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!

Happy Memorial Day

I've said this for years on Memorial Day, but I believe that the best way we can honor our fallen is to not make any more of them.

Snowflakes and Safe Spaces

How many times have I read the same old op-ed about these ultra-liberal campuses that are "suppressing free speech" by not allowing alt-right nationalists (i.e. Nazis) speak on their campuses? I mean, if you've read anything by Bari Weiss, Brett Stephens, Megan McCardle, et al in the last four years, I'm sure you're familiar with the general outlines of the argument:

"Look at these little snowflake college kids that are so insecure in their own opinions and beliefs that they can't stand to hear opposing viewpoints. This threatens all of our liberty!"

The argument is true to a certain degree, but I note that it is never used to engage the broader suppressions of free speech that are going on right in front of us.

Well, TableTopJoe is here to help try to even things out! I give you that manliest of manly things, that would never ever be some little snowflake who needs a safe space, the National Football League.

NFL owners have unanimously approved a new national anthem policy that requires players to stand if they are on the field during the performance but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer, it was announced Wednesday.

So, to be clear, when a private liberal arts college refuses to host a white nationalist as a speaker, this is an intolerable erosion of our freedoms because all political statements apparently have value. However, when wealthy white football team owners decide that they are going to force their (largely black) football players to either make the "preferred" political statement or no statement at all, well that is just patriotism, y'see!

A few more points:

• The NFL is a private organization and is not bound by the First Amendment.
• That the NFL is not bound by the First Amendment does not mean that it is not bound by both common decency and the preferences of its customers (i.e. fans).
• Standing for the National Anthem is every bit as much of a political statement as kneeling for the National Anthem.
• By telling players they are allowed to make one political statement (STAND) and not another (kneel), the NFL has inserted itself into a political controversy.
• The NFL has indicated that protesting the unwarranted killing of unarmed black men in their players' communities is a sanctionable offense, whereas standing for the Anthem and making THAT political statement is A-OK.

The NFL and its fans: a bunch of delicate little snowflakes that need their safe spaces. Who knew?

Spirit of the Season

As a resident of the Home of the American Dream (i.e. Speedway, IN), I can't think of anything that better invokes the month of May. On a side note, wouldn't it be something if the Town and IMS could work together to have a huge sculpture of the Borg Warner Trophy erected in the middle of the roundabout at 16th/Crawfordsville/Main St.?

Happy May everyone!

Contracts of Adhesion

So, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case today regarding mandatory arbitration clauses. Snooze......

The thing about enforcing these clauses, one after another, in supposedly "freely bargained contracts" is that such enforcement fails to account for and/or appreciate the substantial disparagement in bargaining power.

Just last year, the Supreme Court enforced a mandatory arbitration clause in a consumer contract, for telecommunications services I think. The thing about those contracts, though, is that consumers ultimately only have a limited number of choices (how many cell phone carriers are even available in Indy, maybe a half dozen?) and if the subject clauses are in every contract, it is inescapable.

What is to prevent restaurants from routinely noting on their menus (in 5-point font, to be sure) that all disputes of any kind have to be arbitrated, at the expense of the complainant, individually, and in Hong Kong? Nobody would even notice at first, because the disclaimer is so small on the menu. Then, the clause becomes standard on every restaurant menu. When restaurants have compelled you to sue them in a private venue, individually, on the other side of the world, have they not rendered you powerless to dispute anything?

In this latest case enforcing mandatory individual arbitration clauses, the Supreme Court has essentially written a blank check to employers to participate in egregious wage theft. What is to stop a McDonald's franchise from forcing its employees to sign lengthy contracts as a condition of employment that bar banding together to sue for wage theft? Once that McDonald's franchise has effectively prohibited its employees from banding together, it could then steal wages from them (via phony deductions, etc.) to the tune of more than $2,000/year; not until the franchise stole from an individual in an amount exceeding approximately $10,000 would it be financially feasible to hire an attorney for the arbitration. (Not for nothing, consider how this plays out with a doctor who makes 20X what the McDonald's employee makes. It's a lot easier to get to the point of financial viability when you make $250,000+/year as opposed to $25,000/year).

Well, I could go on and on about Justice Goosestepper Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion while sitting in his stolen seat, but I'm sure my thoughts on him and the theft of that seat from its rightful occupant, Merrick Garland, are well known.

Royal Wedding - Enough Already!

I will just say it: I do not care about what the British Royal Family does, whether that includes celebrating someone's birthday or having a wedding. I just don't give a damn. It doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form.

I notice that the news has a seemingly "mandatory" discussion of the damn royal wedding nearly every day. I can't help but contrast coverage of the royal wedding with the scant coverage of the recent Supreme Court decision striking down a law known as PASPA.

In a nutshell, PASPA is (was) the federal law that made gambling on sports illegal in every state except Nevada. Note that you can presently play slot machines at Indiana Grand but you can't place a bet on the Colts' game. I suspect that is about to change.

I also suspect that the sports book won't just stop with professional sports. How long until we have a sports book on the Butler or IU game? How about the Speedway H.S. baseball game? Ask yourself how susceptible a high school or college kid would be to a point shaving scheme?

After considering the consequences of the royal wedding and the recent Supreme Court decision, ask yourself which one will affect your life. What do you think? Do you get the feeling that your attention is being diverted?

Please Read This

I have nothing to add to this story; I simply ask that anyone who is on this blog click through to read it.

College and Costs

A reader (anonymously) pointed me to this cartoon from the Indy Star's resident editorial cartoonist, ultra right-wing Gary Varvel:

I think it is an interesting commentary on the state of higher education. A former educator myself, I believe that this notion that everyone should go to college is utterly misguided; we have bought into the Lake Wobegon fallacy: that everyone can be above average.

Perhaps I yearn for a time that never was when I say that college should be (a) hard to get into, and (b) easy to afford. Presently, it seems like it is the opposite. There is a for-profit college on every corner telling holders of GEDs who struggled to pass science classes that they can work "in the medical field." What they fail to disclose is that these for-profit colleges' graduates' role "in the medical field" is near the bottom rung . . . they will have jobs making perhaps $35,000/year, if they're lucky, while saddled with $65,000 in student loan debt.

I don't have a proper solution for this problem. My preferred solution would be that employers return to the days when they bore the load for training their own employees. You run a medical office and need someone to code your bills to submit to insurance? Find someone and train him/her. You run a factory and need a machinist? Have an apprenticeship program.

Of course, like so many things, I believe that when the public policy response to a problem is "people need to make different choices, even if those choices are against the individuals' self interest," then there is no public response to the problem. Stated another way, if the solution is "people need to act against their own self interest," then we need to find a new solution. What that solution is, I haven't figured out.

The Webs we Weave

I didn't realize that Mike Pence still resides in the governor's mansion on Meridian St.

Vice President Mike Pence is still claiming the Indiana Governor’s Residence as his home, and he used that address to vote absentee in Indiana’s primary election.

Last time we checked, the Republican moved to Washington, D.C., when he became vice president and no longer lives at the Governor’s Residence. (Unless Gov. Eric Holcomb has given him use of a spare bedroom or maybe the guest house.)

OK. If you say so Mr. Vice President. Although this is a rather interesting tidbit:

Pence chaired President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The commission, which was established to “study the registration and voting processes in federal elections”

 Huh. So, Vice President Pence, is election integrity OK now?