It's truly amazing just how quickly even the most incompetent politicians can act when it suits them, or when there's money to be made in doing so.
I wrote a few weeks back about Proposal 1, and how the state House and Senate completely failed at doing their jobs, and as such, decided to try and force Michigan voters to pull the trigger on a gun aimed at their own heads with an absolute disaster of a ballot proposal. But this week, the Senate approved a bill that would put a cap on benefits paid to auto accident victims, gives insurers far more power to determine what the cost and level of care should be for them, and does so without any promise of a long-term decrease in your premium. And an appropriation for a research grant included in this also ensures that this bill can never come up for repeal or challenge at the polls.
Let that sink in for a moment: the same state legislature that can't fix the roads without passing it off on the voters, can agree on a bill to take away benefits from accident victims and will never allow voters to challenge or repeal it.
I'm overwhelmed by the irony.
As one might imagine, those who actually have to deal with the consequences of this legislation are rather opposed to it. They point out that a new fund, staffed by gubernatorial appointees, would be created to deal with new cases, though the term "fund" is used loosely, because that particular apparatus doesn't appear to be funded by anything, yet would somehow pick up costs for said cases, which would now be capped at $545,000 in lifetime benefits. And with the provisions in this bill that would set caps on how much family members can be paid as caregivers, fewer people will be able to afford to stay at home and take care of their loved ones on a full-time basis, instead forced to leave them at home alone to work elsewhere, or leave them in more expensive facilities, as they struggle to make ends meet.
And for all of that, what are we getting out of this? A break of $8.33 a month over the next two years. And that's it. No assurance of lower rates beyond that, as a proposed amendment that would have guaranteed a set percentage decrease was rejected by the Senate insurance committee, whose chairman, Joe Hune, the sponsor of this bill, has received over $108,000 to date in campaign contributions from insurance companies.
Got to save money somewhere to pay for all those politicians, I suppose.
For all the screaming about how the MCCA is responsible for the ridiculous premiums paid in this state, consider this: On average, Michigan's rates are more than double the national average. More than $1000 above that average, in fact. (And an additional $1000 above that if you live in Wayne County.) The MCCA is funded by a $186 per year charge per vehicle included in your insurance premium. If the numbers the Freep reports are accurate, then what explains the other $800-900 charged above the national average here, and how is changing the catastrophic care fund doing much of anything to lower rates? And mind you, this doesn't change how the MCCA is funded, only how it's spent. (Of course, if you're that worried about that, there's a easy solution: make it part of your license plate registration. Not only are you then collecting from those who drive uninsured, but you're also lowering the cost for everyone else by spreading it out among the million or so drivers who do so.)
Once again, we're expected to believe that if this goes through, that insurance companies, an industry well known for their compassion and generosity, will lower our rates, when there is absolutely no evidence, to back up that assertion. In fact, the executive director of the Insurance Institute of Michigan admits that rates won't drop significantly, if at all, if this bill passes. Sure, there's the two year price freeze, but that only ensures they have to wait two years before raising rates again. But we're supposed to buy into this theory, perpetuated by the Tea Partiers of the world that scream about free markets and less government, that insurers will willingly lower their profit margins out of the goodness of their hearts. Because setting caps on in-home care costs is letting the free market work, right? Or does that 'free market' only apply to whoever's contributing to your re-election campaign?
Failing that, they'll insist that it's fraud jacking up your rates, as though the 14,000 cases ongoing in this state that qualify under the MCCA are all just a bunch of scam artists, mooching off the system. Keep in mind: to even have reached the point where the MCCA is paying anybody, there has to have been $530,000 in medical bills. Suffice it to say, nobody racks up half a million dollars in medical bills just scamming the system, but that's the compassion of your insurance company for you. And for every legitimate case of healthcare providers bilking the system, there are as many, if not more, cases where the insurers try and deny valid claims. Do what you need to in order to prevent insurance fraud, sure, but the insurers need to be held to the same standard.
Never mind that there's several billion dollars in surplus in the fund (to the point where one lawmaker proposed raiding it to pay for the roads), clearly the MCCA is a broken system and needs to be phased out, to hear it's detractors tell it. If that's the case, then the books need to be made public, because there's no way the system should be broken with that kind of (alleged) surplus money. Of course, the insurance companies have no obligation to make theirs public either, and that needs to change. And if that is the case, there needs to be some assurance in the law that this fund won't be raided for other purposes; no doubt it's killing our legislature to have money sitting around they can't spend away.
Clearly there's things that need fixing under the current no-fault system in Michigan, and it might even be possible to lower insurance rates without eliminating no-fault. But this atrocity of a bill does nothing to solve any of them, and only serves to harm those who need the medical care the most, while lining the pockets of insurance companies in the process.
It's clear to see where Lansing's priorities are. And they should be absolutely ashamed.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Wings Vs. Lightning Last-Minute Series Preview
This is the matchup no Red Wings fan wanted to see this year.
Before the last week or two of the regular season, at which point even making it into the playoffs was in doubt, the one thing most could agree on was that Tampa Bay was the last team anybody wanted to face in the first round.
That hasn't exactly changed, but that's what happens when your team just stops trying in March and April.
And as such, the Wings find themselves going up against the highest scoring offense in the league in the first round. Steve Stamkos leads the team in scoring by a pretty wide margin, but he's hardly the only major scoring threat on this team; Tyler Johnson has proven to be a revelation as well, and the Lightning are a fairly well-balanced offensive team, in that all of their top 6 forwards are fairly dangerous. The same can be said of Detroit's top 6, if not more so; no one player really has dominated the scoring as Stamkos has for Tampa, but the total scoring output of their top 6 falls short of the Lightning's by about 20 goals, while each team's top 6 were responsible for about 59% of each team's overall scoring. Tampa definitely has the edge on the penalty kill, as the Wings took a good 30 more penalties on the season, so the success rate there, 3% greater for the Bolts, doesn't mean much. But Detroit led the league in power play goals with 70, and it wasn't even close; Tampa, by comparison, had 53, good for 7th in the league.
The fact that the Wings may actually have a better defense than Tampa doesn't so much indicate anything particularly good about the Wings' D-men, than emphasize just what a patched-together mess Tampa's has been. Anton Stralman is the only defenseman who has played every game for the Lightning this season. Braydon Coburn only played four games after being acquired from Philly due to a foot injury, and wasn't even expected to make this series until earlier today. Jason Garrison is still out with an upper body injury, and he's the only other defenseman with 60 or more games to his credit this season. And for the Wings, the addition of Marek Zidlicky at the deadline and Alexey Marchenko being slotted into the lineup over the oft-careless play of Brendan Smith provide solid right-handed shots on a defensive core that otherwise lacks them.
It's hard to argue against giving Petr Mrazek the start in Game 1: he's been the superior goalie for much of the year, and it's better to have him start and Howard start later if Mrazek should falter down the stretch, than to start Howard, have him tank, and be potentially forced to put the pressure of coming in down 0-2 in the series on the shoulders of a guy without a single playoff start to his name. Tampa's Ben Bishop has as much playoff experience as Mrazek, but doesn't have an all-star backup waiting in the wings, though Andrei Vasilevsky is a solid goaltender in his own right. There's something to be said for having a veteran who can come in and put out the fire should your starter falter, there's also something to be said for having a starter who's not constantly under a microscope.
I want to believe in this team. I really do.
But there just isn't a particularly compelling reason to do so, unless Detroit can stay disciplined, stay out of the box, and play some capable defense. This isn't a particularly high-flying offense when at even-strength, and it remains to be seen whether the goaltending will be able to steal a game or two, which the Wings desperately need them to do. There's just too much that has to go right for the Wings to overcome Tampa's powerful offense.
Prediction: Lightning in 7.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Proposal 1: When The Best Lansing Can Do Simply Isn't Good Enough
Once again, Lansing is hard at work making voters do their work for them.
So, having completely failed at their jobs at the Capitol, the state legislature and Rick Snyder have decided to make taxpayers make the decision to screw themselves over with the upcoming vote on Proposal 1, which would raise the state sales tax to 7%, raise fuel taxes, raise registration fees, and add a surcharge on electric and hybrid vehicles, all to raise $1.2 billion supposedly for the roads, and an additional $700 million for things that have absolutely nothing to do with roads.
That's politics for you in this state. They can't even fix the roads without nearly doubling the cost with added non-related pork.
Among that, the revenue being lost for schools and cities by removing the sales tax from fuel will be added back by double with the increase to 7%. In addition, this would also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. All worthy enough causes in their own right, depending on whom you ask, but why do they need to be tacked on to this bill? From all the polling done thus far, it seems that, at the very least, more voters would be open to a clean road bill, free of the additional pork, than this current atrocity, which stands at about a 60% disapproval rating.
In addition to the increased sales tax, fuel tax, and registration fees (the latter of which could result in registration fees no longer being deductible on your federal taxes, a finding from a rather interesting study done on this proposal for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce), the state would tack on an additional $75-100 for electric vehicles, which makes sense; punishing people for making a more environmentally-friendly vehicle choice, just to make sure that no matter whether you're getting hosed at the pump, the state will get more money out of you one way or another.
And one thing all of this fails to mention: none of this money will be going to fix the roads for at least the next two years. Until then, the money raised from these tax hikes is going to pay down road debt. Not that continuing to kick that can down the road is the most fiscally responsible method either, but if the roads are as deadly as the Yes on 1 ads claim, then why let them continue to rot for at least two more years? Especially since the school fund and other non-road recipients of this new revenue will get theirs right away.
It's not even as though there's no money to spend on the roads currently. Between the $50 million in film subsidies, the boondoggle that is the new Red Wings' arena (which I've written about prior), and the business tax cuts that Gov. Snyder placed into effect, there's several hundred million right there. And how is there so little money to fund the schools that the sales tax needs to be increased to cover that? Isn't that the point of the state lottery money? And of course, there's no guarantee that the money supposedly going to the schools is even for K-12; Snyder wants to give additional funds to community colleges and trade schools, which might not even be constitutionally legal, according to the study I mentioned above. And what about the current fuel tax? Where is that money going, exactly? This is the kind of lack of accountability that makes voters reluctant to approve a bill that would take more of their money when they don't know how their existing money is being spent.
Very few are even arguing that this is a particularly good plan, or even a marginally adequate plan at all. The prevailing opinion of the "Yes on 1" camp, as articulated through their latest campaign ad, is this: Look, we all know the legislature isn't gonna do any better than this, because state politics is broken and our lawmakers are petulant children. So, you better vote for this, or they're just going to go argue for another two or three years and throw this same bill back at you again.
Which should be their issue to fix, not ours.
Why should Michigan taxpayers and drivers have to suffer because the legislature flat-out refuses to do its job and pass a clean roads bill? Isn't that what you're being paid to do, instead of passing the buck off on the voters so you can blame this on them, absolving yourselves of responsibility because you refuse to make an attempt to do better?
If anything, voting yes on this abomination sends the wrong message to Lansing: it doesn't matter how incompetent you are, we'll bail you out and give you even more money for the privilege of your incompetency.
Which should come as no surprise from the same clown show that voted to buy itself a new $51 million office building on our dime because it had a better view of the Capitol.
Makes one think the idea of a part-time legislature might not be such a bad one after all.
So, having completely failed at their jobs at the Capitol, the state legislature and Rick Snyder have decided to make taxpayers make the decision to screw themselves over with the upcoming vote on Proposal 1, which would raise the state sales tax to 7%, raise fuel taxes, raise registration fees, and add a surcharge on electric and hybrid vehicles, all to raise $1.2 billion supposedly for the roads, and an additional $700 million for things that have absolutely nothing to do with roads.
That's politics for you in this state. They can't even fix the roads without nearly doubling the cost with added non-related pork.
Among that, the revenue being lost for schools and cities by removing the sales tax from fuel will be added back by double with the increase to 7%. In addition, this would also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. All worthy enough causes in their own right, depending on whom you ask, but why do they need to be tacked on to this bill? From all the polling done thus far, it seems that, at the very least, more voters would be open to a clean road bill, free of the additional pork, than this current atrocity, which stands at about a 60% disapproval rating.
In addition to the increased sales tax, fuel tax, and registration fees (the latter of which could result in registration fees no longer being deductible on your federal taxes, a finding from a rather interesting study done on this proposal for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce), the state would tack on an additional $75-100 for electric vehicles, which makes sense; punishing people for making a more environmentally-friendly vehicle choice, just to make sure that no matter whether you're getting hosed at the pump, the state will get more money out of you one way or another.
And one thing all of this fails to mention: none of this money will be going to fix the roads for at least the next two years. Until then, the money raised from these tax hikes is going to pay down road debt. Not that continuing to kick that can down the road is the most fiscally responsible method either, but if the roads are as deadly as the Yes on 1 ads claim, then why let them continue to rot for at least two more years? Especially since the school fund and other non-road recipients of this new revenue will get theirs right away.
It's not even as though there's no money to spend on the roads currently. Between the $50 million in film subsidies, the boondoggle that is the new Red Wings' arena (which I've written about prior), and the business tax cuts that Gov. Snyder placed into effect, there's several hundred million right there. And how is there so little money to fund the schools that the sales tax needs to be increased to cover that? Isn't that the point of the state lottery money? And of course, there's no guarantee that the money supposedly going to the schools is even for K-12; Snyder wants to give additional funds to community colleges and trade schools, which might not even be constitutionally legal, according to the study I mentioned above. And what about the current fuel tax? Where is that money going, exactly? This is the kind of lack of accountability that makes voters reluctant to approve a bill that would take more of their money when they don't know how their existing money is being spent.
Very few are even arguing that this is a particularly good plan, or even a marginally adequate plan at all. The prevailing opinion of the "Yes on 1" camp, as articulated through their latest campaign ad, is this: Look, we all know the legislature isn't gonna do any better than this, because state politics is broken and our lawmakers are petulant children. So, you better vote for this, or they're just going to go argue for another two or three years and throw this same bill back at you again.
Which should be their issue to fix, not ours.
Why should Michigan taxpayers and drivers have to suffer because the legislature flat-out refuses to do its job and pass a clean roads bill? Isn't that what you're being paid to do, instead of passing the buck off on the voters so you can blame this on them, absolving yourselves of responsibility because you refuse to make an attempt to do better?
If anything, voting yes on this abomination sends the wrong message to Lansing: it doesn't matter how incompetent you are, we'll bail you out and give you even more money for the privilege of your incompetency.
Which should come as no surprise from the same clown show that voted to buy itself a new $51 million office building on our dime because it had a better view of the Capitol.
Makes one think the idea of a part-time legislature might not be such a bad one after all.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Indiana's RFRA, And Bigotry By Any Other Name...
(So, I know I've been rather lazy in updating this site over the last several months or so. That's finally about to change. And the next few articles to be posted here will probably come out of left field to all two of you used to me venting about the idiocy of our local sports teams. But I never exactly claimed this to be solely a sports blog, and honestly, I'm up in arms these days far more about issues like this than over who's going to round out the Tigers' bullpen or how many games it'll take the Wings to lose to Tampa in the first round of playoffs.)
Regardless of the intent, this can't be allowed to stand.
Within the last week, much controversy has swirled around Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and the law he signed into effect this week, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The stated goal is, as one would expect, to guarantee that nobody's religious rights are being trampled on. You'd think the constitutional amendment that guarantees such would be enough, but I digress. There's an entirely logical case to be made for such a law, however, much as there was for the one signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. This particular law, however, also allows for-profit businesses to deny service to customers if it infringes on the businesses' religious rights. And as such, the language of the law has been interpreted in such a way that for-profit businesses could potentially refuse service to gays and lesbians (the fact that Pence was seen signing the bill surrounded by anti-gay lobbyists, including the president of the Indiana chapter of the American Family Association, would indicate as much), and that has started a massive backlash against Indiana, with corporations threatening to take their business from the state, as they feel it reflects badly on the state, and gives the appearance that all are not welcome there.
So naturally, Pence is backpedaling like any reasonable person would after having been so publicly rebuked from nearly every corner, and insisting a resolution be passed that would amend the law to specifically exclude LGBT's from said discrimination, which would make the legislation entirely palatable to most of it's opponents while still the accomplishing the stated objective of said law. But that, of course, has set off a firestorm of it's own from the people who specifically support the right to deny gays service. And let me tell you, these people make some compelling arguments in favor of this law. These were the most popular ones taken from a Fox News Facebook page:
-So, can I sue a Muslim caterer when they refuse to cook pork for my functions? This seems to be the most recurring argument, one which religious conservatives seem to find most clever. This is because they apparently have no reading comprehension whatsoever. There is a major difference between demanding a business to offer you a service they don't offer to anybody else (i.e., the Muslim wouldn't cook pork for anybody across the board) and asking a business to provide the same service they provide to others (i.e., a catering company that will only cater heterosexual weddings). It baffles me how people fail to see the difference between these two things.
-Why is is that the rights of gays outweigh the rights of people of faith? Because gays aren't arguing that they should be allowed to exclude anybody from a place of business over their faith. It's really that simple. They've got as much of a right to not be excluded from society as you do, and as the religion that screams the loudest in this country about not constantly being front and center in the public square, I'd think you'd have a little sympathy. Sorry that you'd just like gay people to go back in the closet and pretend not to exist, but that just isn't how it works anymore. Besides, we all know that completely suppressing your sexual urges works every time. (Right, Catholicism?)
-How about the rights of those who like to have sex with animals in restaurants, they have rights too? The 'slippery slope' argument that somehow gay marriage will lead to bestiality and pedophilia is quite possibly the biggest strawman the 'traditional marriage' folks like to toss around. And it's also the most easily debunked. Two consenting adults, by law, can agree to a legally binding contract. Children cannot legally consent to a legal contract. Animals cannot consent to anything other than relieving themselves on your lawn. You'd think this wouldn't even need to be stated.
-So a religious Christian family, or Hasidic family, or Muslim family must be compelled to rent their top floor apartment of their 2-family house to a gay couple or suffer the legal consequences... that's why the Pence law is necessary. Yes, that is absolutely the case; housing discrimination against gays is illegal. But that has nothing to do with the Indiana law; that's federal law. And if you're legitimately suggesting that landlords should be allowed to deny people housing because of their sexual orientation, then there really is no reasoning with you.
The argument has also been made that discrimination is not the intent of the law, but rather that it would prevent, for example, a black-owned business from having to serve at a Klan rally, or a Jewish business from having to do business with skinheads. Which is an entirely reasonable thing to do, that most sane-minded people can agree on. Still others cite the Hobby Lobby case, where the business successfully fought to not be required to offer birth control as part of its employees' medical benefits. That's all well and good; then pass the amendment to clarify that this doesn't mean LGBT discrimination is acceptable, or add them to the existing nondiscrimination laws. As the Indianapolis Star points out, the city of Indianapolis has just such a law on their books, that only applies to for-profit businesses of six or more employees (non-profits and churches are exempt) and it coincides just fine with a version of the RFRA on the city level.
But no matter what the intention of this bill might be (or any similar bill that might be proposed in this state, as a resident of the district whose representative is most likely to try just that), it clearly sends a message that all are not welcome in any state that enacts such a law, which is why it's essential that Gov. Pence do the right thing and demand the law be amended, and why our own Gov. Snyder should take note when (not if) a bill of this sort finds its way to his desk.
Regardless of the intent, this can't be allowed to stand.
Within the last week, much controversy has swirled around Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and the law he signed into effect this week, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The stated goal is, as one would expect, to guarantee that nobody's religious rights are being trampled on. You'd think the constitutional amendment that guarantees such would be enough, but I digress. There's an entirely logical case to be made for such a law, however, much as there was for the one signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. This particular law, however, also allows for-profit businesses to deny service to customers if it infringes on the businesses' religious rights. And as such, the language of the law has been interpreted in such a way that for-profit businesses could potentially refuse service to gays and lesbians (the fact that Pence was seen signing the bill surrounded by anti-gay lobbyists, including the president of the Indiana chapter of the American Family Association, would indicate as much), and that has started a massive backlash against Indiana, with corporations threatening to take their business from the state, as they feel it reflects badly on the state, and gives the appearance that all are not welcome there.
So naturally, Pence is backpedaling like any reasonable person would after having been so publicly rebuked from nearly every corner, and insisting a resolution be passed that would amend the law to specifically exclude LGBT's from said discrimination, which would make the legislation entirely palatable to most of it's opponents while still the accomplishing the stated objective of said law. But that, of course, has set off a firestorm of it's own from the people who specifically support the right to deny gays service. And let me tell you, these people make some compelling arguments in favor of this law. These were the most popular ones taken from a Fox News Facebook page:
-So, can I sue a Muslim caterer when they refuse to cook pork for my functions? This seems to be the most recurring argument, one which religious conservatives seem to find most clever. This is because they apparently have no reading comprehension whatsoever. There is a major difference between demanding a business to offer you a service they don't offer to anybody else (i.e., the Muslim wouldn't cook pork for anybody across the board) and asking a business to provide the same service they provide to others (i.e., a catering company that will only cater heterosexual weddings). It baffles me how people fail to see the difference between these two things.
-Why is is that the rights of gays outweigh the rights of people of faith? Because gays aren't arguing that they should be allowed to exclude anybody from a place of business over their faith. It's really that simple. They've got as much of a right to not be excluded from society as you do, and as the religion that screams the loudest in this country about not constantly being front and center in the public square, I'd think you'd have a little sympathy. Sorry that you'd just like gay people to go back in the closet and pretend not to exist, but that just isn't how it works anymore. Besides, we all know that completely suppressing your sexual urges works every time. (Right, Catholicism?)
-How about the rights of those who like to have sex with animals in restaurants, they have rights too? The 'slippery slope' argument that somehow gay marriage will lead to bestiality and pedophilia is quite possibly the biggest strawman the 'traditional marriage' folks like to toss around. And it's also the most easily debunked. Two consenting adults, by law, can agree to a legally binding contract. Children cannot legally consent to a legal contract. Animals cannot consent to anything other than relieving themselves on your lawn. You'd think this wouldn't even need to be stated.
-So a religious Christian family, or Hasidic family, or Muslim family must be compelled to rent their top floor apartment of their 2-family house to a gay couple or suffer the legal consequences... that's why the Pence law is necessary. Yes, that is absolutely the case; housing discrimination against gays is illegal. But that has nothing to do with the Indiana law; that's federal law. And if you're legitimately suggesting that landlords should be allowed to deny people housing because of their sexual orientation, then there really is no reasoning with you.
The argument has also been made that discrimination is not the intent of the law, but rather that it would prevent, for example, a black-owned business from having to serve at a Klan rally, or a Jewish business from having to do business with skinheads. Which is an entirely reasonable thing to do, that most sane-minded people can agree on. Still others cite the Hobby Lobby case, where the business successfully fought to not be required to offer birth control as part of its employees' medical benefits. That's all well and good; then pass the amendment to clarify that this doesn't mean LGBT discrimination is acceptable, or add them to the existing nondiscrimination laws. As the Indianapolis Star points out, the city of Indianapolis has just such a law on their books, that only applies to for-profit businesses of six or more employees (non-profits and churches are exempt) and it coincides just fine with a version of the RFRA on the city level.
But no matter what the intention of this bill might be (or any similar bill that might be proposed in this state, as a resident of the district whose representative is most likely to try just that), it clearly sends a message that all are not welcome in any state that enacts such a law, which is why it's essential that Gov. Pence do the right thing and demand the law be amended, and why our own Gov. Snyder should take note when (not if) a bill of this sort finds its way to his desk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)