Bill Overview
Title: Mindless Mask Mandate on Planes Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from mandating the wearing of masks, face coverings, or other accessories during domestic air travel. It also retroactively mitigates penalties associated with refusing to comply with such a mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, federal agencies and private air carriers must remove from their no-fly lists any individual placed on a list solely because of a refusal to comply with a mask mandate. Federal agencies must also refund within 30 days any fines issued to individuals solely based on such a refusal. An individual who does not receive a refund in that time frame may sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
Sponsors: Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals traveling by domestic air travel affected by mask mandates
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill affects individuals traveling by domestic air travel in the United States.
- The population that may have been fined or placed on no-fly lists due to mask mandate non-compliance are affected.
- During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, mask mandates on planes widely applied across many countries, particularly affecting domestic travelers in the U.S.
- CDC reports that a substantial percentage of Americans traveled by air during the pandemic when mandates were in effect, implying a large potential group may have been affected.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is individuals who were fined or placed on no-fly lists for refusing mask mandates during the pandemic. They are likely a smaller subset of all domestic air travelers.
- Given the policy's financial constraints (budget of $1,000,000 in year 1), not all affected individuals may receive monetary compensation immediately.
- Some individuals, such as frequent flyers who were fined multiple times, might experience more significant impacts, both financially through refunds and psychologically through removal from no-fly lists.
- Those who were compliant or not traveling during this period will remain unaffected by the policy. Thus, their wellbeing will remain unchanged.
- The commonness scores reflect different segments of the population—those more likely to have been fined are relatively uncommon compared to typical domestic travelers.
Simulated Interviews
Business Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is overdue. The initial mandates were harsh, and I couldn't travel for business.
- Being on the no-fly list was a huge inconvenience both professionally and personally.
- Refunding the fines would help, but more than that, I want the freedom to travel without restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Flight Attendant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm indifferent to the policy on a personal level because I always followed the rules.
- But I saw how it stressed out some passengers, so removing these penalties might ease tension.
- I don't like the idea of people being rewarded for rule-breaking though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Healthcare Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The return of the fines is great because they seemed excessive at the time.
- Being a healthcare worker, I understood the reasons for the mandates but felt some penalties were too severe.
- Lifting the no-fly restrictions, however, doesn't impact me since I was never on such a list.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Remote Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- To be honest, I don't care much for the policy since it doesn't affect me.
- I work from home and avoid travel, so mask mandates on planes were never an issue for me.
- It seems like it might be helpful for frequent travelers, but that's not me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should have been enacted earlier; it's a relief to potentially get my fines refunded.
- Being on the no-fly list affected my business as I missed meetings and opportunities.
- I'm eager to have more freedom to travel for work without looking over my shoulder.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I followed all the rules, perhaps a bit cautiously.
- I was never fined, but I saw both sides of the debate unfolding during flights.
- Relaxing the penalties seems fair to those affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For someone like me, who got fined once, the financial relief is appreciated.
- I'm not on a no-fly list, but the refund will be helpful.
- I know several peers who'll also benefit from the refunds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally, I think people should have respected the public safety measures.
- The removal of fines and restrictions doesn't sit well with the message it sends.
- But if it's a relief to others, it may ease tensions and allow us to rebuild trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Musician (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 49 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The frequent fines I paid were a burden on my career.
- I need to travel for shows, so getting off any lists and having those fines refunded would be huge.
- The policy is a necessary correction for unfair practices during the pandemic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I followed all instructions and advocate for public health policies.
- I witnessed plenty of non-compliance issues which led to disturbances.
- Removing penalties might placate those affected, but compliance should be valued.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 5: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 10: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation and administrative costs will primarily occur in the first year, as most refunds and list updates are expected to be completed quickly.
- Potential legal challenges may arise if individuals don't receive timely refunds, potentially increasing costs.
- The policy is not anticipated to have significant long-term budgetary implications beyond the initial administrative efforts.