The “public option”…

… aka, “someone else pays.”

I found this article disturbing:

Democratic lawmakers pushing ‘public option’ amid ObamaCare woes

What disturbs me is this specific paragraph:

Dr. Henry Aaron, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, says the government should focus on regulatory changes, noting the Republican Congress opposes any public option plans. Aaron said he supports state insurance commissioners requiring insurance companies to sell all their individual plans on the ObamaCare exchanges to broaden the insurance pool, and ending special enrollment periods allowing customers to sign up for insurance once they find out they need health care. (Emphasis mine)

What Dr. Aaron is proposing is to allow people to sign up for health care insurance only once they need health care. Apparently, he doesn’t understand the concept of “insurance”. Is it right (or even possible) to buy insurance after you’ve wrecked the car? After the garage burns down? After the flood wipes out your home? Riddle me this, Batman: how in the world would an insurance company stay in business under such conditions?

Oh, that’s right – just bill the responsible, productive people who are foolish enough to maintain their insurance even when they don’t need it. Guess that’s what I get for being a productive member of society…

Pension mismanagement = taxpayer bailout?

Here’s an idea for a piece of legislation (Miner’s Protection Act) backed by the UMWA: The government should guarantee a private union pension fund when bad policy and management of the fund leaves it insolvent.

It’s a sad story of coal minors being deprived of their rightful pensions, the position that the U.S. Government has guaranteed these pensions (they haven’t), and a claim that the required pension support (~$500,000,000 per year) will not cost the taxpayer a dime (Hah!). Unfortunately, it’s not the whole story. Some very enlightening details are provided by a background piece from the Heritage Foundation.

You should read BOTH of these articles before you formulate a position on this legislation. Then you should call your legislators and demand they stop the madness of the Miner’s Protection Act.

Zika funding

If you listen to the Democrats on Capital Hill, the story line is that the Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood via the Zika funding bill. However, while this is what they would have you believe, it turns out not to be quite that simple. Here’s how it is stated in a Washington Examiner article:

Democratic lawmakers have refused to back the legislation because it strips more than half a billion dollars from a defunct Obamacare fund as well as more than $200 million from other unspent federal funds. Democrats also oppose the bill because the funding would not be distributed to clinics in Puerto Rico that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood, a women’s health care and abortion provider.

First, I’m OK with repurposing money from defunct funds and unspent federal allocations. If not re-used  for a legitimate expense, such as this Zika issue, these funds might be used for some politician’s pet project. I can only assume that the Democrats had some other need for that money, but it’s not theirs alone to spend. There are reasons why Congress holds the purse strings, and one of them is to prevent unauthorized spending of such “unused” funds.

Second, according to these Forbes and National Review articles there is no language in this bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Instead it boils down to how Medicaid works in Puerto Rico, which prevents Planned Parenthood – in Puerto Rico only – from being paid via federal block grant funds used for the Zika bill. However, other federally-funded family planning centers in Puerto Rico (such as Preven, which Forbes asserts has a much larger presence in Puerto Rico than does Planned Parenthood), as well as Planned Parenthood operations all 50 states, would be eligible to receive funds.

Third, the funding for Planned Parenthood in Puerto Rico that the Democrats want added to the Zika bill amounts to $250M – almost a quarter of the total $1.1B allocated for the entire bill, and almost as much as is allocated for the National Institute of Health to develop a Zika virus. This amounts to funding far beyond that necessary for Zika protection, and is really an end-run by Democrats to fully-fund Planned Parenthood in Puerto Rico by holding the Zika bill hostage.

Finally, even the left-leaning Politifacts site points out that Democrat claims of Planned Parenthood “defunding” leave out important details:

The legislation would have blocked the flow of money to one organization, Profamilias, the Planned Parenthood chapter in Puerto Rico. … However, the bill also provided funds that would potentially help clinics and hospitals in nearly every municipality on the island.

In summary, the Zika bill proposed by Republicans does not defund Planned Parenthood. Due to the way funding from Social Services Block Grant programs are allocated in Puerto Rico (and only in Puerto Rico), the Planned Parenthood organization there is not eligible to receive Zika-related funds. However, larger family planning health providers exist in Puerto Rico and these organizations are eligible for Zika-related funds. In addition, the $250M in Planned Parenthood funding for Puerto Rico demanded by the Democrats goes far beyond Zika-related efforts, and should be considered through a separate appropriations measure. The Zika bill proposed by the Republicans rightfully concentrates on funding Zika-related work via existing federal channels, not re-writing the federal rules for medicaid in Puerto Rico or funding individual organizations.

A “special reason” for gun control

The National Constitution Center operates an interactive constitution that provides for general and specific discussions of the constitution, as well as external viewpoints on some topics (well worth a look). While reviewing the section on the 2nd amendment, I found a viewpoint opposite to my own with respect to the right to bear arms in public. The opposing viewpoint was written by Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law. It seems to me that he is arguing that one should be required to have a “special reason” – beyond simply a right to self defense – to carry a firearm in public. Here is a sample of his argument:

“Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited.” [bold emphasis mine]

Yes, Professor Winkler – a parade can be required to have a permit. However, a “special reason” to have the parade is not a requirement for receiving the permit. The parade organizer does not have to prove that his message is worthy or needs promulgating to obtain a permit, nor can it be denied because the permit issuer doesn’t think the parade is necessary or its topic appropriate.

Also, while police do have broader powers to search pedestrians in public they still must have probable cause. A person does not need a “special reason” to exercise their right to be in the public space, and the lack of such a “special reason” does not in and of itself provide probable cause.

I understand Professor Winkler’s concerns, but I must disagree. The right to self defense is a sufficient reason for law-abiding citizens to be able to use arms suitable for that purpose. They should not have to prove any other “special reason” to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

This is a really good argument….

… for eliminating the automatic citizen status conferred as a result of birth on U.S. soil.

NJ hospital courts Russians for ‘birth tourism’

Note, too, that these are only the ones who can afford to make advance plans. Those that can’t come anyway (from anywhere), safe in the knowledge that the hospital must admit them, too.