Delightfully Wonky

I thought I was going to have to do it myself, but this slide-deck from the White House puts together the graphical evidence about economic performance under Obama quite nicely.  Highly recommended for people who want to get a sense of context for the economy.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

HHS contraceptive mandate debate: summarized

I just got asked for a summary of the HHS contraceptive mandate debate.  I've written quite a bit on the topic previously, but since the situation (and my understanding of it) evolved over time, I thought it would be worthwhile to pull together my previous posts and some final commentary.  It's worth noting that while the Obama Administration and USCCB seem committed to their final stances, the rules are open for public comment through June, and will only be finalized in August.

The mandate

As part of the Affordable Care Act, all health insurance plans are required to cover preventative care without co-pay, but the definition of such care was left to the executive branch.  On the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, the Obama Administration included birth control--in particular female birth control, like the pill--in preventative care.  This means that all insurers must cover contraceptives without co-pay. The full text of the most up-to-date proposal for the mandate can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/21/2012-6689/certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act

The objection

Catholic institutions objected on the grounds that contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.  They felt it a breach of religious freedom that they were required to pay for products the primary use of which they considered to be immoral.  As the Obama Administration has responded to this objection the complaints have changed.  The most recent statements by the USCCB can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/

The response

The administration, gradually, made the following adjustments/clarifications to address the conscientious objections:

1. The mandate only applies to non-Church organizations, such as Hospitals, Charities, and Schools.  Parishes and other institutions who primarily hire and serve Catholics (or people of other objecting faiths) are exempt.
2. Insurance organizations must not charge the insuring institution for additional contraceptive coverage.
3. For self-insured institutions (most large catholic organizations), the cost of the contraceptive coverage would be born in full by an external entity, rather than by the institution itself.
4. (A clarification) The cost of insurance plans with full contraceptive coverage is actually lower than the cost of insurance plans without full contraceptive coverage.

Some links to articles on the subject

The status of similar mandates already imposed by individual states.

A pretty up-to-date summary of the issues by a news source.

And another article

And some more coverage

Statement by the USCCB (Catholic Bishops)

The most up to date formal proposal (a difficult read)

My thoughts

Since no Catholic institution will have to pay for contraceptive coverage (free from insurers, and free from insurance managers for self-insured institutions), there is no violation of conscience.  Since US law recognizes rights of reproductive freedom and privacy, allowing institutions to inspect employees' sexual practices in the provisioning of healthcare (for instance to cover the pill for ovarian cyst treatment but not contraception) is arguably a violation of employee rights.  And since I conceive religious freedom as essentially individual rather than institutional and no individual is coerced by this law, I can find no valid religious-freedom argument against it.  The case is further undermined by the governments subsidy of health insurance: taking the government's subsidy means taking the strings attached too.  I do think that it might be reasonable to fine non-compliant institutions the exact amount of government subsidy as another means of exemption, but even that butts up against employee rights in an uncomfortable way.

My previous thoughts (in chronological order)

These kind of shift around as the situation and my view of it shifts, but the in series they follow all the important points of argument, and the comments often include useful insights or counter-arguments.

1. My initial take

2. Clarifications and a look at some more nuanced objections

3. Some commentary from a philosophy of government/legal perspective

4. A little summary of how things looked after the Obama administration made response 3 

State of the Union (part 1)

So.  My first comment on the State of the Union:

BORING!

Seriously, this is arguably the least interesting or engaging Obama speech I have ever seen.  Whoever he fired on his writing team needs to come back, or something.

Some other things that pop out at me:

Winning the Future! This may be the single worst piece of political rhetoric ever produced.  I will do Science later to find out for sure.

There was little to no agenda.  I think this has something to do with the "laundry list" that (apparently) every previous state of the union gave and this one wasn't going to.  I'm not sure when serious discussion of policy became a boring chore better replaced with bland feel good rhetoric, but whatever, okay.

The few concrete items addressed by Obama were hilariously awful ideas (HAIs from now on)

HAI 1:  Veto everything with an earmark

I used to think the awfulness of this idea was self evident, but it appears that I was incorrect about the base competence of America once more.  Here is why earmark's are good:  They are the only effective mechanism for compromise in Washington.  Essentially, elected officials are beholden to the people who elect them.  Those people have broad political views (Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, whatever), but they also have direct interests (local jobs, food on their tables, access to utilities, &c).  Earmarks allow elected officials to sacrifice the broad political views they generally espouse in favor of some direct benefit to their constituency.  That way, a centrist republican can get re-elected in a highly conservative district by doing well by his constituents and voting slightly left of them (obviously this works for any political configuration).  I can think of no better incitement to compromise.  Vetoing every bill with earmarks is akin to vetoing every bill with compromises.  Also, as my friend Andrew pointed out, promising to veto bills with earmarks is roughly akin to giving everyone a veto.  Get an earmark in and you kill the bill...

HAI 2: Magical extension of social security:

I have trouble imagining that anyone truly believes that the sentiment expressed here has any relationship with the realms of the possible, foreseeable, or even vaguely real.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

Let's list the words and word combinations which are innately impossible.

1. bipartisan
2. Social Security + future
3. "without slashing benefits for future generations" + "without putting at risk current retirees"
4. "without putting at risk" + "the most vulnerable" (BY DEFINITION... come on people)
5. That bit implying that anything to do with money could be protected from the movement of the economy

I have to say, there are more stupid things in that paragraph than there are sentences.  I bet I could come up with more stupid things in it than there are independent clauses.  That is sad.

I'll do a more cogent summary tomorrow, and make some less snarky comments (maybe not that much less snarky), but for now let's call it a generally boring speech broken up with moments of intense awfulness.