Monthly Archives: March 2015

VA Obstruction

Posted on by
Reply

…a program rolled out to give certain veterans the option of government-funded private care is experiencing serious bumps: according to reports, only 27,000 vets have taken advantage of the Choice Card program since it was launched in November.

Recall:

Technically, to be eligible to see a non-VA doctor, a veteran must be at least 40 miles away from the nearest VA hospital, or have waited at least 30 days for an appointment.

Which is bad enough, but it’s a clear rule, one that even bureaucrats can understand.

Air Force veteran Pat Baughman, for example, told Fox News he lives about 50 miles away from the nearest VA hospital in Bay Springs, MS—approximately a one-hour drive. But when Baughman called the Choice Card phone number last November, he was told to drive more than three hours away to a hospital in Natchez, MS.

“It didn’t make sense at all. I told them that’s longer than what I’m driving now. So they said they’d get back with me,” Baughman said, adding he received a call the next day and was told to drive to another location instead—two hours away.

And

One area of confusion is that according to the rules, a veteran must be 40 miles away from the nearest VA—”as the crow flies.”

Of course, the VA’s rules writers know that roads—especially rural ones—don’t follow straight paths.

And there’s Paul Walker, a veteran living in Minnesota and fighting cancer.

[H]e was turned down for private care for cancer treatment because there was a VA clinic within 20 miles of his home—but the closest VA hospital which offers the treatment he needs reportedly is more than 50 miles away.

“I tried using it and I got flatly turned down,” said Walker, who told the network that at the clinic, “all they do is dental work there and eye work and some basic kinds of different minor things…but I have cancer stage 4.”

And Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R, KS), with 63 counties and no VA hospital in his district:

I got an email by a veteran who drives 340 miles one way for cardiology.

These don’t appear to be isolated cases: that low number of signups, for instance. VA’s bureaucrats surely know these weaknesses in their rules and in their implementation of their rules; plainly these failures are the result of VA bureaucratic foot-dragging.

I’ve said it before: it’s time to disband the VA and convert what would have been its budget into vouchers for our veterans.

ATF and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

They’re not capable of letting this go.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Thursday raised new concerns about surplus military ammo used in popular AR-15 rifles and pistols just days after pulling back on a proposal to ban the ammo because it could threaten police safety.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, ATF Director B Todd Jones said all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols.

So is the ammunition for any firearm a threat. So are knives. So are hammers.

Since the ATF doesn’t understand government’s role in our lives, or its own role in government, maybe it’s time ATF funding was reduced. A lot.

After all, recall that it was the ATF that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Costs of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Health Benefit Exchange…has enrolled 160,000 paying customers in ObamaCare exchange health plans but that’s more than 50,000 short of goal, which has led to an extension of the enrollment deadline and a request that the Washington State Legislature fork over $125 million to fund the exchange.

There’s a hint there.

Republicans are angry because they were told the exchange would be self-sufficient by the end of this year.

Leading Democrats were also skeptical. They were expecting a much lower subsidy as the exchange bridges from federal seed money to being able to fund itself through premium taxes and fees paid by insurance companies and customers.

There’s a hint there, too.

And

New York’s governor wants a $69 million tax on non-exchange health insurance policies while Vermont has projected a $20 million shortfall by the end of 2015. There also is a bill in Rhode Island to scrap the state exchange and go with the federal exchange to avoid a $24 million hit to taxpayers.

Wait—is there a pattern emerging?

Of Course They Did

Posted on by
Reply

Several unions filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a recent Wisconsin law which bans mandatory union dues as a condition of employment.

Because they claim a higher right to the fruits of a man’s labor—his wages—than the man earning those wages has.

According to The Associated Press the unions are arguing that the law violates their constitutional rights because it requires unions to act on behalf of workers who are no longer required to pay union dues.

Of course, this is nonsense. Nothing in the law prevents unions and employers from negotiating contracts exclusively for union members. Nothing in the law requires employers and non-union members to use the unions’ contracts as their own. That employers and non-union members might find the shortcut handy is irrelevant. The employers and non-union members may very well negotiate better contracts than the unions did.

And, of course, the unions have no claim on non-union members’ wages, or anything else of theirs, from those non-members’ negotiations on their own behalf. Federal law, as well as Wisconsin’s law, makes this clear. James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics:

Federal law [the National Labor Relations Act ] does not require a union to act as an Exclusive Representative. The choice of whether to be an Exclusive Representative or Member Only remains with the union.

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Democrats are fuming over abortion language inserted into a bipartisan human trafficking bill that they failed to notice before voting to move the bill to the floor.

Failed to notice for the two months they’ve had it. Another case of irresponsible Democrats not bothering to read legislation on which they vote—even in committee.

Democrats are now threatening to block the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 2 by a unanimous vote and is now being debated before the full Senate.

Because spending your tax dollars on abortion is more important to Democrats than is protecting women and children from sex slavery. And one of its fallouts: pregnancies.