Religious Freedom Ridiculousness Acts

Indiana becomes the latest state to pass a "religious freedom restoration act," laws ostensibly needed to protect people's sincerely held religious beliefs. 

These laws are good and bad. For instance, development on sacred grounds or a prohibition on using hallucinogens in religious practices is unacceptable. But when those laws open the door for discrimination or irresponsibility in one's profession the become a serious issue.

So, in Indiana, we supposedly have shock and surprise from lawmakers at the backlash the law has garnered. 

Well, no shit. The law is broadly worded in a landscape where religious freedom has joined States' Rights as a magic word allowing people to bypass federal and state laws. And, apparently, social norms. 

I get it. You're a florist or baker opposed to gay marriage on principle. You're a pharmacist that sincerely believes that Plan B is tantamount to abortion. You're a doctor opposed to abortion in any circumstance. I respect those beliefs and I'd hope any of those people would respect my beliefs as sincerely.

Here's the issue. You've chosen to open your bakery or flower shop to the general public. You've entered into a social contract that requires civility and a modicum of respect for others.

If a church chooses not to perform gay marriages, that's a well-defined boundary. A church is a private, faith based organization. By definition it exists to promote and adhere to a set of morals and virtues. 

But a doctor is (rarely) a pastor. A pharmacist is rarely ordained. 

Plan B is not abortion, full stop. The best medical literature has not found any evidence that Plan B is tantamount to an abortion. Pharmacists are in a profession based on that science. Despite a belief to the contrary, a pharmacist is obligated to act on that neutral, scientific evidence. 

A doctor is bound not only by the same scientific principles but the Hippocratic oath. Since scientific literature is not necessarily clear on the biology of all aspects of abortion, I am perfectly willing to accept an exemption for elective abortions. 

However, in a life or death situation, a doctor has to rely on the wishes of their patient or revert to triage. The patient most likely to survive takes precedence. 

For a tl;dr, once you choose to operate in a public, secular environment your operations and actions are no longer governed by faith-based convictions. 

Wal Mart and the Paupers

Today the Nation Labor Relations Board sided with workers against Wal Mart employees trying to take a stand against Wal Mart's anti-labor practices. 

In its statement, the NLRB explained: “During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests on November 22, 2012.” It also ruled that “Walmart stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/177254/labor-board-sides-workers-walmart-cant-silence-employees-any-longer

This is a major victory for everyone. Wal Mart workers are pushed onto Medicaid and Food Stamps because if the chains abysmal wages. Taxpayers are literally footing the bill for Wal Mart's low prices.

If we want a market based economy, it's time we actually stood up and held the free marketeers accountable for their actions. 

Otherwise, allow the government to subsidize private employees. Of course, that would require that we stop slashing spending to SNAP and TANF benefits. 

Reports Of Your Insurance Plan's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

There’s something I have to get off my chest.

Human interest stories about people whose insurance costs are "skyrocketing" under the ACA are starting to blossom. These articles are at best misstating what’s going on or--at worst--deliberately misleading consumers about the Obamacare changes. If I may:

1) Most Americans--including me--are insured by their employers who, in turn, get tax incentives to subsidize their employees' insurance. In my case, I pay about 20% of my premium. My employer covers about 80% of my total plan's cost. That's pretty typical. 

My cost is going up by about $20 next January. Is that annoying? Yes. Is it good for me? Yes! To comply with the ACA my insurance has to change to cover pediatric care (including vision & dental); emergency services and hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; lab services; rehabilitative care; preventative care including free screenings and physicals; mental health and substance abuse treatment; and prescription drug coverage. 

Plus! There's no lifetime cap on benefits and they can't terminate or change my plan suddenly if, say, one of us got sick. Or it's possible my son will need treatment for dyspraxia. Before the ACA, there was a lifetime cap on how much treatment my insurance would pay for. Or consider someone with a chronic disease. Now that person can't exhaust their benefits. 

I mention this because it's the insurance most people are familiar with. About 80% of people with insurance have policies subsidized by their employers. So, when they see stories about rising premiums and see their own premiums increase, like mine, they're undoubtedly concerned. 

There's a second type of market, though. Individual plans for the self-employed or for people who don't have an employer-provided plan. 

Importantly, this market hasn't been "in the light," so to speak. A lot of the complications and changes that are getting media attention are simply things on the individual market seeing the light of day.

Which brings me to...

2) The policies being cancelled are mostly limited to the individual market. A lot of them are low premium, high deductible plans with low lifetime caps. For instance, some plans might be $56 a month. But they cover, essentially, nothing. If a person with a catastrophic plan like that gets sick they're shit outta luck. Their insurance might pay, say, $10,000 (being generous) and the rest of the $200,000 falls on the patient's shoulders. 

The policies are being cancelled because they don't meet the minimum requirements under the ACA. Those plans have to actually, you know, provide benefits. These junk plans are grandfathered if they existed before March, 2010 and haven't changed since. 

So, I understand the sticker shock and I get the frustration when people see premiums go from $70 a month to maybe $300 or more. 

On the other hand, the ACA offers a federally funded expansion of Medicaid for low income families, children, and the elderly. Almost all Democratic state legislatures have expanded the coverage and are accepting the additional funds. Some Republican-controlled states like Ohio have expanded Medicaid and are accepting the funds. Most Republican states have not. So their residents are going to be stuck between getting Medicaid and getting help paying for a private plan. 

Which is another major point. Depending on someone's income, the sticker price of a private plan isn't what someone would actually pay. Someone getting a $400 a month plan might qualify for subsidies that lower their monthly total to $80 a month. Much easier to handle. 

Still an extra cost? Yes. But, much cheaper than betting against getting sick, having a child, needing medication, or having an accident. Statistically speaking it's like betting red on a roulette table with only four red spots.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concerns. And even the idea that you should be "free" not to buy insurance and take that bet. But, if you do, you're only making everyone else's bills higher.

It's frustrating that the headlines are *technically* correct but extremely misleading. They don't mention those expanded benefits. They don't point out that insurers canceling plans or raising costs exponentially are private insurers padding their bottom lines. Or, in some cases, trying to defraud their customers (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare).

End rant.

A reference to Syria

I think this post from The People's View is a good read on Syria. (http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/spend-money-at-home-instead-and-theres.html?m=1)

I'm generally against war and the suffering it brings. But I'm not a pacifist. Military force can be justified when there is a defined reason and a stated outcome. 

The 2003 Iraq war did not have either of those. It was completely open-ended and there was no clear mission. Afghanistan slowly slid into an endless morass without a clear outcome. 

Intervention in Syria is not the same. We began with a clear rationale backed by evidence from the international community with a clear and limited goal. Punish the use of nonconventional and heinous weapons. 

I respect and appreciate the liberal opposition to intervention in Syria and I believe it's completely valid. 

As for myself, I've come to the conclusion that there must be consequences for the use of weapons that target combatants, innocents, women, and children indiscriminately with unimaginable pain and suffering. 

Real Quickly, Here...

I want to quickly record some thoughts on Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald that exceed 120 characters. So, in reference to the ongoing discussion on Twitter currently.

I think there is a danger on both sides of any debate of taking the wrong tack on something. As a liberal or progressive or whatever, I believe the US Constitution is a living document that needs to be reinterpreted from time-to-time. The authors had no way of knowing what the second amendment would mean in the age of assault weapons.

It's too easy for Conservatives to hold the US Constitution as the end-all and be-all of government. However, concurrently, it's also all too easy for social libertarians to stop looking at the Constitution as something clearly read and written in stone.

Clearly, as a progressive, I don't believe either side because they're both literalist readings.

I shouldn't have to keep saying this, but I don't morally support what's being done in many of these cases. And I am far from an expert. I'm on the side of civil liberties.

However...

I refuse to grudgingly admit that times change and the amount of information and how it is collected is going to change, too. Police have run dragnets for as long as there have been police. Phone taps have existed for as long as there have been phones.

And, in the Lavabit article we have Lavar Levinson saying, "I think if the American public knew what our government was doing, they wouldn't be allowed to do it anymore."

This has always and will always be true. That doesn't make it right. But, it is a truism as sure as the sun will rise.

There have been comments, posted here, that Greenwald and Snowden published things that were factually incorrect. Greenwald steadfastly refuses to back down. That's fine. But, there is evidence that what was written wasn't correct and The Guardian and The Post had to retract some of the story.
I don't think the much ballyhooed discussion on civil liberties was on the verge of happening before Snowden popped onto the scene. But right now there will be no discussion because both sides have dug in their heels and everyone else just stopped listening.


EDIT: I'm amending this to correct the statement "Retracted." The Guardian and the post... Um... "Redefined" the NSA's level of access without admitting that they initially reported something bogus:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/what-does-prism-do-how-does-it-work

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests

Pro-Life Nihilism

Let's talk about the new Kansas abortion law for a minute:

"Advocates said it mainly codifies existing practices, while helping women make more informed choices."*

Oh, okay. That doesn't sound so bad...

"The bill bars school districts from letting abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood offer, sponsor or furnish course materials or instruction on human sexuality or on sexually transmitted diseases."*

Oh. We're only concerned about women learning about sex AFTER they're pregnant. Fantastic.

This is why the existing "pro-life" movement is wrong. It's not just ideologically twisted, it's completely nihilistic. Providing comprehensive sex ed is critical to women (and men) making "informed decisions" about sex and ultimately about having a family.

Whether they'd want to admit or not, the advocates of this bill are doing nothing but punishing women for having sex. If they wanted people to make "informed decisions," they'd stop making Planned Parenthood** into a villain and stop creating impediments to real sex education.

* http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE93501220130406?irpc=932

** This is another discussion, but Planned Parenthood primarily provides normal preventative health services to women who cannot otherwise afford it. Really, just another nail in the coffin.

Put Down The Scissors

Everyone should be talking about the House Progressives' budget proposal. Not everyone agrees that we need to cut, cut, cut to reduce America’s deficit.

America doesn't have a spending problem. We have an investment problem. Despite the popular trope, a government budget is not the same as a household budget. We need to stop thinking of it as grocery list and think of it as a form of mutual fund.

We as taxpayers pay the government and, in turn, the government invests money to produce a return for the taxpayers. The discussion should not be, “what to cut.” The discussion we need to have is, “what to invest in.”

"We have been here before." Graphic CC Sean Thornton

It's not a waste of money to invest in bridges, roads, and schools. Programs like WIC, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid contribute to the general welfare of the country. Bridge and road projects create jobs, contribute to public safety, and help spur business development in new areas. Schools can create the next generation of software programmers or engineers that can help America compete in a crowded global market.

Our investment in defense is wasteful. We invest more in defense than the next 13 countries combined. What return are we seeing on that? It’s wasteful to invest almost $4 trillion in a decade long war in a country that posed no threat. It’s wasteful to continue spending $1.5 trillion on an over-budget fighter jet that can’t fly without knocking out its pilots.

We need jobs. We need well-paying jobs that provide people a living wage. We need to make sure people can afford health care. We live in the richest nation in the world. There is no excuse for children to go hungry or die from preventable diseases here.

People are a good investment. People are the smartest investment America can make. But it’s a responsible investment that the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't believe in.

Fiscal responsibility isn't about cutting spending and being afraid of taxes. It's about using our money in ways that will do the most good. We can get a solid return on our investments. But only if we choose the right priorities.