The Impact of Employer-Provided Health Insurance on Dynamic Employment Transitions

We estimate the impact of employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) on the job mobility of males over time using a dynamic empirical model that accounts for unobserved heterogeneity. Previous studies of job-lock reach different conclusions about possible distortions in labor mobility stemming from an employment-based health insurance system: a few authors find no evidence of job-lock, while most find reductions in the mobility of insured workers of between 20 and 40%. WE use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth which describes the health insurance an individual holds, as well as whether he is offered insurance by his employer. This additional information allows us to model the latent individual characteristics that are correlated with the offer of EPHI, the acceptance of EPHI, and employment transitions. Our results provide an estimate of job-lock unbiased through correlation with positive job characteristics and individual specific turnover propensity. We find no evidence of job-lock among married males, and produce small estimates of job-lock among unmarried males of between 10 and 15%.

Speaking the Language of Exclusion: How Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights Analyses Permit Language Discrimination (comment)

In the summer of 1995, the en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Flores v. State upheld a lower court’s ruling to give a drunk-driving (DWI) offender a year in prison as opposed to probation. The trial judge denied the defendant probation due to his inability to speak English. The county in which the defendant was arrested and convicted did not provide a DWI rehabilitation program in Spanish, leading the judge to determine the defendant would not benefit from probation. In his appeal, Mr. Flores claimed the lower court violated his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and his equality rights and due course of law rights under the Texas Constitution. The case invited the court to resolve federal and state confusion over the issue of language and to find constitutional protection for those unable to speak English. The court declined this invitation, instead applying the rigid classification scheme for assessing equal protection claims. Those like Mr. Flores face a combination of difficulties, as they are members of a group which cannot be identical to one based on race or national origin; furthermore, judges can deny state privileges rather than fundamental rights without violating due process theory. Had it accepted the case, the Court could have demonstrated the Fourteenth Amendment analysis can be more flexible than the formulaic one the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied. The Court could have reached this result by declaring language-based discrimination as suspect, either because language is presumptively related to national origin or because it is the basis of invidious discrimination. Alternatively, the Court could have taken seriously the rational-basis test, as even minimal scrutiny merited an examination of the fit between denying a probation request and the stated goal of meaningful rehabilitation

Identification of Barriers to the Use of Department of Defense Medical Assets in Support of Federal, State and Local Authorities to Mitigate the Consequences of Domestic Bioterrorism

The threat of the use of a biological agent as a weapon presents the American public with a potential for catastrophic consequences with massive loss of life and economic disaster. Reducing the effect of a biological warfare attack requires resources beyond those found within local or state governments. The integration of appropriate federal assets in a timely fashion will significantly reduce casualties and economic loss. Military medical assets support the federal response. Managing the consequences of a domestic biological warfare attack is a new role for the military, requiring different support packages than those configured to support the war fight. This paper examines existing policy for accessing and integrating military assets into the federal response to support state and local disaster capability. Processes are contrasted with differing requirements intrinsic to a biological warfare scenario. Insights into barriers are presented. A model for utilization of military support that balances requirements with capability is proposed

The Effect of 8 U. S. C. 1324(d) in Transporting Prosecutions: Does the Confrontation Clause Still Apply to Alien Defendants

Cases prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. §1324 present special challenges for the Government and for defendants. Under §1324, it is a crime to transport or smuggle aliens into the United States. Prosecuting transporters or smugglers may present a challenge if a witness is unavailable. Even though transporting or smuggling always has witnesses—the alien(s) who hired the smuggler or transporter—not all witnesses have prolonged detentions, and some are returned to their native country. The transporter or smuggler may then assert their Sixth Amendment right. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause requires that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Whether, and under what conditions, the absent witnesses’ hearsay deposition testimony is admissible in a §1324 defendant’s trial has courts divided. Because of the obligations placed on the government by the Confrontation Clause, §1324(d) cannot, by itself, resolve the tension between a defendant’s right to confrontation and the need to address both the logistical and human rights implications of detaining material witnesses. While Congress cannot abrogate the requirements of the Constitution, it can, and should, draft legislation that makes it easier for the government to comply with the requirements of the Constitution. Congress has the authority to expand the government’s options for detaining witnesses who can be persuaded to stay and authorize the government to take measures to bring witnesses back to the United States. Therefore, Congress should make it easier for the government to make any necessary efforts without unduly burdening the witnesses whose testimony it seeks

Writing in the Margins: Brennan, Marshall, and the Inherent Weaknesses of Liberal Judicial Decision-Making (essay)

From 1967, when Thurgood Marshall took his seat as Supreme Court Justice, until 1990, when William Brennan, Jr. vacated his seat, the two Justices formed one of the most consistent liberal voting blocs in the history of the Court. Both Justices were judicial activists who labored in the tradition of Legal Realism. Although both Brennan and Marshall recognized the interpretation and application of the law as purposeful exercises, they differed in their approach to the task. Marshall, for instance, appealed to social consensus stating that his views were supported by society. Furthermore, Marshall strongly believed that the Constitution is a living document which evolves and can bring about future change. Brennan, on the other hand, was a strong believer of natural law. Brennan supported the widely accepted position that a judge cannot solely rely on his or her personal views when making judicial decisions. Marshall, however, showed little sign of utilizing any version of natural law interpretation or reliance on transcendent values. Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall knew well that what is moderate, centrist, or in the best interest of the majority changes, and a society comes to demand different protections from its government and its founding document. Following Brennan and Marshall’s retirement, an increasingly conservative population elected conservative presidents who, in turn, placed more conservative Justices on the Court. By the early 1980s, the more liberal justices found themselves in the minority. Nonetheless, when society once again catches up, the jurisprudence of Brennan and Marshall will be there, waiting

Waking Up the Dissident: Transforming Lives (and Society) with Feminist Counseling

When I was a student in the 70’s I took a year off to travel the world with a friend. Despite taking every precaution, I was sexually assaulted twice. The incidents changed the course of my life. I completed my studies and began working in a refuge for battered women. There I bore witness, not only to unimaginable cruelty, but to widespread institutional indifference to women’s suffering. Decades later, police, judicial and child welfare responses remain inadequate in Canada (as everywhere), and mental health practitioners continue to routinely blame and pathologize women. As a counselor, first at the shelter, later in a police crisis unit, I struggled to know how to respond when women sought my guidance. Should they report being beaten, raped, threatened with death? Should they seek treatment for depression? Could they lose their children? Could they be charged for defending themselves against their batterers? Women were looking for reassurances that I couldn’t give. What I could give them was tools to understand the forces acting upon their lives. I began to incorporate a feminist analysis into my work, including a sociology lesson and consciousness-raising in every session. I started bringing women together in groups, where many problems considered personal and psychological were recognized as common and social, requiring political solutions. For many women, reflecting on their problems from a feminist perspective was truly liberating and empowering