R.I. legislators are the real gambling addicts

AS OTHERS SEE IT There’s room to compromise on universal health care

You may have heard that yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court took an action which some say will “open the flood gates” to sports betting across the nation. You may have heard that this is the beginning of the end for honest sports play. And you may have heard it’s the best thing to happen in years for the sports fan.

Depending on your perspective, all of the above may be true. But I think we’re all hearing the usual exaggerations which predominate whenever there is an unknown. It’s true, there is a lot which is unknown. Here’s what we do know.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared “unconstitutional’ a 25 year-old law which banned, in all states except Nevada, betting on sports games. The reason it gave for that decision is that the law didn’t regulate the gambling in all states except Nevada; it banned it. The court’s opinion was the constitution says if the federal government would not regulate it, it was up to each state to regulate it. I remember from social studies class in high school that “all powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are given to the States.” The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the constitution in matters which come before it. In this case, the court ruled that Congress passed an unconstitutional law.

You may ask, “How could it take 25 years for the Supreme Court to decide this?” Well, it didn’t take that long. It took mostly that long for someone, in this case the governor of the state of New Jersey, to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

Now that it has been challenged and struck down, what will happen next? Well, that depends on your perspective. In Nevada, nothing new will happen. In states like New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Mississippi and others, they’ll need to pass quick laws

Since the day Obamacare passed, as Republicans have sought to sabotage it, Democrats have hoped for more. Their hopes have taken them ever closer to pushing a radical upending of the healthcare system, exemplified in Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for a European-style single-payer program, which a growing list of prospective Democratic presidential candidates has endorsed. But there are options that are neither as cruel as the GOP’s miserly repeal-and-replace nor as disruptive as the more sweeping left-wing proposals. In other words, they are compassionate and realistic.

Economists at the Urban Institute, an independent research group, released on Sunday a proposalthat would get the nation to near-universal health-care coverage and relieve many of the financial burdens some people face under the current system - and cost the federal treasury far less than more radical plans. It would leave in place Medicare and the employer-based health-care system, whereby most Americans get their insur- which regulate this type of betting to their states.

A press release received at our radio station from the president of the Rhode Island Senate, Dominick J. Ruggerio, yesterday indicated at least his house in the legislature was not caught by surprise. President Ruggerio said, “In anticipation of this decision, I introduced legislation this year to enable sports betting at the facilities where it has been approved by voters already, Twin River in Lincoln and the new venue being constructed in Tiverton.” Other legislators were quick to support the idea with the same enthusiasm in which an inmate on death row would welcome a reprieve from the governor. Facing monumental budget issues, they are trying hard to keep their dignity as they reach for the sunglasses to hide their tears of relief. The term “giddy with laughter” would not go too far in describing the mood of some legislators at the prospect of being able to spend the millions of new dollars this expansion of gambling will yield.

However, I’m not happy with Rhode Island jumping on the sports betting boat. Don’t get me wrong, for the good things which can happen with these changes I am happy. But there is a down-side to all this. No, I’m not a pessimist. Listen, we already have a state budget which is so dependent upon the traditional vices of smoking, drinking and gambling, that if everyone suddenly “got religion” and gave it up the entire Rhode Island state government would have the life expectancy of an ice cream cone on the Fourth of July. I’m not eager to see it any more dependent on sin taxes than it is now.

I have nothing against people having fun. But we all know that some people have a hard time knowing when “enough is enough.” For these people we have just made life much more perilous. And this doesn’t even consider the extra temptations and pressures this will ance. But it would create a new healthcare marketplace for most everyone else - those on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which are government initiatives for low- income people, and those buying insurance on their own in the individual market.

As under Obamacare, insurance companies could not deny people essential care. But the federal subsidies helping people buy coverage would be more generous, pegged to the “gold” tier of plans in the current system. The subsidies would scale with income; some people would get free coverage; even at the high end, no one would pay more than 8.5 percent of their income in premiums for a gold plan. People could take this money and buy into a new, government-run plan, or they could purchase coverage from private insurers. Crucially, doctors, hospitals and other providers would be barred from charging private insurers in the new market more than they charge Medicare, which could lower costs dramatically in areas of the country served by only a few providers whose market power allows them to set high rates.

Because many people would pay premiums and other forms of cost-sharing, put on the athletes.

I know I sound like a Debbie Downer with this talk. I’m not happy I think this way, and I don’t want to spoil anyone else’s fun. I am just remembering the words of a dear friend who turned out to be a wise old man. Former Lt. Governor Joe O’Donnell and I used to amuse ourselves debating big and important topics over lunch. Topics like the uselessness of party politics (my position) or the dangers of the expansion of gambling in the state (his position). I have to say that Joe made a great point in his argument against the expansion of gambling which I never forgot. He told me no matter how much gambling we allow we will never have enough money from it because the General Assembly will just spend more. That, he concluded, is no way to run a government.

Joe’s words have been proven true many times since then. Rhode Island first allowed a state lottery “to fund education.” Then it funded everything they needed money for. They have casino gambling now, and it’s still not enough money; our deficits have never been bigger. Just over the border to our west we see the State of Connecticut also running terrible deficits despite having two of the largest casinos in this part of the world within their borders. I can only conclude that fixing a budget deficit with gambling money has proven to be as effective as having Curly from The Three Stooges fix your plumbing.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was laudable in its wisdom. I think the Supreme Court justices did their job well. We can only hope and pray the leaders in each state exhibit the same level of wisdom.

You see, I can be a starry-eyed optimist. they would have some skin in the game. Between this and the fact that employer insurance would continue, the cost to the government would be about $98 billion in the first year - a lot, to be sure, but far less than a switch to single-payer. Insurers would be protected from catastrophic costs through permanent reinsurance and risk-adjustment programs, mechanisms that stabilized the system in Obamacare’s early years. Given the size of the new market, more insurers and most providers would probably participate.

The Urban Institute calculates that the plan would help those currently struggling to afford insurance - and cover about 16 million additional people. Nearly half of those still left uncovered would be undocumented immigrants ineligible for the program.

This is hardly the only option between sabotage and single-payer. For example, Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., have proposed a public-option plan that would make more incremental improvements to Obamacare. The point is that those advocating change can be both humane and practical.