As the election draws closer, the “Vote ‘No’ on Issue 2” ad campaign appears to have gained momentum. I’ve watched and read countless Issue 2 ads, but with health care reform up for amendment, it’s a wonder that that is not the issue receiving the most press. I’m not sure if health care has become a tired debate, if Ohioans are already set in their decision as to whether or not to support reform, or both. But, I think it’s interesting that as far as print and TV, Issue 2 has dominated the space and the air. Perhaps because of that, it has been the issue peaking public interest. Even John Glenn has taken sides, using his celebrity to rally support for the opposition of Senate Bill 5. It would seem that what Ohioans are most passionate about (at least from what I’ve seen) is the bill in question.
It’s clear that the side wishing to vote no on Issue 2 has a lot of support behind it. State employees are (understandably) among those planning on voting no. But I’m wondering whether union members and other supporters have considered the unnecessary burden they would put on taxpayers, if the bill is in fact rejected?
I can see why government employees are so fired up about this bill; it would make their jobs much less cushy. However, I feel that, what’s being proposed only levels the playing field between private sector employees and those employed by the government. With the passage of Senate Bill 5, government employees will receive pay raises based on job performance, contribute 10 percent towards their retirement plan (the rest being provided by the taxpayer) and be required to pay 15 percent of their health insurance coverage. What’s missing? Special privileges.
This bill would put the power back in the hands of the taxpayer. We would no longer be forced to pick up the tab for excessive government employment contracts and benefit from the increased standards of our schools, and our government (layoffs based on seniority will no longer be practiced, and only those performing well will receive heightened compensation for doing so). I can’t imagine that anyone achieving success at work would oppose reward based upon accountability.
The same thought process can be applied to Issue 3. If we believe that, as taxpayers, we should have more control over the quality of our government service, why should we not demand the same control and quality of our health insurance?
By allowing taxpayers the opportunity to shop around for health insurance and care, it ensures that the coverage chosen will be the coverage best for them. And a little competition wouldn’t hurt either.