Wealth Re-Distribution, 2.0

Tomorrow is Primary Election Day here in the Natural State, and you know what that means -- lots of robo-calls and bad political ads.

One ad has been running on the local talk radio station featuring Hillary. In it, she affects this nasal, whiny accent and tells supporters how "she loves to brag on Arkansas" because our Legislature was foolhardy clever enough to pass a bi-partisan "Public Option" for health insurance that moves thousands who previously didn't qualify for Medicaid, and whose income was too high to give them premium subsidies, onto the Medicaid rolls and they will now be insured.

(Arkansas is among the states that declined to set up a "State Exchange," opting instead for the "Private Option" which accepts federal funds to allocate to Medicaid and it subsidizes premiums charged by private insurers. So, potay-toh/potah-toh. The Governor purportedly wanted the "Arkansas Works Program"  [Private Option] to focus on encouraging citizens to go to work and enjoy employer-provided insurance rather than relying on government to insure them. I'm not so sure that's working out.)

What the Medicaid expansion advocates don't tell us is that, under Obamacare, once a body has accepted any Medicaid benefits, he's deemed to be a Medicaid participant for life. For-ever!

One might not think that's a problem when he's a twenty-something and hasn't acquired diddly-squat to pass on to his heirs, but it's a different story when he moves on to the next plane of existence and his estate is being probated.

Guess who gets his share first, before any heir or legatee?

How'd you guess?!  Of, course --  it's Uncle Sam!!

Can you say "the ultimate surreptitious re-distribution of wealth?" Of course you can! It's called "asset forfeiture," and it's been around for awhile, but Obamacare gave it a shot of steroids.

A wonderful article from 2013 that Pepper found in Science Decoded boils the issue down to one articulate sentence:

Dr. Jane Orient, the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, put the risk/reward tradeoff succinctly. “People will think this is wonderful, this is free insurance. They don’t realize it’s really a loan, and is secured by any property they have.”

What an awful thing for your government to do to you. Restoring the Estate Tax was bad enough, but putting these two together is nothing short of confiscatory policy that slaps around the Fourth Amendment.

Don't let Uncle Sam tell you it's raining on you.

Mandatory Evacuation: Another Forfeiture of Individual Liberty?

Texas enacted a law, to take effect in September of this year, that requires its citizens to get on the road and get out of a storm's way if the Governor issues a mandatory evacuation. If someone chooses to stay put for whatever reason, he will be subject to arrest and involuntary transport.

I'm not sure what I think about that.

Sure, the law could save lives and allow first responders to do their jobs better since they won't have to go around rescuing folks and what-not, but it also flushes the Fourth Amendment down the drain. I see no-warrant-needed searches aplenty coming down the pike, and that frankly scares me. Our front door hasn't worked right since "the authorities" kicked it in doing their house-to-house after Katrina. (At least they painted the "X" on the sidewalk instead of on the house!) And it still gives me the creeps to know that they were in my house, uninvited, and left the house vulnerable to the unmedicated thugs and looters that ran unchecked throughout the city.

There are as many reasons not to evacuate as there are reasons to go -- health issues, elderly residents, pets. The Gustav experience last year was not very pleasant for those who participated in the government-run option, and I believe many will choose not to go if there's a big storm this year.

Besides, just as you can't legislate good parenting, you likewise can't legislate common sense. You can, however, stand up for the Constitution and property rights. So far.