We have previously discussed efforts of politicians to add costs or otherwise harass owners and customers of strip joints for moral, social, or political reasons. Both feminists and religious right advocates have targeted the businesses. The latest such effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania state Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, who admits that he has introduced a new draconian measure to respond to faith-based groups. His bill would force strippers to register with the state, ban alcohol in strip joints and create a buffer zone between dancers and patrons (effectively barring “lap dances.”).
The bill is being justified as a way “to help combat sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation of women.” However, sex trafficking and sexual abuse are crimes that are already prosecuted under other laws. There is a question nexus between these prohibitions and those crimes. The law seems transparently designed to harass this business out of moral opposition from faith-based groups. As such it raises some difficult constitutional questions in the singling out of this industry. The law also raises serious privacy issues for this industry in forcing such registration — a requirement that is not imposed on the vast array of other businesses. Indeed, this is an area where adults want and expect that greatest level of privacy in exercising their individual lifestyle choices. Both dancers and customers are adults who are making lawful and consensual choices.
Under the proposed law, adult-orientated clubs would pay $300 to register with the state and would have to list business partners, as well as corporate officers and directors. It would also force disclosure of anybody with “an influential interest” in the establishment previously convicted of a crime.
Baker previously attracted national attention by using his Chairmanship of a key committee to block a bill that would legalize medical marijuana. His latest effort to impose restrictions on those working or going to strip joints has been pulled back for “more work.” The poorly written and ill-conceived law however is expected to be reintroduced.
Good idea. I prefer my meat labeled “prime” or “choice”. Even a medical history might be helpful… You know… like a carfax for floozies.
Barking Dog … where I agree with you is the position that Congress may and can rectify the PPACA, and I suspect they will try sooner than later. In essence they screwed the pooch on that passage….only later discovering they “uncovered” themselves. You are right the Burwell decision does not preclude that option. However, it was still semantic nonsense just as the tax & penalty equivalence was nonsense. The court should take less of an activist approach and send back illogically written bills. Otherwise we simply have more vague and unintelligible legislation…due to carelessness as much as anything.
Now as for the FEHBP (Federal Employee Health Benefit Program) let me use myself as an example (for the umpteenth time I think on line) of just what costs are compared to the ACA exchanges. I am under the FEHBP plan and including the former employer portion (DOD/DA for 70% or so) the 100% figure for my plan is about $810 per month ($9,720 annually) with almost no deductible back charges….biggest I’ve had in years is $15.60 something. And I do not have to wait for an uncertain refundable tax credit…another savings for the IRS. Last one was $10.53. Annually it is always less than $250…including the Medicare portion. Rx co-pays generally run $300 per year. If I lost the employer subsidy as a retiree I could still afford the plan. In short, if John Kerry’s proposal in 2004 had been adopted with means testing for subsidy (I might lose about half mine if spread over the populace in total) we would all be better off….and not have spent a fortune on merely rolling out a new plan poorly (it was inoperable) when a working one already existed and could have been expanded. That said, for those who do not know how federal government accounting works, the portion paid out in subsidy is calculated as a labor cost for budget purposes (not an entitlement) present and future…e.g., it is calculated as part of your pay. One could argue that the subsidy portion was earned and paid out over time. Private sector companies account for benefit costs that same way…for budget purposes, it is calculated as pay.
And I have had extensive treatment for cancer, twice, both successful. Now I selected a plan that was low in cost relative to others and I am part of a very large teaching hospital coverage group. I need a referral to go see Dr Joe Blow, etc…whihc I never do. Never-the-less, compare my annual cost to any ACA Exchange plan, including deductibles and co-pays, plus prescriptions, and tell me how the ACA variety is “better?” The FEHBP always provides a dozen plus private sector provider options, for each of the 50 states, ranging from low to high cost, negotiated annually, and are portable in the sense if you move you can select a new plan mid-year seamlessly, and no FEHBP plan allows denial due to pre-existing conditions. Not to mention their database works 24/7 and has for a very long time.
Yes, I’d say Congress, if it will, should modify the ACA or eliminate it and simultaneously replace it with something similar to what I have. It would be to their personal benefit if they do that. We’ll see…or not.
Barking Dog … Congress persons do NOT get “free” care or insurance for life. Never have. They once had the FEHBP where they paid about 31% of the premium, but because they jointly failed to read the ACA before passage, they lost that and now must use the ACA exchanges. Only congressional staff are still under the FEHBP, a far more efficient system that has worked well for over 50 years.
Congress has the power to rectify any law that it wishes to. The decision in Burwell does not prevent Congress from changing the medical insurance industry law. We need to ask Congress to repeal free Congressional medical care. Let them use their income from their salary to buy insurance policies like the rest of us. Why do they get free medical care for life? Why?
Let me simplify…no harm would have been done by sending the law back to Congress to rectify, one way or another. Heaven forbid they find a simpler better solution overall…thus don’t give them that chance. Vlad the Putz should be proud of us.
How on earth did Roberts and the majority determine the Congressional intentions of a law that admittedly no one had read in its entirety, even scanned it, before passage…even the Speaker of the House, at the time of passage said: “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it!” Now we have Justice pansy pants to guide us on the acknowledged unknown…he must be a psychic. Or just a weasel…I’ll go with the latter.
I really have lost any respect for SCOTUS on anything…they are legislating from the bench. Any sane finding would have sent the law back to Congress to refine, not just sponsor its errors or mis-statements from the bench. Now “Penalty” means “Tax” and “by the state” means “by the states or the federal government.” Jeebus on a pogo stick, just how can they do that? That’s rhetorical…there is no truthful answer.
I am not for total elimination of health care for the indigent, or even the “middle class” (however that is defined these days?) and I have said so repeatedly. I’d even favor a more substantial subsidy if properly managed and defined…without all the deductible and co-pay nonsense in the ACA. Written by the careless and ruled on by the illiterate. I’d just like a literate Congress and Court to sort it out in common parlance. Good luck for me…will never happen again…the precedent is set now. When you are ticketed one day for an illegal right turn, don’t be shocked to find it’s really fora left turn…the terms are confusing you know….so you gotta go with the word “turn” only. Gaaaaah.
Whenever you hear a politician trying to pass laws that pretend to be advancing a “moral” lifestyle, you can be assured that the politician is deeply involved in some serious fraud behind the scenes, and these proposals serve as a convenient distraction. I have a much better solution for a nation that pretends to be guided by the principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: If you don’t like strip clubs, don’t go to them. If you don’t like drinking establishments, don’t go to them. If you don’t approve of lap dancing, don’t go where they feature them. I think you get the idea from here on in.
Let’s all calm down folks. JT has a case working it’s way through. But, I like the political solution better. Win elections, repeal bad laws.