Birth control and Obamacare: A pious hijacking at the Supreme Court (The Economist)
... Think for a moment about what it means to “hijack” something. The first example that comes to mind is not an insurance plan but a plane that nefarious passengers commandeer for sinister purposes. A “carjacking”, similarly, involves jumping into someone else’s vehicle and stealing it. Any form of hijacking is marked by violently wresting property from its legitimate owner. And here is where Mr Clement’s metaphor breaks down. When the government arranges for contraceptive coverage with the insurance company used by the religious charity, it is not commandeering anybody’s property. Nor is it taking metaphorical control of the group’s health insurance plan. Instead, the government is seeking to fulfil Obamacare’s near-universal guarantee to female employees by working with the same insurance company or third-party plan administrator that provides the rest of the employee’s health benefits. Neither the insurance company nor the plan is the property of the religious charity: Aetna is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Catholic Charities. The non-profit and the insurer are independent entities. When a school brings a child to a playground that his parents (for some reason) opt to avoid, the teachers are not “hijacking” the swingset. They are using a resource for the child’s benefit. The parents may be displeased about the school trip to the forbidden playground, but any complaint they raise would necessarily have a paternalistic flavour. Employers do not have such a role vis-a-vis their employees.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2016
"Birth control and Obamacare: A pious hijacking at the Supreme Court."
The last paragraph is the clincher, but you'll have to click through to read it because I'm no human spoiler alert.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Conservative think tank chief oblivious to objectives and successes of Obamacare.
Point, by point, by point.
Guy Who Gets Paid to Say Obamacare Doesn’t Work Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case, by Jonathan Chait (New York)
Obamacare has increased enrollment in its health care exchanges to more than 11 million, and the conservative response to the law’s demonstrable success at carrying out its goals has been fascinating to behold. Measured by volume, the right-wing backlash has diminished severely, as great roaring waves of furious anger have given way to irregular ripples of discontent. But measured by its content, very little has changed. Conservatives are talking much less than they used to about Obamacare, but they are saying more or less the same things, treating the law as a costly and obvious failure. What’s most striking is how oblivious most of them remain not only to measures of the law’s success, but even to the broad parameters of its objectives.
Monday, September 02, 2013
One Southern Indiana does not speak for me or this local business. Repeat.
It is true that I didn't vote for Todd Young, although it didn't stop me from having a beer with him last year. The important thing about it is that I voted. There was an election, and he won. So be it.
When I read this article, it took me a moment to grasp the part of it that galled me so tremendously. In retrospect, it can be narrowed down to the final three sentences.
Yeah, THAT's it, for sure. Let's be blunt.
The non-elected oligarch's benevolent society otherwise known as One Southern Indiana does not speak for local business in the broader sense, and it does not speak for NABC in any sense at all -- whether on the topic of managed health care, or tax reform, or the unconscionable boondoggle of the Ohio River Bridges Project.
I'll take dissonance from Todd Young, because whether I voted for him or not, at least there was an election. But I don't and won't accept it from Wendy Dant Chesser, who was selected by a cadre of elites, not elected by persons or businesses.
The problem? It isn't so much her as the ones doing the selecting.
Young: We have the leverage to push tax reform; Congressman says blocking health care funds won’t stop law, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)
NEW ALBANY — U.S. Rep. Todd Young believes the public has the appetite to deal with the kind of debates that led to deadline fiscal deals in the past if it brings about change in Washington.
Young, R-Ind., met with local business owners at One Southern Indiana on Wednesday about tax reform. He said it’s an issue the House and Republican lawmakers could hold leverage over the White House on with a Sept. 30 federal government funding deadline approaching.
When I read this article, it took me a moment to grasp the part of it that galled me so tremendously. In retrospect, it can be narrowed down to the final three sentences.
As for tax reform, 1si CEO Wendy Dant Chesser said the Chamber’s members were especially interested in simplifying the tax code.
Local businesses also support changes in the tax code as a way to boost economic growth, she continued.
“I sensed an optimism as [Young] gave his presentation and they pitched their questions,” Chesser said.
Yeah, THAT's it, for sure. Let's be blunt.
The non-elected oligarch's benevolent society otherwise known as One Southern Indiana does not speak for local business in the broader sense, and it does not speak for NABC in any sense at all -- whether on the topic of managed health care, or tax reform, or the unconscionable boondoggle of the Ohio River Bridges Project.
I'll take dissonance from Todd Young, because whether I voted for him or not, at least there was an election. But I don't and won't accept it from Wendy Dant Chesser, who was selected by a cadre of elites, not elected by persons or businesses.
The problem? It isn't so much her as the ones doing the selecting.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Krugman on "The Obamacare Shock."
Clear and absent sensationalism. That simply won't do. Perhaps Al Mohler can explain it better.
The Obamacare Shock, by Paul Krugman (NYT)
... So yes, it does look as if there’s an Obamacare shock coming: the shock of learning that a public program designed to help a lot of people can, strange to say, end up helping a lot of people — especially when government officials actually try to make it work.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Papa's crooning: "Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."
Papa's back in the house. Spinning. I'm tossing, though not pizzas.
The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare, by John Schnatter (Huffington Post)
... Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Courier-Journal and Publican back Shelli Yoder.
The most annoying part about owning a small business is keeping the restrooms clean.
A close second is the knowledge that we’ll generally be at a competitive disadvantage compared to the chains, our chief competition, both in terms of economies of scale in daily purchasing and providing employee “benefits” like health insurance.
My viewpoint hasn’t changed: Access to health care is among the most significant aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It should be regarded as is a right, not a variable benefit dependent on a roll of the dice. If all of us share the costs rather than a few, isn’t this state of equality the very essence of a favorable economy of scale, one that “benefits” all of us, and not just a few?
It is delightful that the Courier-Journal, a bosom friend to the Southern Indiana oligarchs when it comes to shilling for unnecessary bridges, has endorsed the candidate for our 9th district congressional seat most inclined to enrage Southern Indiana oligarchs: Shelli Yoder. The newspaper’s endorsement focuses on contrasting views of “Obamacare” between Yoder and the incumbent, Todd Young.
I’m supporting Yoder, too, and for the same reasons. I genuinely enjoyed meeting Young and having a beer with him, and I’d happily do it again, but I profoundly disagree with his political platform. During the same span of time, I’ve run into Yoder at least four times, and the most substantive of our chats was about health care. I’ll tell you what I told her.
I personally resent the view so common among Southern Indiana’s oligarchs that small business owners must march in anti-social lock step by expressing stereotypical reactions toward taxation and regulation, to the extent of unthinkingly supporting whatever candidate fluffs their insecurities most effectively. Yes, it is true that taxes and regulations often grate, but the problem with pandering on this basis is that removing so-called burdens from my own business’s back so often places them on someone else’s, and buries problems without solving them.
We’ve had numerous employees over the years without insurance or any reasonable prospect of health care short of the emergency room and subsequent indigence claims. We’ve tried our best to provide insurance for some employees, but never have been able to come anywhere close to helping all of them. Perhaps we would come closer to the universal if the expenditure were for supplemental benefits, not primary insurance. At any rate, it is my belief that in America, the power of the collective easily can be harnessed to begin resolving the crisis, leaving individuals and businesses free to concentrate on their own lives, aims and goals.
It this makes me a socialist, so be it. It’s never been a pejorative to me, anyway.
If a work ethic means anything in politics, then Yoder is going to come very close to winning a race in a district so gerrymandered to preclude such an oligarch-unfriendly outcome. I wish her luck.
A close second is the knowledge that we’ll generally be at a competitive disadvantage compared to the chains, our chief competition, both in terms of economies of scale in daily purchasing and providing employee “benefits” like health insurance.
My viewpoint hasn’t changed: Access to health care is among the most significant aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It should be regarded as is a right, not a variable benefit dependent on a roll of the dice. If all of us share the costs rather than a few, isn’t this state of equality the very essence of a favorable economy of scale, one that “benefits” all of us, and not just a few?
It is delightful that the Courier-Journal, a bosom friend to the Southern Indiana oligarchs when it comes to shilling for unnecessary bridges, has endorsed the candidate for our 9th district congressional seat most inclined to enrage Southern Indiana oligarchs: Shelli Yoder. The newspaper’s endorsement focuses on contrasting views of “Obamacare” between Yoder and the incumbent, Todd Young.
We don’t know whether Mr. Young, 40, of Bloomington, is hearing similar stories. He declined an invitation to meet with The Courier-Journal editorial board.
But his record speaks for itself. In addition to seeking to repeal health care reform, Mr. Young, a member of the House budget committee, supports the budget plan of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, which would drastically cut federal spending and reshape Medicare into a “voucher” plan for senior citizens.
I’m supporting Yoder, too, and for the same reasons. I genuinely enjoyed meeting Young and having a beer with him, and I’d happily do it again, but I profoundly disagree with his political platform. During the same span of time, I’ve run into Yoder at least four times, and the most substantive of our chats was about health care. I’ll tell you what I told her.
I personally resent the view so common among Southern Indiana’s oligarchs that small business owners must march in anti-social lock step by expressing stereotypical reactions toward taxation and regulation, to the extent of unthinkingly supporting whatever candidate fluffs their insecurities most effectively. Yes, it is true that taxes and regulations often grate, but the problem with pandering on this basis is that removing so-called burdens from my own business’s back so often places them on someone else’s, and buries problems without solving them.
We’ve had numerous employees over the years without insurance or any reasonable prospect of health care short of the emergency room and subsequent indigence claims. We’ve tried our best to provide insurance for some employees, but never have been able to come anywhere close to helping all of them. Perhaps we would come closer to the universal if the expenditure were for supplemental benefits, not primary insurance. At any rate, it is my belief that in America, the power of the collective easily can be harnessed to begin resolving the crisis, leaving individuals and businesses free to concentrate on their own lives, aims and goals.
It this makes me a socialist, so be it. It’s never been a pejorative to me, anyway.
If a work ethic means anything in politics, then Yoder is going to come very close to winning a race in a district so gerrymandered to preclude such an oligarch-unfriendly outcome. I wish her luck.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
President Obama in Fairfax, Virginia: "Romnesia."
Romnesia: "Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions."
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Escaping Obamacare, from Haiti to Turkmenistan.
I've meant to post this one for two weeks. A trend of Rich White Religious Teetotalers Like Mitt Flight to places like Haiti would be quite healthy for the country, but I just don't see it happening.
... I feel somewhat of a responsibility to inform these people, in addition to those who have similar feelings but somehow held back from voicing them on Twitter, that Canada probably isn't the best place to go to avoid universal health care. In fact, it hasn't been since 1966.
While this may come as a disappointment to some who were hoping to blissfully drink Tim Horton's coffee while observing impoverished people die from treatable ailments, fear not: There are plenty of countries that you can move to where you'll have absolutely no government-mandated access to health care.
Perhaps you might consider moving to Haiti. Not only would you be able to dodge socialist doctors, but you might be able to avoid medical professionals altogether: The country only has 25 physicians per 100,000 people. While access to clean water may be a bit spotty, this is more than made up for by the short life expectancy and the absence of Barack Obamas. Pack your swimsuit!
Monday, July 02, 2012
Affordable health care and the GOP's rampant moral failures, Part Three: Sandra Fluke.
It is a place to begin to join the civilized world. Right, Mittster?
Why Obamacare is worth fighting for against Mitt Romney's repeal threat; Now the supreme court has affirmed the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality, we need to show how this law will save lives, by Sandra Fluke (guardian.co.uk)
... Governor Romney's objection to this law is hypocrisy at its worst – especially since he enacted a very similar health reform measure in Massachusetts. But for Romney, that's not really the point. For him, this is about politics. And that's where he and our president couldn't be farther apart.
In addressing our country following this historic ruling, President Obama reminded us that this law and his decision to fight to enact it was never about politics. Popular or not, it was about a belief that "here in America – in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin."
Here in America, in 2010 – the same year the law was enacted – 26,000 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely because they didn't have health insurance. That's tens of thousands of American lives that might have been saved if a law like the Affordable Care Act had been in place earlier.
As President Obama has acknowledged, this law isn't perfect and we should work to improve it where needed. But repealing it would take our country, our economy, and the financial security of millions of Americans in a dangerous direction. It would quite literally put lives on the line.
Affordable health care and the GOP's rampant moral failures, Part Two: Michael Moore.
Neither headed back to the days of Dickens characters, nor to those of Mitch McConnell.
More Than a Victory, the Decision Today Was a Mandate for Us to Act, by Michael Moore
... So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today's court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that's why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! They know what we all know — that the path of history has been, and will continue to move toward the basic human right that all people are entitled to see a doctor and NOT have to worry about losing their home because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. Those days are over, or will be soon, and that is where civilization is headed. It's not headed back to the days of Oliver Twist. Today's victory is momentum, it's forward motion, and we WILL have true universal health care in this country in the not too distant future.
So take some time tonight to celebrate; this is a victory for the people. Actually, more than a victory, it is a mandate that all of us must now make sure that a second-term Obama continues to move the ball down the field, toward a system like they have in every other First World country on the planet. He simply has to improve Medicare and then expand it to every citizen in the country. The countries that do this, their people live an average of two to four years longer than we do. Is there a reason anyone doesn't want an extra four years of their lives? Or that our babies would have a better chance of surviving their first year like they do in the 48 countries that have a better infant mortality rate than we do? Exactly who is opposed to this? You'd have to be a bit…crazy ...
Affordable health care and the GOP's rampant moral failures, Part One: Paul Krugman.
"Kinder and more decent" doesn't exactly fit with the Right's eternal goal of preserving wealth by blaming victims.
The Real Winners, by Paul Krugman (New York Times)
... In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
