HB 1154 introduced by Rep. Koch defines the concept of a “health care sharing ministry” and gives it certain tax advantages.

A health care sharing ministry: 1) consists only of people who share similar & sincerely held religious beliefs; 2) is a 501(c)(3) organization;
3) facilitates the matching of people who have financial or medical needs with other people who have the present ability to assist those needy people – financing one through the donations of the other; 4) provides for contributions that don’t require contributors to assume risk or continue to promise to pay; 5) provides a monthly statement that shows the total amount of donations and the amount actually provided for medical assistance; and includes a statement with specified language that disclaims any notion that the organization is an insurance company or that payment of medical bills by the organization is anything other than voluntary.

It excludes from income for tax purposes any money an individual receives from a health care sharing ministry or any money paid by an employer on the individual’s behalf to the ministry or “because the individual is a participant of a health care sharing ministry.”

I’ve never really gotten the tax exempt status for religious entities – as a practical matter, any way. As a historical matter, I understand how things came about. If they’re doing good works, we should exempt the funding that goes toward those operations, regardless of philosophy. If they’re not doing good works, then they shouldn’t get tax exemptions regardless of their religious doctrine or other philosophy. Same goes here – if folks want to donate to provide medical assistance to others, great. I have no problem with making such donations tax exempt. But making the exemption contingent on the organization subscribing to a religious doctrine of some sort makes no sense to me.

A number of firearm related bills have been introduced in this session of the General Assembly. Oddly, where firearms are concerned, these lawmakers mostly seem to think we need to be softer on crime, need less local control, and more litigation. And, above all, we need guns in more places. I’d be interested to see a vote on a bill that requires guns to be included in every Happy Meal, just to see if anyone voted for it. Anyway:

SB 94 introduced by Sen. Holdman repeals a law permitting residents of Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, and Michigan to purchase guns in Indiana and vice versa. It was something that was once required under federal gun laws to purchase weapons in contiguous states, but amendments to the federal law have made this one obsolete.

SB 131, introduced by Sen. Randolph allows an employer at property that contains an oil refinery to prohibit employee possession of a firearm.

SB 147 introduced by Sen. Steele allows possession of a handgun without a license at a shooting range or if it is unloaded and being transported between a residence or fixed place of business and a shooting range.

SB 154 introduced by Sen. Steele allows a person to carry a loaded and operational firearm while operating an off-road vehicle or snowmobile if: (1) the firearm is a handgun and the person has been issued an unlimited handgun license; (2) the firearm is a handgun and the person is not required to possess a license to carry a handgun; or (3) the person is operating the vehicle on property that the person owns, has a contractual interest in, legally possesses, or has permission from the owner to possess a firearm on.

SB 291, introduced by Sen. Tomes, provides that firearms manufactured in Indiana substantially without any materials imported from outside of the state are not subject to federal gun laws, including registration requirements, under the federal government’s commerce clause authority.

SB 292, also introduced by Sen. Tomes, and HB 1540, introduced by Rep. Speedy both prohibit local regulation of firearms and provides a cause of action against local governments that try to do so. (So, reading this in conjunction with SB 291, I gather Sen. Tomes thinks federal and local governments can’t be trusted with gun regulation. Somehow the middle ground of state government is ideal.)

SB 319, introduced by Sen. Banks, reduces the penalty for carrying a firearm on school property from a felony to a misdemeanor. Permits firearm possession on school property by non-students otherwise legally entitled to possess firearms if the weapon is locked in the person’s car.

SB 411, introduced by Sen. Nugent and HB 1355 introduced by Rep. Eberhart both allow individuals to sue employers or potential employers who condition employment on disclosure of whether the person owns firearms or ammunition or on an agreement to forgo a legal right to own a firearm or ammunition. Punitive damages would be permitted against the employer and, in the case of government employers, the normal tort claim immunities would not apply.

SB 434 introduced by Sen Hume provides that after June 30, 2011: (1) a retail handgun dealer’s license is valid for six years from the date the license is issued instead of two years; and (2) the fee to obtain the license is $60 instead of $20.

SB 506, introduced by Sen. Tomes and HB 1546, introduced by Rep. Van Natter, both allow a person to possess a handgun without a license if: (1) the person is on the person’s own property or vehicle (or legally controlled by the person); (2) the person is lawfully present on someone else’s property or in someone else’s vehicle; (3) the person is carrying the handgun at a shooting range, while attending a firearms instructional course, or while engaged in a legal hunting activity; or (4) the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped.

SB 567, introduced by Sen. Mrvan, provides that people serving sentences for crimes committed using a firearm do not earn credit time. (Typically an inmate will, with good behavior, get credit for 2 days on their sentence for every day actually spent incarcerated.)

Rep. VanNatter has introduced HB 1582 which would require health care service provider to disclose certain pricing information for services.

It doesn’t look particularly workable in the form it’s in, but the legislation would essentially require health care service provider’s (I believe this means, for the most part, hospitals and clinics) to provide a price list to physicians who refer patients. Physicians, in turn, are responsible for providing patients with a price for a service they prescribe as well as a list of various providers of the service and a notice that prices may vary considerably for the same service. Additionally, there are requirements that insurers and HMOs publish the reimbursement amounts they’ll provide for various services.

It’s a laudable goal to have price transparency. All the happy talk about market forces in health care is mostly nonsense without that kind of transparency. I don’t know how well the average consumer can comparison shop in any case, but with health care’s opaque pricing structures it’s 10x as hard.

This is aside from the fact that a person who needs health care is under duress – negotiating for a heart transplant is not unlike negotiating with a gun to your head; both are a matter of life & death. And, a market approach assumes the consumer knows enough about the product to make an informed bargain; which is also problematic. But, none of it can work without readily available information about the prices.

HB 1307 introduced by Rep. Lawson requires school rules against bullying include a provision requiring a student’s parents to provide at least three hours of service each semester or quarter.

The discipline rules described in subsection (a) concerning parental involvement must include a requirement that a student’s parent provide at least three (3) hours of service each semester or each quarter, if applicable, at the student’s school.

This bill raises all kinds of questions. First, it’s not at all clear whether the bill requires service only of kids involved with bullying. As I read it, the rules would apply to all students as a kind of hedge against bullying in the first place. Second, which is it? Three hours per semester or per quarter? Parents are going to be required to serve 12 hours or 6 hours per school year based on how the school happens to break up its year? Third, does this mean each parent of a student or one parent per student? Step-parents? How is this going to be enforced? Would it be considered a taking without compensation under the 5th & 14th amendments? How about involuntary servitude under the 13th?

Sen. Banks has introduced SB 324 which would require a court to order payment of legal fees by the losing party to litigation. (Current law permits a court to order such fees where the losing party’s claim was frivolous. As a practical matter, it’s fairly rare for courts to order payment of such fees.)

The legislation has an interesting drafting provision that (so far as I know) was not permissible when I was drafting at Legislative Services:

The legislative services agency shall prepare legislation for introduction in the 2012 regular session of the general assembly to organize and correct statutes affected by this act.

I don’t know the rationale in this particular case, but my understanding of this sort of provision is that it’s usually included where the concept of a bill is reasonably simple but its implementation is going to kill a lot of trees by requiring alteration of a lot of code citations. Just to make a frivolous example, let’s say someone wanted to propose changing the title of “governor” to “supreme overlord.” The concept is fairly simple, but a bill to make it happen would be thousands of pages long as you pulled every code citation with the word “governor,” and changed it to “supreme overlord.” Better to see if anyone is interested before preparing a document that long. In this case, however, I’m not sure what sort of conforming legislation would be necessary, and its inclusion makes it look a little like legislators are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. “We’ll tell you what you voted for later.”

But, back to the premise itself. I certainly understand the frustration that can come with defending yourself against a case that’s too weak to prevail, but too strong to get dismissed quickly. I have one case in particular right now that (in my mind) fits this description perfectly. I’d love to be able to get a legal fee award for my clients.

As a practical matter, however, I think it would create an environment in which only the very rich and the very poor would be inclined to pursue their legal claims. The very rich could afford to take the hit for legal fees if their claim was ultimately unsuccessful. The very poor could also afford the risk – if you’ve got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose. It’s those in the middle who would have to let others roll over their legal rights rather than risk drawing a bad jury and adding the other guy’s legal fees to their injuries. If there is a solution, I think it would involve a more permissive test for judges to use when determining whether a legal claim was frivolous. And, if the “loser pays” bill were to pass, I’d probably suggest that attorneys make clear to their clients, that the client is the one obligated to pay the bill. If you can collect from the loser after the litigation, super, but I wouldn’t want my fee to depend on whether I could collect from the opposing party. (Though, I can foresee a whole new arena of collections law cropping up from this.)

Sen. Tomes has introduced SB 292 which would prohibit local government from regulating any matter pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

Among other things, the statute prohibits local governments from regulating possession of firearms. As I read it, the statute would, for example, void a local ordinance that prohibits carrying firearms into the courthouse. Unless there is a state law against it, I also don’t see how a county could prohibit someone from taking a gun into the county jail.

I trust my local officials to be better equipped to assess whether local conditions make firearms regulations appropriate or not in that locale; just like I think the appropriate gun laws for rural New Hampshire might be different from those appropriate for Indianapolis.

I don’t get the point of HB 1109 introduced by Rep. Gutwein. It requires the BMV to put the status of the driver as a veteran on the back of the person’s driver’s license or identification card if requested by the veteran and if sufficient proof is provided.

I guess my confusion stems from my inability to see how notation of the veteran status: a) serves the functions of a driver’s license or identification card; and b) does so in a way that is unique to veterans as opposed to other past professional or civic experience.

Rep. Yarde brings us the latest in the War on Sex Offenders with HB 1100 which would make it a Class D felony for a registered sex offender to go to a public library.

I have kids, and I’m as creeped out and scared by sex offenders as the next guy. But, these “tough on sex offenders” laws proposed by legislators who range from well-meaning to demagoguing create an unworkable snarl for the people at the ground level who actually have to administer them and respond to court challenges about their constitutionality. But, if we’re going to continue in this direction, maybe we should just get it over with and require that they be tagged with RF chips and required to report to some sort of Yucca Mountain for sex offenders after sunset.

HB 1073, introduced by Rep. Frizzell would allow pharmacists to administer any immunization recommended by the Centers for Disease Control where current law specifies only flu shots; and give the shots to kids as young as nine years old where current law has an age cut off of fourteen.

Sounds good to me. But, then, the whole of my medical training consists pretty much of wiping my kids’ runny noses and seven years of giving my diabetic dog insulin shots.

Sen. Steele’s SB 155 allows for a sort of put up or shut up procedure directed at the Indiana Department of Revenue with respect to tax liens. The Department of Revenue can issue tax warrants for unpaid taxes which become a lien on the taxpayer’s real property.

SB 155 would create a procedure similar to one that is available for mechanic’s liens. The taxpayer can issue a notice to the Department of Revenue to foreclose on its lien. If it fails to initiate an action to foreclose on the lien within 60 days, the lien becomes void. This would put the onus on the Department of Revenue to do something This would allow people to get rid of zombie warrants created by the Department when they can’t get anyone to make a decision on lifting the warrant – it seems like it can be tough to get in communication with a person with authority to make decisions at the Department.