[ OUR OPINION ]
NO ONE would dispute the worthiness of a system that provides health insurance for all Hawaii residents, but repealing the law that for three decades has successfully delivered coverage to a majority of people should be held off. Lawmakers should first determine if adjustments to the law will accomplish the goal. Moreover, questions about how well the state would run a health-care system need to be discussed. Health-insurance bill
throws out the baby
with the bath water
THE ISSUE A proposal to overhaul health insurance in Hawaii would eliminate a current law.
House Health Committee chairman Dennis Arakaki, who proposed the bill, wants to find a way to help the estimated 10 percent of Hawaii residents who, despite the law, have no health-insurance coverage, while easing the financial burden on employers.
Hawaii's Prepaid Health Care Act of 1974 was landmark legislation, requiring employers to provide and help pay for health insurance for certain workers. The law limits employees' share of premiums to no more than 1.5 percent of their pay, which was adequate at the time. Over the years, however, increases in premiums have outpaced the wage levels, leaving some employers to foot about 90 percent of the cost.
Because the law doesn't require coverage for those who work fewer than 20 hours a week, many businesses -- seeking to cut expenses -- hire people to work part time. Retirees and the unemployed also may go without health insurance.
The plan for so-called universal health insurance would eliminate the law and set up a system in which all public and private health insurance would be rolled into a state-run program to cover everyone. The state would collect payments from private plans, public-employee programs, some workers-compensation and auto-insurance programs and Medicaid.
Arakaki acknowledges that employees likely will have to pay more for insurance under his plan. Further, costs to employers, who have complained for years about the encumbrance, may not decrease significantly. However, the plan's biggest barrier may be the reluctance to consign health-care administration to a government bureaucracy.
Rather than throwing out the law, legislators should consider retooling it to balance the costs between workers and employers. A payment formula for part-timers could provide them with coverage.
The cost of health care continues to escalate and Arakaki's proposal, flawed as it may be, does illuminate the need to find solutions. He places a vital issue on the agenda of the state Legislature.
BACK TO TOP |
A sliver of light would shine on Hawaii's highly secretive system of dealing with lawyers accused of unethical conduct under a proposal being considered by the state Supreme Court. The change would create a modicum of public trust in the legal profession's disciplinary system, but the system should be much more open than proposed. Let public see all cases
of lawyer misconduct
THE ISSUE The state judiciary is considering a rule change to disclose some complaints against lawyers for unethical conduct.
As the Star-Bulletin's Rob Perez reported nearly a year ago, the judiciaries in 37 states are more open than Hawaii's about complaints filed with their disciplinary systems. In Oregon, which has the most open system, all complaints about lawyers' ethical conduct are open to the public immediately upon being filed.
The proposal before the Hawaii judiciary would make some disciplinary proceedings public 90 days after the accused attorney is served a formal complaint. Those cases now become public only after the lawyer has been sanctioned. Nearly two-thirds of the complaints -- those involving misconduct deemed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to be minor, punishable by a mere reprimand -- would remain secret, even after they are completed. Of course, any person who makes such a complaint regards it as serious.
Carole Richelieu, the office's chief counsel, says the delay in disclosing major complaints is intended to allow them to be reduced to minor ones -- and be kept secret -- or to give the accused lawyer an opportunity to avoid disciplinary action by resigning. Most lawyers who are guilty of unethical conduct prefer to resign than be disbarred by the Supreme Court, which determines the ultimate penalty, she says.
Withholding information about a complaint immediately after it's filed may be justified to shield an attorney from publicity caused by frivolous accusations by bitter clients. Once a complaint is considered worthy of a formal complaint by the judiciary, it should be made public, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense.
Keeping "minor" complaints secret would be comparable to closing court doors and records on misdemeanor proceedings while opening them only for felony trials. The public and prospective clients should be informed that a lawyer's wrists were slapped for a particular reason -- one that might recur repeatedly but not be cited by clients unaware of ethical rules.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4748; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
