Posts tagged as:

character

This editorial at the WSJ talks about some commonly advanced alternatives to  current health-care/health-insurance reform legislation.

As a law student, I took a whole class on insurance law; I practiced insurance defense law (in mass torts, not individual personal injury cases); and I’ve studied the economic principles relating to insurance law (in fact, I keep an economist around for quick answers — it helps that he’s my best friend). I’m a believer in Schumpeterian competition. I’ve see it live in watching my father grow his small business over decades, seen mistakes and successes in my own career and business.

So when I read an article like this, it’s not hard for me to deconstruct the arguments and understand the rationales behind them. Indeed, most of them resonate with me and, I think, philosophically sound. Thursday, I attended the signing of NJ’s autism insurance legislation, which provided a minimum of $36,000 annual coverage for behavioral therapy for children with autism (about 2 hours a day, for those who are counting, assuming no price inflation) and speech/physical therapy/occupational therapy as required for all covered persons with autism.

Of course, this bill, like other state bills, does not reach those insurers that are subject to ERISA, which fully preempts state regulation for compliant plans. This statutory backdrop is the reason that as much as Autism Votes and state groups are working on state statutes, they are also all focused on federal legislation. (The possibility also exists, although I haven’t read the federal bills to see exactly how they’re approaching the issue, to extend insurance coverage for behavioral therapy to all insurance plans by expanding the statutory language to express Congress’ clear intent to preempt the entire field of autism insurance coverage and supersede state schemes (or lack thereof) with a single federal scheme.)

So those statutes are good for people like me: a parent with an autistic child who benefits from ABA therapy. But I probably should consider that government intervention will skew efficiency. I believe that’s true with protectionist trade tariffs, agricultural subsidies, and byzantine tax code provisions that hide the politicized allocation of costs and benefits from taxpayers. I’ve never really been in a situation where something particular to my situation was at real issue: what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to reconcile these two ideas: adherence to a set of theoretical beliefs about how markets function, economic principles of incentives, and federalism with the very clear imperative to help my son and protect my family?

In some countries, and for some people in the US, the answer is simple: take whatever you can and steal the rest. We expect democracy, not kleptocracy, and I still believe that unjust means do not justify the ends; we can turn our country into a mess by expanding government power in the name of security from terrorists just as easily as we can do it in the name of protecting the people from “greedy” corporations.

But how much does it matter to my ASD son what sort of political climate we live in if he can’t fully participate in society, if he’s unable to vote, or advocate for himself? Does it matter as much to my other son what the world is like if his brother is at risk? I think that these questions are easier to answer in a hypothetical than in real life, when faced with a specific child and real choices.

Part of my response right now is to suppor the things that are clearly good ofr my son while helping to build the detailed evidence that they are good for society as a whole rather than a “mere” transfer of wealth. This approach is as much self-interest as it is self-satisfying; if there is societal benefit to spending funds on ABA for people with autism, then it’s far less likely to be removed, whittled away, or excised from future budgets through even more political wrangling.

How have you reconciled your general political or economic philosophy with the “slings and arrows” of real life? Where have you drawn lines?

{ 0 comments }

A recent NYT article discussed the rash of false medals/military honors since the long war on terror has greatly increased the number of “everyday” people with some plausible wartime service.

(For example, I recently met an in-house attorney with JetBlue who was in the Army National Guard during law school and then deployed to Iraq. That’s not easy either.)

I found this language to be odd:

Some First Amendment scholars worry that laws regulating the use of symbols are similar to those against flag burning, which the Supreme Court has said are unconstitutional limitations on free speech. Others have also questioned whether overzealous activists risk slanderously and erroneously accusing people of fraud because of missing or misprinted military documents.

I agree completely with the “wearing a medal” issue, even more vehemently if it’s protected speech criticizing the military and the government. We protect the Constitution so that we can keep these rights; I’m one of the only former military folks I know who doesn’t have a problem with flag-burning. I believe that it’s great for other people to take out their frustration and anger on a US flag rather than on a citizen or soldier, sailor, airman, or marine.

But to accuse someone? That would take some serious self-righteousness and some serious proof. I doubt that anyone who actually held any of these medals would take it on themselves to throw stones at someone else without being absolutely convinced; the idea of denigrating a soldier who was deservedly decorated would seem to me to be the type of conduct that these folks would find outrageous. I, for one, have no problem detailing the extent of my “action” in the Army: the unit I was to join went to Panama in 1989 but I was waiting for OCS and never joined the unit; I was in OCS during Desert Storm, and all of Ft. Benning was worried about thousands of casualties; at OCS we openly talked about the School’s prominence in turning out 2LTs, many of whom went to Vietnam and promptly died; but we stayed home and the war was over; I was in Hawai’i during Bosnia, and my old boss went to Somalia. I didn’t do any of those things. All I did was stand ready to do whatever was asked of me, and that’s enough. I know people with actual medals, who’ve actually fought. I can’t imagine demeaning them by pretending I did something I hadn’t. I don’t know who would.

This quote is both heartening and disturbing:

Special Agent Mike Sanborn, who since 2007 has led the unit in the F.B.I.’s Washington office that handles stolen valor cases, said that while the bureau did not keep statistics on the crime, the biggest increase came after 2006 with the passage of the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a federal crime to falsely claim, verbally or in writing, that a person had been awarded a medal. Previously, the law only prohibited wearing a medal that a person did not earn.

I know of someone who apparently (and I won’t name him or how I know; he knows the truth; his name certainly doesn’t appear on this list) noted the award of a Silver Star to his resume at one point early in his career. It hasn’t appeared in a recent bio (he recently held an admittedly high-profile government job) and I didn’t see the resume with my own eyes. I guess he certainly won’t be punished for violating this law (ex post facto rears its ugly head), but he knows if he should be.

That’s the end of it. Even knowing that I don’t believe him, I’m humble enough in the face of thousands who did vastly more than I did to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt by letting the world sort it out. It’s not my place to pretend that I’m protecting the honor of the heroes I know by challenging one misguided fellow; I honor them by displaying the character traits they taught: courage, competence, character, commitment; by living up to the motto many of them lived and fought by; and by raising my children to be honorable themselves.

{ 1 comment }