Category Archives: Current Affairs

A Different Look at Amendment One

Greensboro blogger David Wharton, a Catholic, has decided to defy his bishop's endorsement of Amendment One for a very specific reason – he feels that endorsing the amendment is a violation of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae:

After due consideration, I've come to the conclusion that Bishop Jugis is wrong to support the amendment.

The Church holds that marriage is a sacramental, lifelong union between one man and one woman, founded in the love between the partners and for the procreation of children; however, it blesses sacramental marriages between infertile and post-fertile opposite sex couples. Thus its position is prima facie contradictory, but let that lie for now.

Even granting the Church's definition of marriage, I believe Bishop Jugis's endorsement of Amendment One violates the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae. Here are some excerpts from that document, with the most relevant language highlighted by me. Pardon the length.

Despite the length of the post it's worth reading.

Debtors’ Prison

This is kind of scary, especially when you consider how often folks get billed erroneously and then have to struggle to get it cleared up:

How did breast cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay end up behind bars? She didn't pay a medical bill — one the Herrin, Ill., teaching assistant was told she didn't owe. "She got a $280 medical bill in error and was told she didn't have to pay it," The Associated Press reports. "But the bill was turned over to a collection agency, and eventually state troopers showed up at her home and took her to jail in handcuffs."

Although the U.S. abolished debtors' prisons in the 1830s, more than a third of U.S. states allow the police to haul people in who don't pay all manner of debts, from bills for health care services to credit card and auto loans. In parts of Illinois, debt collectors commonly use publicly funded courts, sheriff's deputies, and country jails to pressure people who owe even small amounts to pay up, according to the AP.

Presidential Election 2.0

Fed up with the candidates the Democrats and Republicans are putting forward for POTUS? Not willing to throw your vote away on Libertarian or Green Party whack-jobs? There might be hope for you yet:

AMERICANS ELECT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is not affiliated with any political party, ideology or candidate. It is funded exclusively by individual contributions—and not from corporate, labor, special interest, foreign, or lobbyist sources. And we intend to repay our initial financing so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K.

Ultimately, Americans Elect is the first nominating process that will be led directly by voters like YOU…

THE GOAL OF AMERICANS ELECT is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters—not the political system.

American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders who will work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.

The Other 20%

Unless you're one of the lucky few who's always had "Cadillac" health insurance through your employer you know how much impact it has on your life. Heck, even if you've always had "Cadillac" health insurance you've probably thought about how much impact it has because you've likely said something like this to yourself: "Man this job is an endless procession of soul-sucking days with absolutely no redeeming value. I'd quit, but damn those health benefits are great." *

Since our mid-20s my wife and I have always been highly attuned to the cost of health insurance because we've always either been self-employed or worked for companies that couldn't afford great benefits. With the exception of the jobs we had when we first got married in '92 we've always had to pay a huge chunk of our health insurance premiums which has translated into a monthly expense ranging between roughly $500 and $1000, and quite frankly we've known plenty of folks who have had it worse. Still we've always managed to keep our insurance, although it often required some sacrifice. Keep in mind, that's just the premiums. To paraphrase former US Senator Dirksen, add your $35 office visit co-pay here, your $20 prescription co-pay there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

But what about those people who just can't swing the health insurance? The level of angst they experience over the health care/insurance issue is on a whole other level and is nicely captured in this blog post written by a Scientific American writer living in Cateret County, NC. His son contracted pneumonia, but because they had no health insurance they didn't take him to the doctor immediately because they thought it was the flu and tried to treat it with over-the-counter medication. Eventually they made their way to urgent care, and then the hospital, and thankfully his son is recovering. Still it really is a must-read because he does a great job of providing insight into the reasons behind being uninsured, some common misperceptions about the uninsured, and Catch-22 the uninsured find themselves in. Here's a sample:

But recently my mindset has become affected by our position. I tell my kids not to do things that I certainly enjoyed doing as a kid, like don’t climb high on trees, run a little slower on the trail, watch out for roots and stones! It’s not just the usual parental concern either. I’m consciously thinking “oh my god, I cannot afford to fix them if they get broke!”.

This is the luxury gap between the between the 20% of nonelderly americans who are uninsured and the rest. The luxury is, of course, being able to just walk into a doctor’s office and see them at the appropriate times. It is easy to discount this minority since most are at or near the poverty line. But many of the uninsured are like myself and just can’t seem to make the numbers work for a family of four each month by adding on private individual (i.e. non-group discounted) health insurance. Especially when you factor in the myriad other insurances we already pay: renter’s or home, wind and hail, flood, car, life, etc. It’s not that we are irresponsible, but the numbers. just. don’t. work…

Most of the uninsured in this country aren’t lazy, freeloading hobos who don’t wanna work. They span a wide variety of demographics. As a 30 something, white male with advanced college degree who works full time as a self-employed consultant and writer are you surprised that I cannot afford health insurance for my family? In fact, the majority of uninsured are in my age range and are full or part time workers earning incomes above 100% the federal poverty level. The fact of the matter for many of the uninsured is that employment-sponsored coverage has been in decline due to the escalating costs of health care. Employers can’t remain competitive and pay double the costs they were paying a decade ago for insuring their workers. An October 2011 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that

“Job-based coverage has been gradually declining since 2000, even during years when the economy was stronger and growth in health insurance premiums was slowing.  From 2007 to 2010, the percentage of the nonelderly population with employer-sponsored coverage declined by approximately 5%.[…] Even when workers can afford coverage for themselves, the cost of health insurance for their families is often prohibitive. Employees in firms with many low-wage workers are typically asked to contribute a larger share of the insurance premium than employees of firms with fewer low-wage workers (38% vs. 27% of the premium costs for family coverage). Declines in dependent coverage accounted for more than half of the recent decline in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Uninsured people look just like everyone else. They might look like they can easily afford the premiums and in fact might earn salaries similar to yours. But every family’s situations and employment-based coverage options are unique and this goes far beyond stereotypes of the “working poor”. My son could have suffocated from his pneumonia had we not sucked it up and rushed him to the hospital on Tuesday morning. If we were able to see a doctor a day earlier, he perhaps could have been treated at home as an outpatient with antibiotics. I don’t know what our final bill will be when we leave tomorrow morning, right now I don’t care. All I know is my son got better under the supervision of a wonderful team of nurses and pediatricians. My community has income-based charity care which will hopefully reduce our bill to a much more manageable sum. All minor details when the stakes are as high as your children’s lives. Plus, we can sleep in beds without motors.

*I firmly believe that if you took concerns about health coverage off of the table you'd see an explosion in entrepreneurialism. Soooo many people who hate their jobs/companies would strike out on their own to create something they've dreamed about, or they'd jump ship to someone else's enterpreneurial firm. Sure I could be wrong, but how many people do you know who've stuck with a job simply to keep their benefits? See what I mean? 

Hope-to-Get-Lucky Romance

Thanks to my Mom for emailing me with Jesse Kornbluth's take on Valentine's Day.  He nails it:

Valentine’s Day. Loathe it. At 8 AM on Madison Avenue, I gawk at a woman in a full-length mink coat and a red dress slit up to there, and I want to weep. Same reaction when I see the mob at my corner florist (minimum order: $125). You can be sure dinner won’t find me at one of those restaurants that the press has certified as “romantic.”
 
Like many of you, I suspect, I’m not against romance; my gripe is with pre-programmed, kiss-on-cue, hope-to-get-lucky romance. I’m all for — in no particular order — wild passion, daily heroics, sincere devotion, shared jokes, unspoken communication, dirty e-mail, random presents, not looking over your partner’s shoulder to see who just showed up, candles and music at midnight, knowing how to get it lit in a breeze, private time, monogamy as more than a goal, dancing at concerts, good cheer in the morning, and have I forgotten to mention wild passion?

Capitalism and Its Discontents

This is a very interesting interview with economist Richard Wolff (h/t to Ed Cone for the link).  A couple of excerpts provided below, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Barsamian: There’s a certain market fundamentalism in the U.S. that equates capitalism with freedom.

Wolff: Yes, employers are free, in this system, to stop raising workers’ wages. But their exercise of that freedom has deprived the mass of Americans of a rising standard of living to accompany their rising productivity. Employers have kept all the benefits of the productivity increase in the form of profits. So one sector of our free economy has deprived another sector of its due. It’s the paradox of a democratic society: the freedoms of one group limit the freedoms of another. To face this fact requires a more critical notion of freedom and democracy than the happy, cheerleader mentality we have today.

How do you talk about freedom to the 20 to 30 million Americans who currently have no job? Are they free? They’ve been denied a living through no fault of their own. When 20 million Americans suddenly can’t find jobs, that isn’t a problem of individuals being lazy. That’s the problem of an economic system that isn’t delivering the goods…

Barsamian: You mentioned earlier that, although wages became stagnant in the 1970s, American workers continued to become more productive. So someone has benefited from the past thirty years.

Wolff: Yes, it’s been the best thirty years that employers in this country have ever had. More product was being produced, but employers didn’t have to pay workers more. This was impossible before the 1970s, because the labor shortage meant employers had to keep paying more, which is why we had that wonderful growth period from 1820 to 1970.

So after the 1970s profits went through the roof. What I find funny — because I don’t want to cry — is the story the business community told about these profits. They probably knew they were getting the benefit of stagnant wages and rising productivity, but they developed a kind of folklore that said the reason profits were so big in the 1980s and 1990s was that executives were geniuses. We made folk heroes of Lee Iacocca at Chrysler and Jack Welch at General Electric. They became icons, as if some mystical ability of theirs accounted for the profits.

Every economist who looks at the numbers knows executives didn’t suddenly become geniuses — as if they’d been dumb before. Shifts in the economy enabled them to stop raising workers’ wages yet keep getting more out of them. No mystery there. Of course, there was a reason for this fairy tale about ceos: if the executives could convince everyone that they were responsible for the profit increase, then they could demand higher salaries. 

 

Pink May Not Be So Pretty After This Week

Having worked with multiple non-profits, both as a staff member and as a volunteer, I'm going to be watching with great interest what happens with Susan G. Komen for the Cure over the coming months. Why? Because they've had two significant PR events just this week that I think might affect them financially for at least the near future, if not over the long term.

The first event was the announcement that they are cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings. Their stated reason is that they have a new policy that prevents them from funding organizations that are under investigation by the government, but it's been pointed out that the implementation of the new policy is conveniently timed to coincide with the launch of an investigation by a conservative Florida congressman. The new policy hasn't prevented them from accepting funds from organizations under investigation by the government (Bank of America to name one). It's also quite a coincidence that Komen's Senior VP of Public Policy is a pro-life Republican who ran for Governor of Georgia two years ago. At a minimum the organization looks disingenuous and quite frankly I think they've offended a huge segment of their supporters.

As if that's not bad enough a new documentary about Komen is getting ready to hit the indy theater circuit this month and given the organization's recent missteps I have a feeling it will get even more attention than the producers could have dreamed just a week ago. Judging by the trailer (see below) it doesn't look like this is a glowing tribute to the organization, and added to this week's developments I have a feeling it could put a serious dent in Komen's fundraising activities. Depending on your view that could be a good or bad thing – there's an argument to be made that the money that doesn't go to Komen could go to other worthy causes – but I think it will be a case study for non-profit managers to study for years to come.

Creative Legislating

Who needs reality shows when you have politics? Virginia might have the best show going right now:

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"

The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court.

 

Does “Forsaking All Others” Still Cut It?

Newt Gingrich's purported request to his second wife for an "open marriage" prompted a couple of economists to look at the marriage contract:

Marriage can be strengthened by shifting to individualized marital contracts that emphasize those things essential to making each relationship work. Is “forsaking all others” essential? What about splitting the housework? Should we live near my parents, yours, or neither? Who stays home from work when the kids are sick? Should we be spenders or savers? Will we retire at 55 or 75? How many kids? How will we allocate time between work, family, friends and each other?

These questions are at the heart of married life, but only one of them — sexual fidelity — is in the standard marriage contract…

The great Nobel laureate Gary Becker has suggested a way out of this bad equilibrium. What if it were compulsory to write a personalized marriage contract with your spouse, tailored to your own circumstances? Replacing today’s default marriage vows with compulsory personal contracts would create the space for two adults to seriously and soberly sit down and decide what it is that they want from married life.