Arizona anti-national health care amendment

To be voted on in 2010: the text, as near as I can tell from some superficial looking around on tenther advocacy sites sez: no individual mandates, no employer mandates, no fines or penalties for paying a doctor or whatever directly and private health insurance can't be prohibited.

So, free-riding on the first two, and a big ole no-op on the rest.

Basically, what you would expect from Arizona.

Will it pass? That's interesting. They lag the political cycle a ways -- they are the only state to pass an anti-anti-sprawl amendment in 2006 when a _lot_ had it on the ballot. If it did pass, I would expect businesses and individuals to _still_ be subject to the tax if they failed to have/offer insurance that met exchange criteria (taxes, after all, aren't technically fines or penalties. They are taxes.). But I feel absolutely certain that someone in Arizona would decide to be a tax protester and not pay that tax, thus leading to some excitement and drama at some point in the future when the protester got arrested for tax evasion.

Could be entertaining.

ETA:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/26/arizona-hcr2014-national-health-care-nullification/

Calling this health care nullification is laughable -- people in that state are still going to collect their VA, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. And they're still going to participate in the health care exchange options, for that matter, assuming this all passes.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't really know shit about the constitution. But hey, everyone _else_ has an opinion.

Real estate musings, one more time

In today's e-mail, the house across the street from the SuperFund site finally sold! Originally listed at slightly under $800K (we looked at it, it was nice, but it was a remodel from pre-no-lead days, which is problematic, but the superfund site across the street really did it in for us. Also, I was not so excited about Concord as about Acton), it sold for...$650K.

Geez.

It took a while to sell, too, but that sort of goes without saying.

And in expensive condo land:

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/09/10/developer_resorts_to_auction_for_natick_luxury_condos/

This is round 3 in condo auctions in our area (Concord had one, then Groton, and now Natick -- probably more that I didn't hear about). The Concord auction looks like it was somewhat successful in setting prices post-crash; I'm not so sure about the Groton one. That is some _deep_ discounting in Natick, but the Natick Collection hit very hard times.

R. thinks Natick has a train (Worcester to Boston), but since that line runs on CSX tracks, it has a dismal on-time record as it often gets delayed behind freight. We're not sure where the nearest stop is to the development. As an idea, it still seems fairly plausible to me, especially in a transition decade that involved a commute by train, and using a (short-range) electric vehicle for everything else that you couldn't do on foot. This kind of thing isn't going to satisfy someone who wants a real city, but if you really like suburbia, this might be a good compromise.

at least it was with his own wife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jenrette

I had no idea.

ETA: I'm referring to the source of the comedy troupe "Capitol Steps" name. Not sure how to punctuate that.

health care for illegal immigrants

I know that none of what I'm about to write will have any impact whatsoever on the debate or the legislation that does or does not emerge from the sausage factory.

I am _extremely distressed_ by the emphasis on making sure illegal immigrants do not participate in health care reform. Republicans are out there shopping the idea that health care providers and insurers need to use the legal-to-work database set up for employers. I haven't heard a straight answer out of any of them about what to do about EMTALA and emergency rooms and illegal immigrants, altho I have heard at least one elected Republican say that whether or not health care reform happens, the feds should be reimbursing hospitals who deliver care to illegal immigrants...because it's the federal government's fault these people are here, apparently.

Well, I guess that's true, in that it's federal law that makes it illegal for them to be here.

I am _outraged_ and _appalled_ (and I cannot emphasize this enough) at people who just take it for granted that everyone agrees that people who have _broken the law_ by being in this country illegally should not have access to health care. I am particularly weirded out by this, since if, for example, a US citizen raped and murdered a whole bunch of illegal immigrant children, that citizen, after due process, would go to prison where that person would then be constitutionally guaranteed right to medical care. (Yes, I know that what passes for medical care in many prisons is beyond grim. I've read the exposes, thank you very much.)

What makes me absolutely twitch with rage, however, is that while I have finally heard someone point out that if we don't reimburse health care providers for treating illegals, or they are required to _check_ that they are not illegal before providing treatment or insurance or whatever, then a whole lot of people who are legal, but don't happen to have their id on them when they are in a horrific car accident, say, might run into some technical difficulties in getting care over and above what happens right now with proof of insurance. I have heard that pointed out. What I _have not_ heard, however, is what it makes our country look like, when some three year old illegal immigrant -- who has no say in where she lives -- needs care and can't get it. Bad enough that we neglect her -- how much more horrific that one of our two political parties is making it a point of pride, a moral issue, to neglect her.

If health care is -- and I firmly believe it is -- a moral issue, then how can it be moral to say that some children are not deserving of care, because of decisions made by their parents?

And if it is wrong to deny that three year old care, when does it become right to deny her care? When she is 10? When she is graduating from high school? When she has graduated from Harvard?

When?

Maybe some day we'll get another amnesty, and real immigration reform. Until then, amendments to deny access to health care to people who are in the country illegally should _not_ be justified on the basis that they broke the law by being here. We supply health care to plenty of other people who have broken much, much, much more serious laws.