USA Today reports that Southwest Airlines will soon stop serving its iconic peanuts, in deference to those with allergies. I only hope this heightened awareness of the needs of its customers with allergies will extend to those sensitive to the fur of so-called “support” animals, as well as those whose migraines can be triggered by screaming babies. I’m not holding my breath.
No, not Obamacare. With all the focus on gun laws after the latest school massacre, it occurred to me that the problem could largely be solved if the Second Amendment were repealed, and that the chances of that happening — despite the fact that I’ve not heard it mentioned anywhere — have never been better. The national sentiment appears to have shifted away from “protection” of unlimited rights to buy and own any type of gun toward support for sensible regulation. A repeal of the Second Amendment would make that possible and undercut a lot of the NRA’s “moral” authority.
Of course, any move to repeal the Second Amendment could backfire. I know many “gun nuts” who would fight it to the last. But I don’t think the times have ever been more favorable to the success of such a move.
Whether a “replacement” to secure some gun rights would be necessary is hard to say. The absence of any constitutional support for gun ownership would be new to this country, and many of those on the fence about repeal might insist on a replacement. But any constitutional protection for gun ownership could hinder sensible regulation.
I say let’s run the idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it.
This Times Union story is disheartening, but not surprising. It’s about legislators hiring rich cronies for part time jobs that pay little but provide State-subsidized health insurance, which is top-of-the-line and costs the employee very little (full disclosure — as a full-time, non-political State employee, and now as a State retiree, I too enjoy this benefit).
What the story doesn’t address, and what should be of broader concern, is the pricing policy for employees and retirees, who are required to pay a share of the cost of their policies. There are two prices — for individuals with no dependents, and a higher family price for those with any number of qualified dependents. Thus, the employee with a spouse and no children pays the same premium as the employee with a spouse and 15 children. I do not know whether the cost to the State is the same regardless of the number of the employees’ dependents, but I do know that State employees with small families are paying a lot more per person for their health insurance than State employees with large families. While this policy is great for State employees who have large families, it’s not so good for those making up the difference. Even worse, it’s not a transparent policy — those who are making up the difference are not aware of who they are or how much they are paying.
I’m not saying the policy is indefensible; for example, where government jobs sometimes pay less than the private sector, the family insurance plan may make it practicable for someone with a large family who is an attractive candidate to take a lower-paying State job, which could benefit the public. And it is a way to make health care more affordable to those with larger families and, presumably, less disposable income (though that may not be the case of the part timers in the TU story, one of whom claimed a net worth of over $8 million). What I am saying is that it also presents apparent fairness issues and, as the TU story indicates, an incentive for abuse. Open discussion of the issue — one that most taxpayers probably are not aware of — might benefit everyone.
As I advance in age, I am exposed more and more to the health care industry, despite having enjoyed relatively good health until recently. As a retired New York State employee, I am blessed with excellent health insurance that covers most doctor visits, medical tests and procedures, as well as prescription drugs, with only a relatively modest co-pay. Here are a few observations:
First, it appears that many of our health problems are what a friend of mine calls “diseases of affluence.” More appropriately, they should be called “diseases of lifestyle,” since they affect people of all socioeconomic strata. A lot of these are directly influenced by government policies. For instance, our auto-centric physical infrastructure minimizes the opportunities for and pleasures of walking and cycling, and cannot help but contribute to obesity and other problems based on lack of physical activity. Our government subsidies to cane sugar and corn (the main ingredient of high fructose corn syrup) help make junk food and sugared soft drinks attractively priced. This is especially so for the poor, since the SNAP program (formerly known as Food Stamps) allows their purchase with SNAP benefits. If we collectively spent more on complete streets that were friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as cars, how much could we save on health care (not to mention on school transportation)? How about if we stopped subsidizing sugar? I think it would be worth a try.
For all the criticism leveled against it, the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has achieved something great — it has shifted the dialog from whether health care insurance should be extended to many of those who don’t have it to how the present system should be replaced or improved. Neither Trump nor his minions are suggesting that those who obtained health insurance through Obamacare should lose it, meaning that they recognize that there is no going back on government’s commitment to growing numbers of its citizens. Whether things actually get better or worse remains to be seen, but at least no one is talking a bout a pre-Obamacare “reset.” To me, that is yuge.
I recently visited Turning Stone, which just completed alterations to its gaming areas. I think it did a really good job to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. It enclosed in glass walls and allows smoking in about a quarter of its main gaming floor, an area that includes a bar and a self-service area from which patrons can get free coffee and soda. The smoking area contains a large variety of slot and video poker machines and table games. Also enclosed in glass and reserved for smokers is a separate, small high-limit table games area (there also is a non-smoking high limit table games area next to the high limit slots area). While there are openings in the glass walls enclosing the smoking areas to allow patrons and staff to enter and exit, there does not seem to be a lot of leakage of smoke into the non-smoking areas.
Turning Stone’s solution, while the best I have seen to balance the preferences of smokers (who seem disproportionately represented among casino patrons) and non-smokers, is not perfect. The main smoking area is very smoky, since almost everyone in it is a smoker (I didn’t go into the high limit table area, but I assume it’s also pretty smoky). Though the smokers are there voluntarily, that may not be true of all the staff. The high limit slot area is outside the close and is now in the larger area of the casino in which smoking is prohibited. I believe the live poker room and keno and bingo areas also are completely non-smoking, so players of those games who are smokers may not be accommodated.
All in all, though, management at Turning Stone deserves praise for responding to the complaints of non-smokers in a meaningful way, while preserving its competitive advantage over the non-native American venues in New York that will not be able to allow smokers to gamble and smoke at the same time. Now, if only management would turn its attention to the noise issue . . .
As I suspected, the new State-regulated casinos in New York (as well as those in Massachusetts) will almost all be smoke free. This good news was reported by the Times Union in a recent item about what Turning Stone is doing to meet the new competition.
While I and many other casino patrons would welcome a completely smoke-free environment, maintaining a ban on smoking may not be economically viable. There is a high correlation between gambling and smoking, and a complete ban in Atlantic City sent too many customers elsewhere and had to be rescinded. Smoking will continue to be allowed at Turning Stone and in the Connecticut casinos. Their customers may stay loyal to those establishments that allow them to smoke, even if new, non-smoking casinos are closer to where they live.
I think the best way to accommodate everyone is to make all public areas of casinos non smoking, with separate (but equal, in terms of games offered and other amenities) gambling rooms for smokers and non smokers. Foxwoods has a separate non-smoking casino, but unfortunately for me it does not have any of the full pay jacks or better video poker machines I like to play at that establishment, so I have to put up with some smoke to play the better games. Casino management also should consider accommodating those who are sensitive to noise by establishing some quiet areas. The more a business can accommodate those with competing likes and dislikes, the better for everyone.
Yesterday, I rode on the Albany County bike path from its beginning on South Pearl St., and I was pleased to find that its western end had been extended from central Delmar (behind the Stewart’s on Delaware Ave.) to New Scotland Avenue in Slingerlands, almost doubling its length. On a beautiful Saturday, a lot of people were using the trail for walking and riding. This type of project always gets a lot of use, and it makes surrounding properties, residential and commercial, more valuable. It’s a low-cost, high-yield investment for government, that pays off in better health for citizens enjoying expanded recreational opportunities, as well as financially. I hope the rest of the path opens while the weather is still good, and I hope local governments throughout the region decide to make similar investments.