Healthcare Reminder

I am not aware of any "news" today about healthcare. I just want to remind my readers (both of them) of this:

A former top ranking government official had this to say about the recent repeal of Obamacare’s controversial individual mandate requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty on Tuesday: “There are many, and I am one of them, who believes that that actually will harm the pool in the exchange market because you’ll likely have individuals who are younger and healthier not participating in that market. And, consequently, that drives up the cost for other folks in that market.”

But the speaker wasn’t some Obama administration veteran lashing out at the individual mandate repeal (which was tucked into the massive tax law passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last year), a critical component of the health law. It was Trump’s own recent, former Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, a longtime Obamacare foe with a history of scorching criticism about the individual mandate.

When your health insurance bill goes up (again), remember what drives that increase. 

"Majority Rule"

Interesting Data Point #1: By this fall, four of the nine Supreme Court justices will have been appointed by presidents who entered office after having lost the popular vote.

Interesting Data Point #2: To take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats will have to win the national popular vote by 11% (55.5% to 44.5%).

Democracy: a government by the people; rule of the majority

These data points don't fit too well with the definition of democracy; it all leads to a very depressing conclusion.

Pot Holes

The thing about "every man for himself" attitudes is that sooner or later, every man is not for himself and depends on others. Case in point:

Mayor Jim Brainard's constituents have raised a common complaint this year: It's about the wretched condition of the streets provided by Carmel's poor neighbor to the south.

. . . . .

Scott Fadness can relate. The Fishers mayor regularly fields complaints about Indianapolis' crumbling roads from his constituents who venture into Marion County for work and play. 

Well, cry me a river. Do you know why I don't have any problems, whatsoever, with the state of Fishers' streets? I don't go there. I chose not to live there and work in Indy; I chose to live somewhere that I could support with my own tax money (as opposed to expecting others to support me).

I can't help but chuckle, somewhere beneath my seething surface, when I hear people from Hamilton Co. talk about all of the "freeloaders" that want to "take" from them, the "makers."

 

Work Requirements, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc.

I just saw on the news that the new "Farm Bill" that passed the U.S. House of Representatives contains a mandatory 20-hour/week work requirement for anyone who receives food stamps.

Huh.

My only experience with food stamps occurred when my first child was born and I was still in law school. I was working at the time, making approximately $15/hour. My wife, who had just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, was (understandably) not working; she had a newborn to care for. While at the hospital, a social worker visited us (as you can imagine, we were on the Healthy Indiana Plan, as spending $400/month on health insurance was not in the budget) and signed us up for food stamps; she gave us a folder with a bunch of "coupons" in it.

We tried to use them . . . once.

As it turns out, the "coupons" were only valid for specific brands and sizes, and the process of checking out at the grocery store was so arduous and embarrassing, we never used those "coupons" again. Also, as an aside, the "coupons" didn't really provide for much healthy food; to my recollection, it didn't provide for any fresh fruit or vegetables but was replete with coupons for mac n' cheese, sugary juices, etc.

Anyway, the news of this new work requirement got me "a-thinkin'" about some double standards.

First, is this work requirement ever going to apply to those who collect seasonal unemployment? I have a dear friend (self-proclaimed conservative) who works construction. He gets laid off yearly and collects unemployment every year. (I've never collected a dime of unemployment, for the record). Anyway, I wonder if he is going to have to satisfy any work requirements? Methinks probably not.

Second, as a former school teacher, I used to get "laid off" every summer; interestingly, I was never eligible for unemployment.

Why is it that construction workers, who get laid off every winter, are eligible for unemployment when they get laid off, when teachers, who get laid off every summer, aren't? Why is it that construction workers aren't required to satisfy a work requirement during the pendency of their unemployment?

It kind of puts the lie to many of the justifications for these work requirements in the first place, doesn't it?

Hypotheticals

After seeing Elon Musk's confusing "comments" about "socialism" (a concept, it appears, he does not understand all that well) I was inspired to think about the following dual hypothetical worlds.

World 1
In World 1, there are 100 inhabitants and 100,000 units of wealth. The thing is, 99,901 units of that wealth sit in the hands of one inhabitant (Group 1A), and the remaining inhabitants each have 1 unit of wealth (Group 1B). Poverty is widespread in World 1, as are the things that generally correlate with poverty: high infant mortality, starvation, dissolution of traditional family structures, low civic engagement, etc.

World 2
World 2 also has 100 inhabitants. World 2 is not nearly as wealthy as World 1 and only has 50,000 units of wealth. The wealth is not distributed equally.

The richest person in World 2 has 8,500 units of wealth (Group 2A).

The next 24 people on the scale have 1,000 units of wealth apiece (Group 2B).

The next 25 poorest inhabitants each have 500 units of wealth (Group 2C).

The poorest 50 inhabitants each have 100 units of wealth apiece (Group 2D).

Without a doubt, I'd rather be the richest person in World 1 than the richest person in World 2. However, if I was one of the other 99 people in either world, I'd prefer to live in World 2. No doubt, World 1 has a higher GDP and a higher "average" level of wealth than World 2. Even if I was in the poorest group in World 2, though, I would be 100X better off than being in the poor group in World 1.

The relevant question, I think, is that if you had no idea which group you would spend your life in in each world, would you rather be born into World 1 or World 2? Which one gives you the best odds of happiness? Doesn't the answer to that question touch on the notion of fundamental justice, at least in part?

"There's More Than Corn in Indiana"

Not to go on a rant, but the last three times I have been in the local Kroger, there has been no corn on the cob available for purchase. I mean, they have shrimp, salmon, and California wine, but they can't keep corn on the cob, in Indiana, in June, in stock?

C'mon, man! Anyone wonder why people shop elsewhere?

Speedway Super Center: Horrible Design = Horrible Traffic

Anyone who lives in Speedway knows that the Speedway Super Center (home of Kroger et al) seems to be custom designed to simultaneously waste space and create traffic jams. As I've noted before, I live in the Meadowood Park area, and the access point to this shopping center (Parkwood Dr.) probably could not be designed worse even if you tried.

Of course, I (quite clearly) do not own this property, nor am I an elected official, so my input on what happens there is minimal (if it exists at all). Nonetheless I recognize that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission will sooner or later have to tackle this property and, as such, I have a few suggestions.

First, let's recognize that the Speedway Super Center will not ever look like Main Street. It was originally built in a different era, for different needs. Main Street was designed to be just that: a main street, where commercial activity could be centrally located for those who lived in the immediate vicinity. The Speedway Super Center, on the other hand, was designed to be a shopping center to which people would drive from many miles. If you ask me what the best-case scenario of the Speedway Super Center is, post-redevelopment, I would point to Clay Terrace in Carmel or Metropolis in Plainfield.

These endpoint goals are for another day, though, because I just want to discuss traffic. Here is an aerial view of the area I'm referencing:

Aerial view of Speedway Super Center. 25th Street, more or less, runs  across the top; Lynhurst is on the right, and you can't see H.S. Rd. on the left.

A few things about this design stick out to me:

1. The parking design is really terrible.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Notice that this is essentially the main artery going East/West through the north end of this shopping center. It is important for traffic to move freely through there, yet it is designed to require pedestrians to cross the artery.

Another view of the same general area:

This is a bit further down. Note that one can't get to the nearest grocery store without driving along this route; again, it's not thoughtfully designed.

It doesn't have to be this way. Some thoughtful redesign of this parking/traversing area would vastly improve the experience there.

Below is a picture of one random portion of Clay Terrace:

Note that there is parking along the building, and the degree to which that seems to change the character of both the walkways and the driving lanes.

The "traffic" through the mall is less obstructed, parking is easier, and the walkways are friendlier. In fact, we have already deployed this tactic in Speedway:

So, my point as to the parking and the layout of the Speedway Super Center is that the buildings themselves don't need to be rebuilt. I am agnostic as to their condition, but I believe that their location lends itself just fine to some redesign that would make the area considerably nicer.

2. The streets are poorly designed.

The thoroughfares of the area should cross at different points. Again, here is an aerial view of what I'm talking about.

You can see that I've superimposed on the area where the major intersections are. I think that the middle one, especially, needs work.

Imagine for a moment if the traffic flowed through the area like this:

You can see, in orange, where I've superimposed a roundabout within the existing area. The part of Parkwood Dr. that goes through the shopping center would be transformed by a roundabout, further south. This would enable more of the curbside parking discussed in point #1 above, and would render this thruway considerably more pedestrian friendly.

3. Green Space Helps

I note that nearly every place in the world worth being has something growing there; perhaps the plants and trees know something we don't. Anyway, given that the parking lots there are, quite literally, never full, wouldn't it be worth it to put some green space in there? Some place where the citizens of Speedway could enjoy a cup of coffee and a book, or perhaps simply read the newspaper or have lunch? Green space makes everywhere better,even the Speedway Super Center.

So there it is; three things that could be done on the "reasonably" cheap that would make a world of difference for the Speedway Super Center. I have heard that the property owner is a pretty good corporate citizen; I see that they've dumped a bunch of money into the eastern portion of this development.

Here's to hoping for the best!