We care about one another in South Dakota

Many people in the state of South Dakota are concerned with the health and welfare of their friends and neighbors. This concern is outwardly evidenced by posted signs, verbal admonitions, and governmental ordinances or laws. This does not imply that South Dakotans are the only people concerned with the health and welfare of their fellow human beings; of course not. However, as a resident of South Dakota, I am more familiar with local social conditions within my home state as opposed to the social concerns of people in the other forty-nine states. So while addressing this topic, take note that the observations expressed here may not pertain to other localities or other people.

The order or organization of this writing does not imply any specific priority or importance to the examples used, and the descriptions are subject to the personal interpretation of the writer. Consequently, the reader may assign priorities and disagree with the writer with all due freedom, the writer does not ask that anyone adopt his views, nor does the writer intend to coerce changes of opinion. The reader is fully responsible for any alteration of their own opinion after reading what is written here.

When visitors and residents drive South Dakota highways, they may notice posted road signs that show how concerned we are here for the health and welfare of others. Who hasn’t at least noticed a sign informing the viewer that they should buckle up? Of course, to avoid confusion, the buckle referred to is many times visually depicted by the figure of a person safely secured by a modern day vehicle seat belt.

Another frequently viewed road sign is intended to inform drivers that they are required to change driving lanes, if necessary, to give a wide berth to emergency vehicles stopped along side the road. A similar reminder not to litter can also be seen in numerous places around this state and not just along the roads and highways.

Operators of vehicles with dynamic braking systems may have noticed that South Dakotans are concerned with preserving peace and low noise levels in specified urban areas. We, apparently, believe that town and city dwellers need quiet places to be lulled to sleep by the normal sounds of tire engine noise.

We are also concerned with unlicensed weaponry. This type of item is not welcome in our schools, court houses, or shopping establishments. However, we like to have them close at hand everywhere else, just in case we are called upon to dispense a little self defensive or public protective justice. Rather than risk an inappropriate impression, let it be known that the author owns a permit to carry a concealed weapon, although the permit is now expired. The expiration of that card does not change the gun ownership or gun carrying views of the holder, however.

Smoking here is less socially popular than it once was. Smokers can still smoke, but restrictions to that form of consumption apply to more places than ever before, thanks to South Dakota law. Drinking of alcoholic beverages is also restricted, but we are more used to that, so people don’t resist it quite as much as we once did. We are also required to wear clothes in most places, although the definition of what constitutes cloths changes with the time of year, the municipality, and depending on which group is enjoying a rally in the state.

Recently, we have become concerned with cell phone use as it applies to people operating motor vehicles on public roads. Most of us seem to agree that texting with a cell phone while driving, is at least somewhat distracting enough that it may interfere with safe operation of the vehicle. We are concerned enough to be working on passing legislation that would ban the practice of texting while driving. It is not clear to this author if that also applies to reading text on a cell phone since it appears that the legislation will stop short of making it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving. Dialing a phone number apparently will be okay too, so there are some things that need to be worked out with regard to cell phone use by drivers in South Dakota.

Without trying to start any argument, it is noted here that we South Dakotans are particularly interested in the health and well being of human females. Very specifically, we are concerned about their sexual activities and their procreative activities. With regard to male human beings and the same specific activities, we are concerned not so much. The level of concern we express and relating to their activities is the same for humans of the same sex who participate or would like to participate in the activities just mentioned. Our current laws and numerous proposed laws reflect this tendency toward the concern for others.

We are also concerned with health care insurance. If you have health insurance, then that is an example of part of the greatest health care system on the planet, regardless of what it costs. If you don’t have health insurance, then it probably means that you don’t deserve it and you should go live in another country. We believe this so vehemently that we have joined in a lawsuit against the federal government that has attempted to create a system that costs less, insures more people, and has the audacity to require everyone that benefits by the health system to pay into it, if they can. Obviously, that is a good plan for a national park system or a plan to improve upon public schools, but it is government intrusion into my right to go bankrupt from medical bills that exceed my ability to pay. What we South Dakotans demand in a health care reform bill is that it keep insurance and drug companies in business and able to adequately fund Congressional campaigns.

In a February 10, 2011 letter from the U.S. Congressional Representative from South Dakota she wrote that she supports a “plan that covers people with pre-existing conditions, allows those under the age of 26 to stay on their parent's policy, and permits small businesses to pool together to purchase health insurance at a lower cost. . .” It appears as though all of those things are included in the legislation she just voted to repeal, however, that is just an example of how people who have actually read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are trying to confuse the issue with facts. In South Dakota, we care enough about you to keep you safe from having to accept affordable health care insurance provided by the federal government. We leave this sad and arduous duty of accepting government health care insurance to people like U.S. Representative Noem.

We like education. We like it cheap. We like the reading, writing, and arithmetic, but we’re not completely sure that they are necessary beyond the eighth grade. We like education best from first through the eighth grades and require by law that much public education for our children. For the time being at least, we will continue to publicly educate our children at the expense of the taxpayers through the twelfth grade. We do not require any specific level of education or evidence of measurable intelligence for voters or our elected officials.

This list of concerns for others could go on and on, but that would not serve the purpose of the writer. This writer has an agenda. There is a concern for others that is not being properly addressed in South Dakota. Some people are unaware that it is being blown over and ignored as if it were unimportant. When are we going to wake up and realize the degree to which ear bud application is continually, albeit perhaps unintentionally, abused?

Notice if you will the markings on the ear buds that you may have in your own home. If you don’t have a set, check with a neighbor, their children may have several sets. There is a left and right ear bud, usually denoted by the letters L and R. How many times have the users of ear buds, installed those buds in their ears, without observing the associated markings and, thereby, improperly inserted the L bud in their right ear and vice versa? South Dakota Representative Hal Wick, where are you? If you aren’t too busy ensuring that all South Dakotans are adequately armed, please seek out your fellow legislator, Representative Roger Hunt, from wherever he is researching more, all important, vagina legislation. Certainly, together, the two of you can draft some meaningful legislation to purge this insidious threat to the health and well being of current and future generations of innocent South Dakotans.

Commuicating with my Congressional Representative

One of the political groups that I subscribe to recently asked me to send a letter to my U.S. Congressional representation. The organization provided a form letter urging that Congress persons that voted to repeal the health care reform act, follow through with their action by rejecting the government provided health care they receive. The U.S. Congressional Representative for South Dakota, Kristi Noem, responded to my form letter with a form letter of her own. Most of the letter was comprised of an explanation as to why she was not going to reject her government provided health care. She also explained:

I support repealing the health care law and replacing it with common-sense solutions that will lower health care costs, expand access, and not break the bank. I support a replacement plan that covers people with pre-existing conditions, allows those under the age of 26 to stay on their parent's policy, permits small businesses to pool together to purchase health insurance at a lower cost, allows individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, and enacts meaningful medical liability reform.

This struck me as odd, since she just voted to repeal a law that, according to the CBS network's website, included:

Insurance Reforms:

Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.

Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.

Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26th.
Health Insurance Exchanges:

The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.

In her form letter to me, it seems as though she was saying that these were common-sense solutions that would, in her words: "lower health care costs, expand access, and not break the bank."

In my reply to her reply I asked her to please send me a list of the dollar amounts associated with each item that you expect these ideas to save. This seemed like a logical question at the time.

When I wrote my reply to her reply I had not visited the CBS website yet so I asked her if items one and two of her listed solutions in the current legislation. It also seems that item three appears to be the very basis of all existing insurance, in that each insurance company pools the premiums of its policy holders and the premiums reflect the payments required to cover the shared risks of the insured beneficiary group.

Finally, I asked her if she could describe her idea of meaningful medical liability reform? This was a sincere request and not an attempt to trip up Representative Noem. I did not vote for her in the most recent election, but she is the only representative that I have in U.S. House of Representatives, so I will work with what I have.