A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Indiana State Senators on Firearm Policy

by 26 Comments

Come across a couple of pieces mentioning our State Senator’s views on guns, schools, and the Newtown Shooting:

1. Sen. Tome thinks teachers should be armed.

State Senator Jim Tomes says teachers are closest to students, the first responders to any emergency and, for those reasons, should be armed.

Arming union thugs? Should make the next State House protest more interesting. . . except, of course, the State House is about the one place where the General Assembly still seems to think guns should be prohibited.

2. Sen. Delph views the Newtown murders as a consequence of government prayer not being permitted in schools. (Individual prayer is, of course, not prohibited.)

Instead, Delph said, the “evil that occurred” in Connecticut last Friday stemmed from an abandoning of traditional family and faith values.

“When we ban prayer from school, when we become hostile as a culture to traditional faith and values,” he said, “I think that has a negative coarsening effect on the culture, and it’s really sad.”

Which, of course, explains why the less religious countries of western Europe are awash in mass murders.

Note on governance: These two senators represent 7.7% of a majority vote in the Senate.

IN Supreme Court: With Hospital Bills, You Have Agreed to Buy a Pig in a Poke

by 9 Comments

The Indiana Supreme Court has disagreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory action in the case of Allen v. Clarian Health Partners (pdf). (See my prior blog post here.)

If a price term is sufficiently vague in a contract, courts impute an agreement to pay a “reasonable” price for the goods or service. Plaintiffs argued that since the agreement they signed for hospital services did not specify a price, their agreement was to pay the reasonable price of services. When the hospital charged them more than the reasonable price, the patients argued that the hospital had breached the contract and requested a declaratory judgment to that effect. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that because the contracts did not specifically reference the chargemaster or other extrinsic document (and noting that the chargemaster was not, in any case, a document available to a patient), the contract was open ended and, therefore, ambiguous as to price, meaning that a reasonable fee would be imputed.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, deciding that, when you sign such an agreement with a hospital, you are really agreeing to pay – not the reasonable price – but, rather, whatever the hospital’s chargemaster says. The Indiana Supreme Court did not, however, address this difficulty highlighted by the Indiana Court of Appeals:

As we have already noted, Clarian contends that the chargemaster rates are “unambiguous” and “express[,] binding obligation[s]” on Allen and Moore. Appellee’s Br. at 5. But at oral argument counsel for Clarian stated that Clarian considers its chargemaster rates confidential and proprietary. Left unanswered by Clarian is how a patient and a provider can mutually agree to an “unambiguous” and “express” chargemaster fee schedule that is not available to the patient.

The decision was 5-0. Hopefully this at least undermines hospital claims that their chargemasters are confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secrets of some sort. One of the problems with our health care system is that pricing is so opaque.

TPM and Tactical Reality

by 4 Comments

TPM had a post entitled “Tactical Reality” about the Connecticut mass murders that has had me thinking for the last couple of days. It refers to the subculture with these sort of “Red Dawn” fantasies where they will some day, soon likely, be called upon to heroically fight off the faceless terror with their weapons.

Apparently this subculture likes to use the adjective “tactical” a lot: “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications.” There is a tendency to deck out their weapons in “matte-black finish, laser site, flashlight mount, and other “tactical” accoutrements.”

The contributor, familiar with gun culture over recent decades, tells us that the prominence of this subculture in the overall gun culture is relatively new.

Most of the men and children (of both sexes) I met were interested in hunting, too. Almost exclusively, they used traditional hunting rifles: bolt-actions, mostly, but also a smattering of pump-action, lever-action, and (thanks primarily to Browning) semi-automatic hunting rifles. They talked about gun ownership primarily as a function of hunting; the idea of “self-defense,” while always an operative concern, never seemed to be of paramount importance. It was a factor in gun ownership – and for some sizeable minority of gun owners, it was of outsized (or of decisive) importance – but it wasn’t the factor.

They’ve constructed a reality for themselves in which the threat is imminent, and it seems as if their reality is bound to spill over into ours from time to time.

On Finding Joy

by 5 Comments

A friend of mine on Facebook made a very understandable observation about how hard the Connecticut shooting makes it to enjoy relatively mundane and insignificant but ordinarily happy events or occasions. From what I can tell about him, he’s a level-headed, clear-eyed individual, not typically given to sentimentality. Nevertheless, this one rattled him. I think it rattled everyone. I mean, a lot of the bad news you hear about you appreciate as negative on an intellectual level. But, a lot of it doesn’t slip through and hit you in the gut.

My response was that we have to try and let it go if we can. Not because of that kind of silly “if we don’t do ‘x,’ the terrorists win’ rationale that was overused after 9/11. But, because, at the end of the day, we’re tiny people on a tiny speck of rock for a comically short period of time in a soul crushingly vast universe. Any realistic perspective on the nature of the universe leads to madness or, at least, incapacitating depression.

So, we have to let our brains work their filters. Hopefully the brain lets enough of the bad stuff through for you to make rational decisions about how to go about your day and your life while letting more of the good stuff through so you can at least enjoy yourself from time to time.

Modest Proposal: Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance?

by 32 Comments

In the wake of these tragic mass murders, firearm advocates, reacting to calls for gun bans, point out that lots of things kill people. Cars, for example, kill lots of people.

We mandate liability insurance for cars. Why not for firearms? Bring market forces to bear on this issue. More firearms make things safer? Insurance rates will go down (if true).

Anyway, what I envision is a requirement that a firearm owner obtain liability insurance that covers injuries caused by that particular firearm. (Runs with the weapon – provides an incentive for people to secure the weapon in a way that ensures, for example, kids don’t have access to the weapon.) I would also envision a policy surcharge used to subsidize coverage for uninsured losses, treatment of mental illness, enforcement of existing regulations, and safety education efforts.

Firearm advocates promote guns as critical for liberty and personal safety. Seems like the price of an insurance policy is a small price to pay for life and liberty. If, on the other hand, your attachment to your guns is more of a cultural affectation, the cost may make you re-evaluate your priorities.

It won’t happen, but it struck me as a compromise position that avoids confiscating weapons on the one hand or continuing, on the other hand, to sit on our hands while mass murderers with firearms gun down the innocent as we idly wonder why this keeps happening to us.

Involuntary Civil Commitment

by 3 Comments

The Connecticut shooting and reports that the shooter had a personality disorder but no criminal history got me thinking about Indiana’s involuntary commitment process for people with mental illnesses. I don’t have a lot of experience here but have looked at the statutes from time to time. Generally, the procedures are available at IC 12-26.

A law enforcement officer can take someone believed to be mentally ill and dangerous to a mental health facility for immediate detention. That’s good for 24 hours. If the doctor thinks there is cause to keep the individual detained, an application for emergency detention can be filed. This extends the involuntary commitment to 72 hours.

If the physician thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled, the physician is to prepare a report that will be filed with the court. The report must state the physician’s opinion that the person is mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled and requires continuing care and treatment. The report is filed with the court which can either release the person or order a hearing. The hearing has to take place within two days. If, after a hearing, the court agrees, a longer commitment can be ordered under IC 12-26-6 (temporary commitment – not more than 90 days) or IC 12-26-7 (longer than 90 days.)

If you think a guy is mentally ill and he’s doing things that scare you, your options are more limited if you don’t have a physician going along with your opinion that the person is dangerous. There are some protective order options in the Indiana Code, but the specific ones mainly deal with protection from family members and fears of workplace violence. Of course, the courts do have their general equitable powers. But, at the end of the day, there is always the concern that, if a guy is so mentally ill he’ll do you violence for no good reason, he might not be overly obedient to a court’s injunctive order telling him to stay off the property or whatever.

Support for Indiana Constitutional Marriage Amendment Waning

by 11 Comments

I’m not ready to say that the proposed Constitutional provision that would ban same sex marriages and also a “substantially similar legal status” for unmarried individuals will fail to pass, but the drastic reduction in support over recent years is something to behold. Recall that in 2004, House Speaker Brian Bosma considered a gay marriage ban “the most important issue” facing the state.

This year, Speaker Bosma and the leadership team have not listed it in their package of legislative priorities. Gov-elect Mike Pence is sidestepping questions about his support for the Constitutional Amendment. Clearly he’s in favor, but publicly, anyway, he says he’s going to just let the legislature do its thing, and he says he won’t make it a point of emphasis from the governor’s office.

Today, Maureen Hayden, writing for CNHI, has an article entitled Support for gay-marriage ban wavering. Sen. Kenley, one of the more prominent leaders in the Indiana Senate, has said he won’t be supporting the measure.

Noting what he called the “rapidly evolving” shift in public opinion reflected in a poll released Thursday, the influential, conservative Republican said he’ll oppose such a measure if, as expected, it comes up for debate in the 2013 session.

“I don’t think putting it in the Constitution is a good idea,” said Kenley, the powerful Senate appropriations committee chairman who describes himself as a supporter of traditional marriage.

So, he is not ready to vote for legalizing same sex marriage. But, it’s already not legal in Indiana pursuant to IC 31-11-1.

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

(Upheld by Morrison v. Sadler.

Be that as it may, I view the loss of appetite for engrafting marriage inequality into the Constitution as a positive step so that future generations can make their own choices. And, I especially support any move that prevents that horribly ambiguous second sentence about substantially similar legal statuses making its way into our state Constitution.

Even so, I expect that Rep. Eric Turner and lobbyists Micah Clark and Eric Miller have the drive and the clout to push the amendment through. But, that’s a bet I’d be happy to lose.

Mourdock: “reporters are more interested in defeating conservatives than reporting the news”

by 12 Comments

Indy Politics has a post entitled Mourdock Camp Blames “Media Bias” for Loss. Would be Chrysler killer, Richard Mourdock, who caught attention for revealing God’s will with respect to children conceived through rape has sent out an e-mail to supporters. The e-mail was a fundraiser, seeking to retire campaign debt.

In our case, we found our campaign caught in the liberal media cross hairs. Never has Indiana seen a more obvious example of media bias by reporters more interested in defeating conservatives than reporting the news.

It’s hard to tell if this bit of self-pity is borne of true belief or an effort to stoke the base into parting with a few extra bucks. It’s the Nate Silver conundrum in a nutshell – are they getting it wrong because they’re in a groupthink bubble, or is it a bit of calculated hyperbole designed to motivate supporters?

The media has biases to be sure – sometimes different ones depending on the medium in question. But, often times political reporting is biased by a lack of institutional memory, faux objectivity in the form of “he said/she said” narratives, fixation on horse race narratives instead of substantive policy reporting, and general limitations associated with being a commercial undertaking.

But, “reporters more interested in defeating conservatives than reporting the news?” That’s just petulant.

Study: Toll Road Lease Bad for the Kids

by 16 Comments

The Associated Press has an article on a study on the Toll Road deal by a government studies professor out of William & Mary.

“These transactions have important consequences for intergenerational justice because they enrich current citizens and governments at the expense of future citizens and governments by transferring future revenue to current budgets,” Gilmour states in his report.
. . .
“It is easy to see why current politicians view asset leases with up-front payments as wonderful, allowing them to spend today without raising taxes or appearing to incur debt,” Gilmour said. “In short, the ITR lease is a great deal for current residents of Indiana, but it offers little to those who will live in Indiana in future decades.”

Presumably this means that people who are now criticizing the national debt because “won’t somebody please think of the children,” were also against selling off the toll road, but that’s not quite how I remember it going down.

Whether the toll road sale was a good deal or not pretty much hinges on whether there would have been political will to raise tolls. Historically there had not been. My sense at the time was that the sale was a solution in lieu of developing that will. Aaron Renn has said that the numbers on the deal were favorable to Indiana. I trust his judgment on such things better than my own or Professor Gilmour’s.

Still, I’m philosophically against selling off public infrastructure. The way I saw it at the time:

I’m against selling off Indiana’s infrastructure. It’s just not a good idea to eat your seed corn. Mitch Daniels reminds me of one of those kids who gets set up with an annuity through a lawsuit from when they were a minor. They see an ad on daytime television from a company that will pay a lump sum purchase on the annuity. The kid is being ripped off, the company’s only paying 50% of what the annuity is worth, but he doesn’t care, he just wants a pocket full of money right now so he can buy that bitchin’ Camaro he’s had his eye on.

Another thing that caught my eye was that the AP story quotes Troy “I’ll never vote for DST” Woodruff as the INDOT chief of staff. As you might recall, Indiana owes the implementation of Daylight Saving Time to him. It passed by one vote – that vote was his; after he said he wouldn’t vote for it. It would be uncharitable of me to suspect he got taken care of after he got his arm twisted and lost his seat.

Native Americans and Natural Law

by 19 Comments

Over the weekend, I was putting together a new shelf and, for entertainment while I was doing it, fired up Netflix and turned on a Ken Burns documentary about the West from a few years ago. (Yes, Amy also razzed me for my choice of background entertainment.)

It had, as you might expect, a healthy dose of “Native Americans were here first but Europeans did not regard their claims very highly.” That is an uncomfortable topic. In the past, I thought it was uncomfortable simply because it feels a lot like you’re blaming me for the sins of my fathers. I’m supposed to feel bad, even guilty, for the bad things that happened to people 150 years ago?

But, it’s not just guilt. I don’t have a lot of patience for the shaming of white people. In the case of the Native Americans, in a lot of cases, we took it from people who had taken it from others not that long ago. But, it’s valuable to think about, I think, because it puts front and center questions about the nature of property. And I think that’s another reason we don’t like to think about it. We get uncomfortable looking under the hood and examining the nature of property. It’s something magical and fairly immutable.

But, with some exceptions, title to real estate in the U.S. originates with a grant from the United States Government. The government got it by taking it from someone else or sanctioning, after the fact, the taking the grantee had already accomplished. Property does not exist without the framework set up by the government and without its sanction. Without the legal framework, you don’t have property, you have stuff you have managed to acquire for awhile and which no one has yet taken from you.

Americans, by and large, get very uncomfortable with the idea that property is a blessing of government. We like to pretend that government is a necessary evil (sometimes not even that) and don’t like to recognize that government is a fundamental underpinning for our whole way of life. When it comes to property, you’ll get some happy talk about natural rights or being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. But such talk is entirely inadequate for explaining why it is that the Native Americans don’t dominate the real estate market. The reason is that we alienated the hell out of their right to property and nature’s law didn’t lift a finger to stop us.