Port-Wine Stains: A Particularly Idiotic Statement on State Benefit Mandates – Pacific Research Institute

Port-Wine Stains: A Particularly Idiotic Statement on State Benefit Mandates

Me, that’s who.

Alabama came in first place in the second edition of the Index of Health Ownership. I was so pleased that I asked Michael Ciamarra of the Alabama Policy Institute to collaborate with me on an op-ed for placement in local newspapers. As a result, I managed to embarass both of us.

The offending statement is in an op-ed that ran in two Alabama newspapers, which implies that removing port-wine stains is “ridiculous”. There is no excuse for such an offensive term (and it came from my draft, not Mr. Ciamarra’s). By way of explanation (but not excuse, I re-iterate), when I “translate” research into an op-ed for a daily newspaper, I try to find something to “punctuate” it so that the citizen-reader can better appreciate what I’m trying to say. (Anyone who has struggled to read my literature review of state benefit mandates knows how dry this stuff can be!)

As the draft churns through the editorial sausage-grinder, items get put in and taken out and if I’m negligent something completely wrong-headed can land in the draft and stay there when it flies out the door.

And I very much regret to say that defining removal of port-wine stains as “ridiculous” is such a failure of diligence. In fact, port-wine stain is a very complex issue, and port-wine stains can have very serious consequences if untreated. A reader directed me to a very helpful website maintained by families and medical professionals specializing in this area.

Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.

Scroll to Top