I have reviewed HUNDREDS of resumes & cover letters (i.e. applications). This may not make me an expert, but it does provide me experience to share, especially with those new to the workplace or simply struggling to schedule that elusive interview.

Let me first make two comments:
-A great resume/cover letter rarely gets you the job – it gets you the interview. I consider my own applications successful if it opened the door to a positive discussion about my qualities, skills and experience.
-During my 5 years as customer service supervisor for a local telecommunications company, I averaged hiring one new employee per month. After you do the math (I led an entry-level department where often my employees were “stolen” by other departments within the company, so I experienced HIGH turnover), keep in mind the gobs of applications I read in my effort to select each candidate. I now also teach a college course so students can best promote themselves in the marketplace – and yes, one assignment is to prepare a cover letter with resume.

Those applying with sloppy, grammatically-incorrect materials are a waste of time both in the workplace and in this column. However, I love to help those who want to help themselves. So when I review materials, I always make sure to stress these are my suggestions only…I am not the expert on your skills, your experience, your goals or your life plan. I’m also not the expert on your target audience – but you should be! Researching the company you are interested in is one VITAL step often overlooked in our desire to have a typo-free resume. Whether you Google the company, speak to an employee, or actually step into the building to pick up brochures/materials, observe everything from dress code to the look-and-feel of the environment (i.e. office culture). Some of these cues will aid you in presenting yourself most appropriately for the position and environment.

Here are some other specific tips to consider:

Your Cover Letter:
-Truly consider what makes you outstanding compared to others – stress those aspects.
-Explain how education, talent, skills, etc. prepares you for this job. Don’t just list your past experiences.
-Getting an interview is the PURPOSE of the letter – don’t put limitations on when people can contact you.
-Be creative and interesting – this is your opportunity to shine, even if for a few seconds.
-Be as specific about the job you are applying for – a “shotgun” approach to sending out resumes is often not successful and appears lazy to the potential employer.

Your Resume:
-Punch your skills or job duties with action verbs. Start each “bullet” after specific work experience with powerful words.
-For routine jobs, focus on skills gained versus the duty itself. For instance “taking the trash out” can be written as “developed discipline and strong work ethic.”
-Consider the order of importance – should you list in chronological order or jobs most pertinent?

Your References:
-Always ask permission to use others for a reference!
-Ask if they will provide you a GOOD reference.
-Don’t use a reference who has fired you.
(No joke, this has happened to me!)

I don’t hire people with bad references and may choose not to hire based on whether the applicant first asked the reference for permission. (I consider this to be both an aspect of respect as well as attention to details.) I can also assure you if someone used me as a reference without my consent, he/she rarely got the job.

By: Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran

The increasing cost of conducting business in the United States threatens innovation and investment in new technologies. In today’s unstable business environment, American industries are understandably reluctant to invest the time and resources necessary to grow their businesses. This is especially true for domestic energy production.

Energy production is one of the most highly regulated markets in the United States today. Government policies are hurting our country’s ability to compete within the global economy, limiting our domestic energy supply and driving up the cost of energy for consumers. To ensure Kansans have access to a reliable and affordable supply of energy, we must develop more of our nation’s natural resources.

One resource that is plentiful in Kansas is wind. Our state has the second highest wind resource potential in our country and leads the nation in wind production capacity currently under construction. If we expect the wind energy industry to provide for our country’s future energy needs and make long-term investments in their businesses, Congress must reauthorize the wind production tax credit (PTC) that expires this year. By extending the wind PTC, Congress will allow the wind industry to complete its transformation from being a high tech startup to becoming cost competitive in the energy marketplace. Failure to do so will result in a tax hike on wind energy companies and will only further delay this industry’s ability to compete.

There are those who view government intervention in the energy sector as picking winners and losers. But the wind PTC is a winning solution because it allows companies to keep more of their own dollars in exchange for the production of energy. These are not cash handouts; they are reductions in taxes that help cover the cost of doing business. Unlike President Obama’s failed stimulus plan that rewards individual, unproven companies like Solyndra with cash handouts, the wind PTC is an industry tax credit that has led to $20 billion in annual private investment in our energy infrastructure.

Today, the American wind industry includes more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 states. In 2005, just 25 percent of the value of a wind turbine was produced in the United States compared to more than 60 percent today. Because of their close proximity to wind farms, American workers can produce the critical components at a lower cost than their European and Asian counterparts. As more components are manufactured in the United States and not overseas, the cost to produce electricity from wind farms will be further driven down.

If the wind PTC is allowed to expire, local economies across our state will suffer. Kansas counties will lose $3.7 million in annual payments from wind companies. Kansas landowners will lose nearly $4 million annually in additional income they earn from leasing or selling their land for wind farms. And every Kansan will ultimately be affected because the power generated by these wind facilities contributes to our supply of electricity. By eliminating additional sources of electricity, utility rates will climb.

To meet our country’s energy needs and remain competitive in the global market, Congress must develop a national energy policy. Recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated once again the importance of having access to an ample domestic energy supply so we are less dependent on foreign sources. If Congress fails, Kansans will soon be paying much higher energy prices – for the gas to fill up our cars, for the fuel to power our farm equipment, and for the electricity to turn on our lights.

Temporarily extending the wind PTC is not about picking winners and losers – it is about preparing our country to meet our growing energy demand. Rather than make it more difficult for the private sector to develop energy sources, we should lower taxes, reduce regulations, and allow the private sector to succeed in the free market. In turn, the wind industry will grow and become fully competitive – no longer needing the wind PTC. By strengthening American energy production, our country’s future will be stronger and more secure.

Governor Brownback;

 Are you listening? Can you hear the collective plea coming from the community of disabled Kansans and their families? Can you feel the primal passion? Do you know what it is like to be different? To be disabled?

 Your insistence upon including long-term care services for the disabled in your privatization of the Kansas Medicaid system is insensitive, ill-informed and disturbing. Your form letters and your repeated mantra “we have heard no compelling reason to carve out” our services are only serving to stimulate and galvanize our community into action. In the end, we are determined to convince you that this revenue neutral request is in the best interest of both government and client.

The current Kansas model for serving the disabled is efficient both structurally and financially; and effective in serving clients’ needs. The “proposed new model” KanCare is fraught with peril and risk. $2.9 billion is being transferred to insurance companies. The primary but unspoken objective is $850,000,000 in cost savings. Mr. Sullivan has stated that cddo’s and case managers will be retained, according to the current model. Unfortunately, under the management of insurance companies, the priorities will drastically change! The effects will be: additional complexity of administration (adding a layer of management), a new layer of cost (insurance company profits), leading to decreased supports and services for those who need them most.

Can you imagine the effect of profit incentives for the insurance companies to reduce spending? The administration points to improving health outcomes via manages care, but you fail to mention the underlying but central driving force behind this initiative: cost savings. FACT: the annul spending per dd client served has actually declined from $49M in 1993, to $41M currently. This is a population that is actually underfunded as witnessed by the 5,000 qualified but unfunded persons on the waiting list. For decades, Kansas has been a national leader in serving the DD community. In structure and in efficiency of spending. Dismantling this model and transferring responsibility to the insurance industry would represent a massive step backwards and in the wrong direction.

Have you evaluated what is happening in Kentucky under their new system of managed care? Are you prepared for the potential complexity, confusion, legal actions, dissatisfaction among your constituents both providers and patients and other implications, all of which are being experienced in Kentucky?

 Do you know what it is like to have a person of special needs living in your home? Have you ever visited a group home or day center workplace? Please consider; you may attain great perspective by investing a small amount of time.

In summary, the informed people within the community of the disabled are simply seeking to exclude long-term care services from this potential fiasco. This “carve out” would be revenue neutral, but would have tremendous benefit to the DD community.

Are we seeking to fix something that is not broken?

Respectfully;

Ray Rollins

Overland Park, KS

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of HaysPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Submitted by James Y. Kerby

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012, Kansas residents may see a ballot initiative that will legalize the use of medical marijuana in the state of Kansas, whereby patients are given the right to receive a physician’s authorization and recommendation to use medical marijuana.

California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and many other states are planning to implement new laws that will improve the regulation and distribution of marijuana, by equating marijuana’s classification with alcohol.

Kansas residents will be making one of the most crucial decisions in the state’s history, in which the state of Kansas and its residents are being asked to overturn a law of prohibition that has existed in the state, since 1937. The state of Kansas will have to choose between two vastly opposing ideals:

1.) Follow the rest of the United States of America and legalize medical marijuana or

2.) Maximize patrol capacity throughout the state and stringently enforce state drug policies and laws.

The major shift in public consciousness, opinion, and awareness regarding the acceptance of medical marijuana in 16 states and Washington DC demonstrates an intrinsic and paramount victory for the war on drugs. When the state of Colorado legalizes marijuana for recreational use, Kansas will be devastatingly affected by the catastrophic outcomes that permit the unregulated obtainment of marijuana in Colorado. The issue of marijuana will involve essential and radical changes to our state, in which voting “no” in November will increase state taxes to fund the war against marijuana, while voting “yes” could bring revenues and profits to Kansas.

If Kansas residents vote against measures that reclassifies the scheduling status of marijuana, then the astronomical challenges our state faces will be determined within three criteria for drug policies stated as follows:

a.) all state and local funding and taxes will be focused and primarily directed towards the combating and curtailing of marijuana trafficking throughout the state of Kansas;

b.) the use, possession, cultivation, and sell of marijuana will result in the harshest of penalties that maximizes measures that enforce the deterrence of marijuana within the state of Kansas with life in prison or capital punishment;

c.) Kansas residents will relinquish the Bill of Rights Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy, Amendment IV, Privacy of the Person and Possession: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable caus! e, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Kansas drug policies and laws must meet these expectations to maintain and uphold the conditions of these criteria, in order to prevent the influx of marijuana into its state borders from surround states that endorse marijuana legalization. If Kansas does not invest all of its funding resources towards stopping the flow of marijuana under these requisites, then the state of Kansas will be defeated and overpowered in its war against marijuana.

The antithesis to a police-state society in Kansas would be to vote for a solution that would resolve the war on marijuana, in which the state of Kansas legalizes marijuana and regulates its distribution. The state of Kansas must enact measures to legalize marijuana, as follows:

a.) Compassion centers would facilitate in acquiring, possessing, cultivating, manufacturing, delivering, transferring, and transporting all cannabis supplies and products, in which tax revenues and profits garnered from marijuana sells would fund state programs, projects, and infrastructures;

b.) remove all state-level criminal penalties for the use and cultivation of marijuana, in which Kansas laws are not required to enforce federal laws that prohibit the prosecution of state residents;

c.) criminal networks and money laundering will be inefficient and ineffective in the state of Kansas regarding marijuana sells; therefore state judicial systems, drug enforcement agencies and social service programs will focus attention towards legitimate causes and concerns within the state.

If Kansas decides to promote the legalization and regulation of marijuana within its state borders, then the state will succeed in gaining the advantages in defeating the many important and consequential problems associated with the war on marijuana. Marijuana can become an important resource that assists in building societies, communities, and governments, by toppling archaic and obsolete prohibition laws that have cost the state and the country millions of dollars in failed efforts to end the war on drugs.

The crucial decision that the state of Kansas must make this November will either be to continue taxing state residents to fund the war on marijuana, or to bring revenues and profits to the state by legalizing and regulating marijuana. Kansas is a state that is driven by conservative politics, but residents of the state value smart and intelligent solutions to ongoing and indeterminate problems and issues. Kansas observes the nation’s changing views on marijuana and its shifting position of acceptance in our society, but what is the real dilemma that is affecting the state and its opinion on the legalization and regulation of marijuana debate? Is it the idea that marijuana corrupts a society and culture, by creating dissenters that object to the policies and laws that were enacted in the 1930’s, while its acceptability has spanned throughout civilizations up until that time? Is the war on marijuana a form of propaganda, or is marijuana a justifiable concern and probl! em within our society?

Kansas residents will have to deliberate on this issue of marijuana, especially if marijuana legalization and regulation will drastically affect our state and the laws that were ratified to support the legal structures for its eradication.

November will be one of the most important times in Kansas history, because Kansas residents will vote to either continue exhausting our financial resources to eliminate marijuana from our state, or to profit from marijuana and grow resources for the state of Kansas.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of HaysPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

By John Fedele

If this presidential election does anything for the country, it will bring about the downfall of the Republican Party as it exists today.

Like the Democratic Party, the GOP establishment has lost sight of their roots and purpose. When Obama is re-elected, one hopes the real Republican Party ,(or as close as one can get to a real conservative party) that group known as the Tea Party, will finally seek to be recognized as a true political Party. I am dismayed they have not been more active in these primaries, but if the truth be known, there is no Republican candidate who fits the Tea Party mold. In short, the candidates running for the GOP ticket are establishment clones, or would be Reagan Democrats.

Talk radio, like most voters, are not convinced any Republican, still in the race, can beat Obama, but will, reluctantly, vote for the GOP candidate, just to get rid of Obama. That kind of rhetoric ensures defeat. Talk radio, espousing the media’s and Democrat’s weaknesses for the candidates, seems to enforce their opinions. In short, Talk Radio, like it or not, is doing more harm than good.

The GOP is more concerned with social issues than bringing the economy and country back from destruction. It is time they tell the American Voter we need to save the nation, not the planet. It’s time the American Voter stops being so self -centered, thinking about what is right and fair for them, instead of thinking what is best for the country. If the country is doing well, everyone is doing well. Yes, some will do better than others, simply because they work harder. It is the American way. Those who want a society like Western Europe and China, need to look at what is happening there now, and in the past. Remember this country bailed out Europe twice, with the death of millions of American men during two World Wars, and with the Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe. Read European History and you will see where we are headed if we do not change our attitude.

Sadly, we do not have a GOP candidate. Sadly, we have a voter base that has become indifferent. That combination will ensure another 4 years of Democratic Party leadership. That in itself is troubling. It shows how the American Voter has become more concerned about their rights and privileges than their duties and responsibilities. It shows how the American Voter cannot be bothered to get educated on how congress has become a follower of the President instead of the voice of the people.

Perhaps, as the GOP crashes and burns, a new party will emerge, and, like the Phoenix, will regenerate itself. I hope that will be the case. I hope we last four more years.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of HaysPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

By Marty Keenan

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach claims to be a conservative. However, his new Voter ID & Registration Law enlarges the size and scope of state government, costs the state and local units of government more money, and makes both voting and registering harder than it has ever been for United States citizens in Kansas.

The first big change in the law, which took effect January 1, 2012, is that each voter must supply a specific kind of photo ID at the ballot box. If you don’t have a valid Kansas Driver’s License, you are basically out of luck. Yes, there are other types of ID’s that work, but they basically have to be issued by the Government. Private sector worker’s photo ID badges are no good. For instance, if you work for Sprint or IBM, your photo ID is unworthy. If you work for the State of Kansas or a county or municipality, your photo ID works.

Yes, one without a government- issued photo ID can go to the state and apply for a State ID Card. If they sign a sworn affidavit saying that the only reason they are getting this card is for voting purposes, they don’t have to pay any money. Otherwise, the ID is $14.00, but $10 for the handicapped or people over 65.

Prior to this law being enacted, registered voters went through the following protocol at the polls.

1. The election officer asked them to state their name. For instance, I would say out loud in front of all of the other voters, “Martin J. Keenan.”

2. The election worker then asked me my address; I would say out loud in front of all ofthe other voters, “3600 23rd Street, Great Bend, Kansas.”

3. Finally, I was required to give my signature next to my name in the voter book.

No ID requirement was needed for voters unless you were a first time voter. If you were a first time voter, an ID was required but it was fairly inclusive. It didn’t have to be a photo ID; it could be a utility bill, bank statement, etc.

Now, keep in mind representatives of both parties already have the right to seat “poll watchers” in the room to detect any imposters.

Kansas is a rural state, and most people vote in their neighborhoods, although there are exceptions in places like Wichita, Johnson County and Topeka. Most people in Kansas know their neighbors.

In other words, when you stand up and say your name and address in front of all of your neighbors, and then give your signature in the book, if you are not who you claim you are, everyone would know. In rural areas the voter is usually known by the election workers and other voters.

This year a lot of voters in rural areas are going to say, when asked for a photo ID for the first time in their voting history, “What the heck?”

The second huge change to Kansas Law doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2013. Effective on that date, new registrants will have to prove their U.S. Citizenship to register in Kansas. In the past, you were required to sign a statement under a penalty of perjury that you were a U.S. Citizen, and that was considered enough, together with the identification mentioned earlier ——- Driver’s License, utility bills, etc. In other words, the presumption was that by signing an oath, under penalty of perjury, that you were a U.S. Citizen; that was sufficient evidence. The oath is the same obligation that witnesses in a courtroom have to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Those days are over on January 1, 2013. Under the new law you are considered an illegal alien until you prove otherwise. How do you prove otherwise? Your birth certificate is by far the best way.

There are a few other ways——–passports and so forth; but no one will be able to register after that date without a birth certificate or similar document; Social Security Cards and Kansas Driver’s Licenses don’t count as proof of U.S. Citizenship.

Kris Kobach calls our new law “the toughest in the nation.” He is correct insofar as it makes exercising your right to vote tougher and more burdensome than in any other state. Kansas is now #1 in making it difficult for people to vote and to register.

Now, why all of these changes? What reason did Mr. Kobach offer for the sweeping changes in our voting rules and regulations? Mr. Kobach suspects that lots of Mexicans are voting who shouldn’t be voting. Kansas has a Mexican population of 10.5%, and many of those Latinos are not U.S.Citizens. Kobach has people scared that illegal Mexicans have been stealing elections in Kansas. However, there is no evidence to support that claim.

In fact, anybody with “real world experience” knows that “illegal aliens” in Kansas stay as far away from Courthouses, government offices and voting booths as possible. They just want to be left alone. They don’t want to get caught up in anything government-related, and then get deported. Check the election returns in heavily-Latino Ford and Finney County. Both remain staunch bastions for Republicans.

The evidence that was presented as the rationale for this bill was laughable. Senator Steve Abrams was asked on the Senate floor how many cases of voter fraud there had been in the last five years. He replied: “I’ve been told there were seven.” Even Kobach himself admitted there had been only six dozen complaints since 1997, and few of those complaints involved non-citizens trying to vote.

In short, there is not a proven problem with voter fraud in Kansas right now. Now, if all you care about is making sure that illegal Mexicans don’t vote in Kansas, the Kobach bill does the trick. But it adds so many new rules, regulations and requirements, that fifth and sixth generation U.S. Citizens are going to be discouraged from voting or even registering to vote. It goes without saying that this burden hits traditional Democratic voters the hardest—the poor, African-Americans, young people, and so forth. (Comically, Native Americans can bring their Bureau of Indian Affairs documents to prove United States citizenship.)

No one knows how popular or unpopular a law will be until it goes into effect. I suspect that many long time Kansas voters——–especially those in rural areas——–will be taken aback by the Casablanca-style “show me your papers” attitude. In the real world, I don’t think this bill will go over nearly as well as Kobach expects with most Kansas voters, especially seniors.

I doubt election workers are excited about having to “card” their friends and neighbors. And I doubt that they are excited about asking their friends and neighbors for their birth certificates before allowing them to register. Longer lines at the polls are inevitable.

Our election laws were fine until Kris Kobach sold this “snake oil” to Kansas Legislators. Big Government, Big Brother, Big Spending, and more red tape is not the answer. “Stop Voter Fraud” fits nicely on a bumper sticker. But let’s see how Kansans respond in real life.

The Kansas Democratic Party, supposedly the “party of the people,” did not oppose this bill in any meaningful manner. Most Democrats in the legislature, including Senate Democratic leader Anthony Hensley, and House Democratic leader Rep. Paul Davis, voted FOR this bill. The party of William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and Joan Finney folded up like a cheap tent, fearful that someone might lose their reelection bids if they didn’t cowtow to Kobach. Like President Andrew Shepherd says in “The American President:” they were so busy trying to keep their jobs that they forgot to do their jobs.” But it’s still not too late for “We the People” to tell our legislators whether this new law makes sense in the “real world.”

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of HaysPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

About 25 years ago, emergency management was a simple profession. The doctrine was steadily being developed. It had been this way since 1984, the year I became exposed to the profession and participated in the development of the Federal Response Plan from a military perspective. Perhaps this steady development can be attributed to the pace of communications. Back then it was phone calls and written mail being sent between organizations and levels of government.

In 1991, when I began my civilian career in emergency management, it was possible for one person to be very knowledgeable about all aspects of the job. That’s no longer true for many reasons.

First, I’d say the advent of communications allows for the sharing of information and a technological revolution in the way that people communicate and organizations interact. The levels of government and society have come much closer together. Today, via the Internet, the world is literally at your fingertips. And so is the research that’s being done on emergency management and its allied partners.

The second contributing factor to our emergency management lives becoming complicated was the establishment of the U.S. DHS. It not only made life complicated, it also made it confusing — and the confusion still exists today. With the creation of the DHS, FEMA was assimilated into its amalgamation of departments. The 9/11 attacks caused a wholesale shift to a terrorism-focused approach to disasters. This wasn’t corrected until the Hurricane Katrina debacle after which the pendulum swung back to an all-hazards approach.

In the meantime, we wandered through the homeland security wilderness. The establishment of homeland security grants caused the entire profession to chase grant dollars and detracted from our overall disaster preparedness mission.

However, I can’t say that it’s been all bad. The grant funding required multidiscipline approaches and eventually the DHS realized that regional coalitions were a good thing to promote. The list of our partners with whom to coordinate grew exponentially. There are now closer ties to law enforcement, public health and tribal nations. Although this is better, it’s more complicated.

We have state and local agencies with names that reflect emergency management, homeland security or legacy civil defense monikers. This confusion in the profession extends to higher education and the plethora of degrees that you can obtain today. If you get a degree in homeland security, does that mean you’re a fully qualified emergency manager by training? In reality, a mishmash of degree programs mix and match emergency management and homeland security. I suppose in this era of not having a fully developed doctrine for emergency management and its relationship to homeland security, it’s OK to have a mixture of programs and approaches to educating our future workforce.

It’s no longer possible for one person to have all the knowledge and information available on the topics of emergency management and homeland security. The pace of change and new doctrine is amazing. Sometimes I wonder if we’re just reinventing the wheel with new acronyms and programs. It’s certainly been a full employment era for consultants back in Washington, D.C.

The saving grace is that now all the information we need is readily available and the only limiting factor is the number of hours in the day in which to work and productively apply the information.

 

Eric Holdeman is a contributing writer for Emergency Management magazine and is the former director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management.    E-mail: [email protected]

In Kansas, we have a strong tradition of helping our neighbors in times of trouble — of assisting those in need with a hand up, of doing what we can with what little we may have. The last few years have been financially difficult for the state of Kansas. Dramatically reduced tax revenues forced just as dramatic cuts in spending for state services.

When Gov. Sam Brownback took office last year, the state faced a $500 million budget shortfall and more difficult spending choices. But the governor refused to cut spending to the state’s Medicaid program, a crucial safety net for 385,000 mostly low-income Kansans that provides health benefits, long-term care and support. Instead, he transferred more than $200 million from the state’s highway funds to ensure no one lost his or her Medicaid benefits and health care providers didn’t have their payment rates reduced.

The costs of Medicaid continue to rise. But that’s not the only challenge the system faces. Thousands are on waiting lists for assistance and those who receive the benefits often receive uncoordinated and fragmented care that results in poor health outcomes.

As a craniofacial surgeon who takes care of Medicaid patients, I often must deliver bad and good news. The one thing I’ve learned in difficult situations is we must focus on getting the best result possible for the patient. For decades, Medicaid in Kansas has been a “one size fits all” program that didn’t always help the person get the best outcome. The results can be disastrous, especially for our most vulnerable disabled Kansans.

Life expectancy for a disabled person is at least two decades less than that for the comparable population. A University of Kansas study found Medicaid for the developmentally disabled was fragmented, poorly coordinated and did not consistently provide recommended health care, like screenings for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer. Poor access to care and lack of care coordination led to increased care costs and poor outcomes. This study demands action by policymakers.

Skyrocketing costs, growing waiting lists and fragmented care, none of these are acceptable for our most vulnerable Kansans.

That is why the governor and this administration spent the past 14 months developing a reform plan to improve health outcomes while finding cost savings. It has been one of the most transparent and highly involved planning processes in state history. Thousands of Kansans participated. The administration traveled the state conducting public meetings, conducted conference calls, hosted web chats and solicited hundreds of ideas and comments online. This feedback and the ideas provided set the framework for Kansas solutions.

Given our difficult situation, the Kansas consensus was: Don’t cut off thousands of Medicaid recipients like Missouri; don’t make double digit rate cuts to providers like California; coordinate care to focus on the best outcomes for the individual Kansans, especially for those with greatest needs, while saving money; reward positive outcomes; and provide choices and creative options for Kansans.

The Kansas Medicaid reform plan known as KanCare will reduce the number of people unnecessarily living in institutional settings, decrease re-hospitalizations and manage chronic conditions through coordinating and integrating behavioral health, medical care and long-term services and supports.

The plan also includes $500 million in incentives to provide better care for the disabled, improved outcomes and whole-person care. This will ensure those who the state partners with focus on what is best for the patient, not their bottom line. If they don’t meet the expected patient outcomes, this funding will be withheld. As detailed in the proposal, the chosen companies will be experienced in coordinating care for vulnerable populations.

Change can be difficult. That is why the Brownback administration is taking its time with these reforms. Many states have implemented rate cuts and eliminated thousands of needy recipients in less than nine months. Gov. Brownback insisted we take two years to develop and implement these reforms. Roughly 74 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries already are under some form of managed care (albeit without care coordination or outcomes incentives). To delay these reforms guarantees more costs, rate cuts or possibly cutting off needy Kansans. That does not improve the health or wellness of anyone.

We are focused on getting the best possible results for Kansans who rely on Medicaid. Kansas can and must do better for its most vulnerable citizens.

I encourage all Kansans to learn more about KanCare from the Kansas Department on Aging’s website,www.agingkansas.org. Feel free to submit any questions to [email protected].

Kansas Lt. Governor Jeff Colyer, M.D.

February 17, 2012

 

By David Norlin

“Alarming” is a word that is, well, alarming.  Used by editorial writers, politicians, and others, it gets attention, perhaps moves folks to action.  But let’s cool off, here.  As Isaiah said, “Be not dismayed.”

The latest alarm’s about providing contraception insurance for women working in religious institutions.   The Catholic Conference of Bishops and various Republican candidates/officials say it’s “an attack on religious liberty.”

Roshana Ariel, however, points out that, despite 1968 Catholic doctrine that “it’s always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings,” two years later, “two-thirds of all Catholic women and three-quarters of those under 30 were using the pill and other methods banned by the church.”   Today it’s remains clear that for years the alarmed Conference of Catholic Bishops—and other evangelical leaders—have had little effect and, like the emperor of the story, no clothes.

The nakedness of their posturing comes smack up against these women’s self-chosen best interests.   They refused to be knocked down and will choose when to be knocked up.   These women’s choices seem a near-perfect definition of “liberty” in the best American sense.   That, I imagine, is why the Bishops failed to level the canon of excommunication at them.  Politely, silently, and consistently, these women have repudiated the extremism of their religious leaders.

We know that all such leaders are not this extreme.  Few bishops, priests, pastors, or religious leaders agree with every single doctrine.  But those who adopt this alarmist hardening of right-wing ideological rhetoric need to stop.   Cool out.  “Be not dismayed.”

This seems a hard lesson for religious or political ideologists. Saturday’s religion section featured the now former priest of St. Mary’s Church in Mount Carmel, IL.   When the Pope and international hierarchy changed missal language to hew closer to the old Latin meaning (as they understand it), the Reverend Bill Rowe decided to stick to language his parishioners could understand.  Rowe was admonished, refused the order, and now, after 47 years of service, he is gone.  Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, director of Divine Worship for the Conference of Bishops, is unrepentant.  The “missal” must adhere (or be pretty close) to the Latin.

This is indisputably a misguided missal.   But bad as it is, it doesn’t touch the refusal of church fathers to offer even the opportunity for insurance to cover birth control for women employees at their schools, hospitals, and universities.   Not abortions—Birth. Control.

It would be distressing enough if such closed-ear responses were limited only to this patriarchy.  But Republican poo-bahs and even our local Journal editor have joined the cacophonous chorus, saying we should be “alarmed.”  (He has some good suggestions.   This isn’t one of them.)

When it comes to contraception, who plays the chorus organ?  And why is Mr. Bell, among others, so susceptible to its haunting strains?   It is doubly troubling that he might soon sing the same song as a spokesperson for one of the largest health-care providers in the area—with female reproductive health a large part of that picture.

The chorus of woeful cries is well documented by Ms. Ariel.  How they do whine!  They seem clueless that churches already have their own special exemption–an exemption hanging its female employees on their own personal cross.

We might admire the attractive young church secretary whose devotion to the local Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, or Catholic Church is such that she finds her mission there.  Yet if she wants control of her own body, perhaps to be of better service to said church, she is out of luck—unless she pays out of her own pocket, from a likely meager salary.

Now the President—noting that 99% of all women have used birth control at some time in their life–has offered a compromise.   Insurance companies, not church schools, colleges, or universities, will cover the cost.   In effect, this gets them off the hook from Jesus’ admonition:  ”Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”

While the cock crows, they have more than thrice denied their responsibility.  Not only that, they and the R chorus only respond shrilly, “This is an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country!”   Really?   Whose freedom?

With Christian Liberty comes Christian Responsibility, and the actions of the pious have seldom seemed so far removed from their professed faith—or from common sense.

I want to call this alarming.  But I won’t.  Like Isaiah, I won’t be dismayed.  But you birth-control alarmists:  it’s time you examined why you bought this particular mess of pottage.   And in the process, consult your wife, if you have one.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of HaysPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Our nation has a long legacy of defending an individual’s religious freedoms. James Madison, the Father of our nation’s Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, once wrote that “conscience is the most sacred of all property.” Since our nation’s earliest days, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently affirmed our First Amendment right to exercise our religious beliefs freely. But today, recent decisions by the Obama Administration are threatening Americans’ religious liberty.

This past summer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exercised its authority under the new health care reform law to require that most employee-provided health insurance plans cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. This new mandate contains a “religious employer” exemption, but the exemption is so narrow that many religiously-affiliated hospitals, educational institutions, and charities do not meet the requirements. After releasing this rule, HHS heard from hundreds of thousands of Americans who were opposed to the regulation and the narrow scope of its exemption. However, despite the concerns of so many, HHS announced last month that it would not change the mandate for non-profit religious employers, but only extend to next year the deadline for compliance.

Extending the deadline does not change what is at stake. Faith-based groups who object to this requirement on moral grounds are now being forced to choose between offering services that violate their religious beliefs or eliminating their employees’ health coverage. If faith-based groups stop offering their employees health coverage to avoid violating their faith, many Americans will lose their current health care coverage simply because that coverage does not fall within the Administration’s preferred policy parameters. Targeting religious beliefs in this manner erodes the principle of religious liberty upon which our country was founded.

Last October, I joined many of my Senate colleagues in requesting that HHS Secretary Sebelius reconsider this regulation and instead follow our nation’s tradition of respecting religious liberty. Additionally, in September I sponsored S. 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, legislation that would protect health care providers and employers from being forced to pay for products and services under the new health care law that violate their ethical values.

Our federal government should not force religious groups to betray their fundamental beliefs. Current conscience protections permit some religious groups to abstain from participating in war or working on religious holy days, and others to be exempt from the health care law’s individual mandate to purchase a certain level of health insurance as defined by the federal government. In the recently decided case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot interfere with “the internal governance of the church” in ministerial hiring decisions. Similarly, religious groups should not be forced to offer insurance plans to their employees that violate their fundamental beliefs.

The threat to religious liberty caused by this unprecedented overreach by the federal government should be of concern for all Americans – whether or not they ascribe to a particular faith. HHS’ new mandate could force religiously-affiliated organizations to close or drastically curtail services to those in need.

These organizations play a vital role in serving communities in Kansas and across our country. If this mandate stands, many non-profit hospitals, soup kitchens, family shelters, and schools in Kansas will be forced to choose between violating the law or going against their religious beliefs. These organizations will have to either pay for services they consider immoral, face an ongoing series of fines for not complying, or limit the services they provide in their communities. Individuals of all ages, beliefs, and backgrounds who depend on these institutions will have to seek care elsewhere.

What is most concerning is this: if the government can compel an individual or group to violate one’s “sacred” conscience, then there is no limit to government power. All of our cherished constitutional rights would be subject to the whims of the federal government and those in power. One group’s beliefs are being trampled today; another’s might be tomorrow.  Our nation’s constitutional rights and freedoms are essential to who we are as Americans, and our commitment to these precious rights must be protected at every turn.

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

February 8, 2012

By Richard D. Fry

We have two major federal constitutional issues in Kansas.

First, Obama Care (OC, aka PPACA) has further extended the federal government’s usurpations of authority under the ruse and pretense of regulating interstate commerce.  In 1942, the FDR packed Supreme Court   ruled that the federal government could tell a farmer he could not grow wheat on his own land to feed his own livestock or to bake bread to feed his own family.   Under Obama Care, the federal government asserts it can tell us what to buy.  None of the various lawsuits currently filed against OC address the 1942 issue at all.

Second, under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the federal government has, in the words of Sen. Graham, declared the United States a “battlefield.”  In essence, this law put the United States under martial law, which can be selectively applied to individuals even in the United States, including citizens, pursuant to the discretion of the President and his administration.  This means that a U.S. citizen within the U.S. can be detained by the military without an arrest warrant and held indefinitely without a trial or given over to a foreign government for further processing.

Only state Rep. Charlotte O’Hara, a freshman, has been speaking out since June 2011 about Governor Brownback implementing OC in Kansas. More recently another has joined the fray.  But, it’s fair to say, too little, too late, by too few.

When approached about the NDAA bill, two state Representatives said, “It’s a federal issue.”  Two others said they see no danger to U.S. citizens (apparently they have not read the law at all).  Two state Senators have indicated they don’t have time to deal with it, especially because of re-redistricting, and two have been unable to meet to discuss it in detail (at least one of whom is running for re-election).

It makes the patriot in me ask, “Where in hell are their priorities?”  Their foremost duty is to protect the life, Liberty and property interests of “We the People.”  Both OC and the NDAA are direct attacks on our Liberty.  The NDAA is a particularly egregious bill by which the federal government asserts they may deny you your Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights.

Do our duly elected Kansas officials really have something more important on their plate that this!?  If so, they should be broadcasting it live.

By John Fedele

Dear Supreme Leader,

I have been observing this planet for a few centuries now. I have seen nations and rulers come and go, have seen disasters, both man made and those by nature, and have seen how these mere mortals handle themselves in a crisis.

For the past decade, I have focused on a place called The United States of America. If this planet is to become part of the collective, it will have a lot to do with this country. But,it is amazing that such a country can exist, what with the mixture of species that make up the country. What is worse, they have a ruling system that, until a few years ago, centered on the rights of the people. The people actually believed they had the right to determine their destiny.

They are now closer to understanding what we have known for eons, the government and the rulers know what is best for the people. Soon they will be choosing a leader, a drama that seems to occur every four Earth years. They are in the midst of a primary where the most important thing is a persons past actions, not his/her ability to fix the problems of the nation (although, with the current ruling authority, they are as close to utopia as they have ever been, so I don’t see what needs fixing. What it needs is to continue on the path being pursued by the present authority). But I digress. This primary thing is to select someone to challenge the current ruler. This is where I get confused. It seems after the opposing parties dig up as much dirt as they can on each other, the voters decide which of them is less untrustworthy, and vote for that individual. That is good for the current ruler. The next part is to decide which of the two, the primary winner or the current ruler, will become the new ruler.

Since the voters know all the good and bad things about those two, mostly about the primary winner, since it appears no one can say anything bad about the current ruler (kinda like what we have). The whole race will boil down to who is against abortion, gun control, gay/lesbian marriage, and what is their religion.

As of now it looks like the current ruler has the lead. If it turns out he wins, then I think this planet is almost ready to join the collective. I will let you know.