I truly want to know the motivation behind proposed legislation such as this:
Sen. John C. Revens Jr. (D-Dist. 31, Warwick) has introduced legislation that would extend private health insurance coverage to dependents up to the age of 25.
The legislation, (2007 – S0327), targets individuals between the ages of 19 and 25 who are financially dependent but who are not in school full time. Under current law, insurers are only required to continue coverage for this age group if they are enrolled full time in school or have chronic disabling conditions.
“Allowing insurers to stop providing coverage for individuals in this age group can be potentially devastating, medically and financially, for these people and their supporting parents,” said Senator Revens. “We all know the enormous price of supplemental health insurance coverage, which makes it impractical for most, and the other temporary catastrophic programs don’t pay for doctor visits or pharmaceuticals these 19- to 25-year-olds might need.”
Is it naive dogooderism? Is it cynical vote buying? Is it backroom backrubbing? Is it self-interest? Or is it merely a practical joke? Because it seems to me that Rhode Islanders’ representatives should be personally embarrassed and politically frightened to offer such bills.
As is a recurring theme in Rhode Island government, there appears to be an assumption that the targeted parties — in this case, insurance companies — will simply eat the additional costs resulting from legislation. They won’t. They’ll pass the cost on to payers — whether that means the taxpayers who fund RI’s lavish public sector benefits or the businesses that supply health insurance to their employees — probably by increasing family plans across the board.
Although this might be news to those who’ve lived on the public dime their whole lives, in the private sector, businesses often pass additional family-plan costs directly on to their employees. Those companies that do cover employees’ family plans will either cease to do so or find other areas of payroll/benefits in which to make up for the increased expenses. Whatever the case — and as is, again, a recurring theme in Rhode Island government — the upshot is that families struggling to get by in the leech-filled Ocean State, without public-union-bullied benefits or In Crowd largesse — will be the ones who bear the burden of ensuring that indolent young adults needn’t worry about paying full price for prescription fungicides.
In fact, the only rational basis that I can see for such a policy in Rhode Island is to create financial incentive for those young adults who are not indolent, but motivated and unable to support themselves in this state, from seeking opportunities elsewhere. But they’ll leave eventually, Sen. Revens. Why don’t we just pass legislation to encourage a healthier state economy?
ADDENDUM:
Here’s a project for folks with more time to indulge in hypotheticals than I possess: What would be the cost to RI taxpayers if a married family with three 19–25 year old children all had public-sector jobs and piled their health insurance onto one plan, taking buyouts for the other four?
Somehow, two aspects of this brief story seem related, in a cultural sense. In one respect, it’s notable that it should be newsworthy when prisoners depart unannounced from an “open prison.” In another, it’s notable that three robbers and a druggie should be declared “not dangerous” (with the caveat, of course, that “the public are advised not to approach them.”).
[Open full post]Well look what’s among the news not fit to print:
Even with spending control slipping a bit (up 6.4% in January 2007 compared to January 2006), the deficit is 57% lower through the first four months of FY07 than it was at the same time in FY06. I believe that merits a “Wow.”
There is a very real possibility that the federal budget will be in a surplus situation when President Bush hands over the keys to the White House in January 2009.
Not that liberals have to change their game plan, or anything. We all know it’s fundamentally illusionist, anyway.
[Open full post]… that Anna Nicole Smith plays such a large role in these graphs, or that the 2008 election does. Anchor Rising is finally recovering from readers’ hangover from the last election. Can’t we all take some time to learn, consider, and argue matters more substantial than Playmates and political gamesmanship?
[Open full post]Last week, advocates for “clean elections” held a rally at the Rhode Island state house. The term “clean elections” refers to a system of public financing for political campaigns, so far favored mostly by authentically idealistic liberal good-government types, intended to reduce the influence of money in politics. Ian Donnis of the Providence Phoenix proivdes a straightforward description of how the system would work…
“Clean” candidates would need to collect separate $5 donations from individuals — 50 to run as a state representative, 100 as a senator, 2500 for governor, and 1000 for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state or general treasurer — to qualify for public financing. These aspirants would have a specified amount of time in which to collect “seed money” in bigger donations, up to $100 each, ranging in total from $500 for House candidates, $1000 for Senate candidates, $90,000 for governor, and $36,000 for other general officers. Qualifying candidates would then get the following primary and general election amounts from a taxpayer-supported Clean Elections Fund: House ($8000, $12,000); Senate ($16,000, $24,000); governor ($1.5 million, $2.25 million); other general officers ($600,000, $900,000).I asked two Republican nuts-and-bolts guys (in other words, not bloggers or anything like that, but folks who actually do everything from collecting signatures to designing campaigns) what they thought of the clean elections proposal, and if they thought it would help or hurt their on-the-ground efforts. Even though they represent different wings of Rhode Island’s big-tent Republican party, their responses were strikingly similar. Here’s response #1…
Anything that doesn’t remove PAC money will be worthless, as it will allow the unions to continue to control the money. I’m not sure if this does.Response #2 was a bit more detailed…
At first this idea looks promising but in the end I am a bit skeptical.I find the last point of response #2 particularly compelling, because it coincides with something that I believe about the American political process, that the influence of money is less of a problem than is the dictatorial style in which many legislative chambers in he U.S. (including the U.S House of Representatives) are run. As such, you only need to “buy” a few politicians to take control of the legislative agenda.
The small donor $5 requirements, i.e. 2500 individuals for Governor to 50 for House Rep will strengthen two types of entities, direct mail vendors and unions. Unions can quickly and effectively get union members to directly contribute $5. There are about 50,000 public sector union employees in RI. It will be quite easy for them to work this for their advantage. Republicans will have to go the direct mail route since the GOP doesn’t have grass roots organizations with large memberships in RI.
On the side note of corruption, $12,000 for house and $24,000 for senate are good amounts for a race but the leadership of legislature can out raise and spend those amounts when needed. They will not need to participate in the clean election requirement…and it is the leadership where the corruption occurs.
But back to clean elections. You could argue, I suppose, that Republicans should stop whining and get themselves better organized, but the problem is not that simple. Union organizations are of legitimate concern to both Republicans and to those honestly concerned about the undue effects of money in politics, whatever the source, because current campaign finance laws allow huge sums of money, aggregated from union dues and funneled through PACs, to be placed under the control of a very small group of leaders. Fortunately, there’s a fair change in the law that can level the playing field — disallow unions from spending a member’s dues on political activities, unless that member first gives his or her express permission. This reform, already implemented in several states, goes by the name of paycheck protection…
Labor organizations annually dump tens of millions of dollars into state and national politics. Unfortunately, workers often have no say in how the money is to be used. While paycheck protection does not take away a union’s right to spend dues on politics, it does something almost as bad in the eyes of union officials: it requires the union to get a member’s written permission before using his or her dues for political activity.So how about this compromise for bringing together everyone concerned about the disproportionate effects that a small number of big-spenders can have on the political process: couple the “clean elections” proposal with the “paycheck protection” reform and create a comprehensive package of election reform. Advocate not just for clean elections, but for squeaky-clean elections! Any takers? [Open full post]
The first paycheck protection law was adopted by Washington state in 1992. Since then, five other states have enacted various forms of the law. The measure is based on the common sense idea that no one should be forced to support political causes against his or her will.
Look, we all have bad days as bloggers. Some are worse than others. Matt Jerzyk of RI Future clearly steps over the line today…
Today at 500pm there will be a big union rally sponsored by Council 94 AFSCME at Central Falls High School to oppose the privatization of school bus drivers expected to take place at the 600pm school board meeting….I am starkly reminded of the privatized and low-wage airport screeners who allowed hijackers onto the planes with knives and box cutters that they used to stab airline attendants and seize the planes. Put simply, you get what you pay for.The last sentence of the post is perverse. Is Mr. Jerzyk seriously arguing that September 11 would not have happened, if only airport security had been conducted by the kind of people willing to strand elementary school children on freezing cold days as a bargaining tactic? Or, if not willing to admit that abandoning the children is a bargaining tactic, then by people that are just plain incompetent? Either way, where’s the (positive) correlation between the unionization of the Central Falls bus drivers and any sort of drive to do their jobs well? There are non-union people who take pride in their work too, you know.
Really, the problem is that because of short-sighted and self-interested leadership, you often don’t get what you pay for, once a union becomes involved.
If, on the other hand, we could get Al-Qaida to organize itself under union rules, that might be a step forward. “My CBA says I only kill Jews and Christians. Now you want me to kill Shi’ites too? Take it up with my union rep…” [Open full post]
On the face of it, the concurrent efforts of Senate Majority Leader Paiva-Weed (PDF) and House Speaker Gordon Fox (PDF) to promote charitable giving by ex-pat Rhode Islanders is a good bit of pragmatic lawmaking:
The legislation would prevent the state from considering a person’s charitable donations as evidence when determining for tax purposes whether that person’s primary residence is in Rhode Island. Many accountants and tax advisors discourage part-time Rhode Island residents from giving to charities out of fear that the donation could be used as evidence against them if the state ever challenges their residency.
This is probably good for the state’s charities, but it still doesn’t get to the root-cause of the problem, now, does it? Instead of dealing with the “truth” of why so many Rhode Islanders move away, they are attempting to mitigate the effects of the “consequences.” Just more evidence that, as Thomas Sowell would say, they aren’t Thinking Beyond Stage One.
[Open full post]It occurs to me that there’s a gruesome consistency to Senator Joshua Miller‘s activities thus far. His first two acts in his first year as a public servant were:
- To promote abortion in his place of business
- To push forward legislation of symbolic opposition to further military action in Iraq.
In the first case, he supports the death of innocent unborn children in the name of “choice.” In the second case, he supports the death of innocent Iraqis in the name of ’60s-nostalgic anti-Bushism.
[Open full post]Ian Donnis posted on his Not for Nothing blog yesterday that Governor Carcieri has endorsed Giovanni Cicione to be the next RI GOP Chair. According to Donnis:
[Open full post]Cicione, a 36-year-old Barrington lawyer and GOP activist, told me this morning that he met with the governor about two weeks ago “and he’s expressed his support for me running for the chairmanship.” Cicione says as far as he knows, he’s the first candidate to officially submit his name, and he is continuing to reach out to GOP city and town committees by sending copies of his two-page bio. “I’m not sure who else is serious [about running or] who is actively pursuing something,” he said.
After meeting with Carcieri in his State House office during after-hours, “I took the conversation as direct support of my candidacy, not just that I’m running,” Cicione says.
The Republican State Committee will assemble in mid-March to formally elect the new chair. “A month is a lifetime. You never know who else might put their name in,” Cicione said in downplaying whether he is bound to become chairman. Still, barring the unforeseen, the governor’s support means that this GOP activist has a virtual lock on the post.
In part by the stark contrast to one of our newest state senators that it presents, Rev. Edward Wilson’s defense of his parish school’s lunch policy (which recently slipped across the national wires for its lunchtime behavior policy) is remarkable:
At its frenzied peak, news coverage and commentary defaulted to cultural stereotypes of ruthless Catholic educators cracking down on defenseless children. Without checking the facts, a media and a culture conditioned to respond negatively to authority took for granted as inappropriate and foolish what was ultimately found to have been misreported and misunderstood information. …
Besides the obvious concern that I and many others have about today’s media juggernaut, I cannot help but wonder where our society has found itself. Basic good behavior appears more and more replaced with rash judgments, assumptions of wrongdoing and taking pleasure in often uncharitable perceptions of one’s neighbors. Moreover, it is ironic that while many have been worshiping for some time at the altar of technology, believing that new and faster communications systems will bring us all “closer,” just the opposite often happens.
And that it is remarkable is more than a little frightening.
[Open full post]