could, maybe, slight chance that she could go positive we are having our constitutional rights being taken away (without due process).

Let me add that when our daughter ‘was’ positive the Health Department did NOT come to our house twice a day, five days a week like they are now. They came once in the morning for five days a week. They did not come on holidays or on the weekend…. so I was giving her her meds every night 7 days a week and 2 mornings a weekend thus I was fully responsible for more that half of medicating my child (and ALL of her IV meds were given by me) and the proof of my love for her, my desire to get her well, and being responsible to give her her mediciines was that she is NOW NON CONTAGIOUS! If I had not given her the meds, (except when the HD was here to watch), she would NOT have turned negitive. The small amount of times they were here were NOT enough to help her. (we also paid for all the meds, refilled the prescriptions, etc)

It was only after she turned negative and we asked questions about ‘no more of their coming’ that a nurse began to get rude and intrusive (she went as far as beginning an illegal search of my home and I had to physically step in front of her). Immediately after this we were slapped with a 2 year Health order (not a court order, a health department order served by the Sheriff) to observe ALL of our children take their medicines twice a day, five days a week. (Two of our children are not even on meds but they listed them on this order). Some of the Medications that they insist on monitoring are VITAMINS !

This is a slippery slope.. how far will they go? Will your child be threatened to be taken away because you chose to get a second opinion? Will your home be invaded by the health department because you have AIDs (we do not have Aids, but what about those that do ?) and they want to monitor your intimate life? Will the police be able to sit in the parking lot of a bar and arrest you before you get into the car? Can the law arrest you because you MIGHT commit a crime? Will you be arrested for lying in the sun and you MIGHT get cancer? Will you be fined for smoking in your own home? (I hate smoking but it is an individual right) How about those of you that have chosen not to immunize your children because it is poison to them? Will they force you?

Ridiculous? yes… but that is what is happening to this family. Without a crime being committed we are being abused by the BIG Stick that Dr. M threatened us with. Yes, when I asked him what rights do we have and what does the law require he said, “You do not want me to bring out that big stick!” He did bring it out…. and for no reason of guilt, and he has been beating us with it for months… . We have no way to protect ourselves right now… we have to put up with it without due process, only on the HD’s presumption of guilt towards us…

We did not adopt these children and bring them to America to let them die…. I promise you that I am a responsible adult… We are tax paying, law abiding, Business owners, and citizens. My husband served this country for 12 years in the Navy. We have NO criminal record. We have 8 children of our own, so we did not adopt these beautiful 6 children for us. We adopted them because we wanted to give them LIFE in the land of the FREE and the Brave. We took them from Communism and dictatorships so they would have an opportunity to grow up Free and have a chance to live the life that everyone deserves.

We adopted the sick child (that we originally did not know was sick) because we wanted to give her the BEST medical care that she could not afford to get in her birth country. We have done that. They wanted us to leave her there and come home just with her siblings, but we could not do that…. she would have died there within months. Now we feel that all that we did to adopt these six children (without the financial, emotional, and physical help of the HD) we are being denied the right to medicate our child with the prescriptions that the TB specialist and our pediatrician prescribe. WE are enduring great stress, much abuse by the HD and a ripping away of our rights as parents and Americans.

If you want to help … please call or email your politicians to encourage them to not let this bullying continue. IF you value your own rights as parents and Americans, please take a stand against this injustice. It will not stop here… this will empower the Government to the next step. We must fight against this violation of our Constitutional rights. Socialism may seem good to some…. but let your rights be violated and it will not be so warm and fuzzy.

Ron Marshall P.A. will be representing the Health Department.
Dr. Melnick: he is sitting in as the head to the Cowlitz County HD.. .he lives and works in Clark county.
Our local HD employees has stated that they are understaffed and their budget does not allow for this (punishment through an Health Order), but that does not seem to matter to the man with the BIG Stick.
Even while questioning the authority of their violation of our rights we have always complied to the Direct Observed Therapy as described to us. We have asked for the OUR files of the many months of compliance from the HD and they have stalled in getting them to us. We have a hearing with the HD on Jan. 15 and we may or may not have them then.
I would also like to see the small amount of funds that go to our local HD being used for the public in a good way, not to bully this family or any family. As a tax payer I question the use of taxpayer money… does anyone else wonder about this?