I know a lot of people waiting for help with health care. I have a son who is only insured because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lets us keep him on our family policy to age 26. I have a brother-in-law, friends and acquaintances with individual policies who want cheaper, more comprehensive coverage. I have many friends with pre-existing conditions who will now be able to get insurance.
But you’d never know it from the daily news. One month into ACA’s initial six-month enrollment period and crisis ensues. Frankly, I’m crisis’d out.
First, did we really think a web site designed to interface with multiple other government AND private organizations’ sites would work seamlessly? How often do Facebook changes gum up its operation, and people threaten to abandon it forever? It hasn’t happened yet.
And, have you ever called your health insurer to get approval for a procedure or medication? How many menus and people did you go through to get an answer? Did we really expect this to be simple?
Second, the web site is not the only way to enroll. People can call to enroll, or print forms off the web site and mail them in. They can also locate a navigator in their area and sit down with a person to go through the process.
But I don’t hear about these options in major media reporting. Instead, they report on the problems with the web site and on individuals whose current policies are being replaced with more expensive (and more comprehensive) plans. Unfortunately, they often leave out the rest of the story . . .
As Joan McCarter writes on Daily Kos: “They're not telling people they can shop around for a better deal. Which is precisely the point of the health insurance exchanges. These insurers are betting that people will go the route of least resistance, and just fork up the money for the plan they're being pushed toward. . . . They're going to squeeze whatever extra money they can get out of people because that's what they do.”
This week’s case in point comes from CBS News. They reported about a woman in Florida, Dianne Barrette, whose $50 a month health “insurance” was replaced with a $591 plan.
Erik Wemple described Barrette’s current policy as a “pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick plan” and writes on his blog: “More coverage [reporting] may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover ‘extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,’ says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? ‘Outpatient only,’ responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care.”
Yet Barrette, who earns about $30,000 annually, could get better coverage and subsidies to pay for it via the health care exchanges.
Like my friends and neighbors frustrated by the letters they’re getting from their insurers, I’m frustrated by the lack of constructive information coming from media and our politicians. At a time when real people need help, they are rooting for failure. We don’t need shoddy news reports and hearings designed to point fingers. We need information about how to sign up for better, more affordable coverage.
The Affordable Care Act is law like Social Security and Medicare. It is regulation enacted to prevent consumers from being bankrupted by health care emergencies and profit-seeking insurers. Either help or get out of the way.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Senator Grassley's no vote: Who drank the tea?
So I wondered when I awoke Thursday morning to news Congress had narrowly avoided crashing the economy by passing a temporary measure to fund our government and raise the debt ceiling. With this news, local TV stations were reporting Senator Charles Grassley had voted against the measure. (Steve King, unsurprisingly, did too.)
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
Obamacare vs. ACA: What works for you?
Last week as the government shut down and enrollment for the new health care exchanges began, I was amused to discover a friend’s Facebook post. In it, a correspondent from the Jimmie Kimmel show asked people on the street: “Which is better, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?”
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Obamacare: Do media have no obligation to facts?
This was my question last Wednesday when I began to see headlines about a conversation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. According to these headlines, during a discussion about Obamacare, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell opined citizens didn’t know much about the program because all they’ve heard is misinformation.
In response, MSNBC political correspondent Chuck Todd laid responsibility on the White House for not “selling” a law duly passed by Congress. As Talking Points Memo headlined it, “Chuck Todd: It's not media's job to correct GOP's Obamacare falsehoods.”
I’m sorry, but if I can find facts about Obamacare using my PC and Internet connection, then Chuck Todd and the political media can, too. Instead, corporate media have made a calculated decision NOT to report on the facts of a policy passed by government and designed to help average citizens.
And because corporate media is not providing vital information about this law, we’re now witnessing the battle over defunding Obamacare in the House. Too many tea party and ultra conservative representatives have listened to fact-free media reports and don’t understand how the program works.
As Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012, Congress used two broad ways to fund the Affordable Care Act (ACA): cutting into government spending and creating ways to raise revenue.
According to Kliff, most of the spending cuts come from changes in payments to doctors and hospitals that provide Medicaid and Medicare services. And as the Economic Policy Institute reported on Aug. 27, 2012, the cuts are to spending, not benefits, and they work by:
“1. Reducing reimbursements Medicare currently makes to hospitals—but by less than the gain hospitals would receive from newly-insured patients purchasing hospital services in coming decades.
“2. Reforming the separate Medicare Advantage program, which was supposed to save money, but ended up being more expensive.
“3. Reducing a variety of other payments to providers, such as those designed to offset the cost of providing uncompensated care for the uninsured (unnecessary because now more patients will have insurance and hence the amount of this uncompensated care will plummet).”
To raise revenue, Kliff explains the ACA uses a number of measures:
• A tax penalty for those who choose not to purchase coverage;
• An excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans (held by a small percentage of Americans);
• Savings from a reduction in uncompensated care;
• A 3.8 percent tax on investment income levied on those with gross income more than $200,000 annually to help pay for Medicare’s hospital insurance.
Some smaller taxes, like a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, only affect individuals or larger employers who choose not to offer health coverage.
So because much of the law’s funding is separate from annual discretionary appropriations, the House’s effort to defund Obamacare won’t work. As Sophie Novack reported in the National Journal on Sept. 17, Senator Tom Coburn’s communication director John Hart said, “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”
It’s time to demand public service – from our representatives and our media.
In response, MSNBC political correspondent Chuck Todd laid responsibility on the White House for not “selling” a law duly passed by Congress. As Talking Points Memo headlined it, “Chuck Todd: It's not media's job to correct GOP's Obamacare falsehoods.”
I’m sorry, but if I can find facts about Obamacare using my PC and Internet connection, then Chuck Todd and the political media can, too. Instead, corporate media have made a calculated decision NOT to report on the facts of a policy passed by government and designed to help average citizens.
And because corporate media is not providing vital information about this law, we’re now witnessing the battle over defunding Obamacare in the House. Too many tea party and ultra conservative representatives have listened to fact-free media reports and don’t understand how the program works.
As Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012, Congress used two broad ways to fund the Affordable Care Act (ACA): cutting into government spending and creating ways to raise revenue.
According to Kliff, most of the spending cuts come from changes in payments to doctors and hospitals that provide Medicaid and Medicare services. And as the Economic Policy Institute reported on Aug. 27, 2012, the cuts are to spending, not benefits, and they work by:
“1. Reducing reimbursements Medicare currently makes to hospitals—but by less than the gain hospitals would receive from newly-insured patients purchasing hospital services in coming decades.
“2. Reforming the separate Medicare Advantage program, which was supposed to save money, but ended up being more expensive.
“3. Reducing a variety of other payments to providers, such as those designed to offset the cost of providing uncompensated care for the uninsured (unnecessary because now more patients will have insurance and hence the amount of this uncompensated care will plummet).”
To raise revenue, Kliff explains the ACA uses a number of measures:
• A tax penalty for those who choose not to purchase coverage;
• An excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans (held by a small percentage of Americans);
• Savings from a reduction in uncompensated care;
• A 3.8 percent tax on investment income levied on those with gross income more than $200,000 annually to help pay for Medicare’s hospital insurance.
Some smaller taxes, like a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, only affect individuals or larger employers who choose not to offer health coverage.
So because much of the law’s funding is separate from annual discretionary appropriations, the House’s effort to defund Obamacare won’t work. As Sophie Novack reported in the National Journal on Sept. 17, Senator Tom Coburn’s communication director John Hart said, “The idea that we can fully defund Obamacare through the continuing resolution is a Washington gimmick to advance political funding goals.”
It’s time to demand public service – from our representatives and our media.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Get the facts: Who's afraid of Obamacare?
On January 3, 2008, I registered as a Democrat so I could caucus for then candidate Obama. During the evening, as voters discussed which candidates to support, I managed to convince a younger Edwards-leaning voter to join the Obama camp. Our discussion centered on our desire to see healthcare reform instituted.
At the time my argument was that Edwards’ more aggressive populism would lead to a divisive and unsuccessful effort on health care. I argued Obama’s history as a community organizer and legislator willing to work with all sides would be necessary to pass healthcare reform.
Fast forward to September 2013, and the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is law. And October 1 marks the beginning of the enrollment period for individuals seeking health insurance via the new insurance exchanges. Unfortunately, opposition to what is now the law of this land remains, based largely on a campaign of disinformation from conservative legislators and media.
So what’s there to be afraid of?
Is it the fact that children up to age 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan? I know plenty of families, including my own, that have gladly accessed this feature of the law.
Is it the fact that small businesses can now access tax credits to help them cover the cost of an insurance plan for employees?
Is it the fact that insurance companies must adjust their rates to ensure 80 percent of premiums pay for actual health care expenses, rather than overhead or profits? This has caused insurers to issue rebate checks and premium increases to slow. If you haven’t noticed it on your policy yet, you soon will.
Is it the fact that you can now go get an annual physical with no out-of-pocket expenses because health insurance must cover well checks at 100 percent?
Is it the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition you can no longer be turned down for insurance and your coverage cannot be cut off at a preset limit?
Is it the fact that this plan operates with private insurance? It is not a single payer or socialized system. In fact, this plan is based on one originally developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and later used by Governor Mitt Romney to develop Massachusetts’ state health insurance plan.
Or have you simply been listening to media talking heads and political opponents of the Obama administration without bothering to find out for yourself what’s in the law?
I was pretty pleased in July when I took my daughter in for a physical. Although the billing clerk noted my plan had a deductible, I explained that under the ACA I owed no out-of-pocket expenses. “If I’m wrong, you can bill me,” I told her.
When the Explanation of Benefits came from my insurer, I was pleased to read, “Amount you owe: 0.”
So what benefits of this law are you missing out on? Learn more at www.healthcare.gov.
At the time my argument was that Edwards’ more aggressive populism would lead to a divisive and unsuccessful effort on health care. I argued Obama’s history as a community organizer and legislator willing to work with all sides would be necessary to pass healthcare reform.
Fast forward to September 2013, and the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is law. And October 1 marks the beginning of the enrollment period for individuals seeking health insurance via the new insurance exchanges. Unfortunately, opposition to what is now the law of this land remains, based largely on a campaign of disinformation from conservative legislators and media.
So what’s there to be afraid of?
Is it the fact that children up to age 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan? I know plenty of families, including my own, that have gladly accessed this feature of the law.
Is it the fact that small businesses can now access tax credits to help them cover the cost of an insurance plan for employees?
Is it the fact that insurance companies must adjust their rates to ensure 80 percent of premiums pay for actual health care expenses, rather than overhead or profits? This has caused insurers to issue rebate checks and premium increases to slow. If you haven’t noticed it on your policy yet, you soon will.
Is it the fact that you can now go get an annual physical with no out-of-pocket expenses because health insurance must cover well checks at 100 percent?
Is it the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition you can no longer be turned down for insurance and your coverage cannot be cut off at a preset limit?
Is it the fact that this plan operates with private insurance? It is not a single payer or socialized system. In fact, this plan is based on one originally developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and later used by Governor Mitt Romney to develop Massachusetts’ state health insurance plan.
Or have you simply been listening to media talking heads and political opponents of the Obama administration without bothering to find out for yourself what’s in the law?
I was pretty pleased in July when I took my daughter in for a physical. Although the billing clerk noted my plan had a deductible, I explained that under the ACA I owed no out-of-pocket expenses. “If I’m wrong, you can bill me,” I told her.
When the Explanation of Benefits came from my insurer, I was pleased to read, “Amount you owe: 0.”
So what benefits of this law are you missing out on? Learn more at www.healthcare.gov.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Immigration reform: If not now, when?
Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. During this period, Dr. King often echoed the question above, attributed to a famous Jewish religious leader during the reign of King Herod. It’s a question that can be applied equally well to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).
Before Congress fled Washington D.C. for the August recess, the Senate had passed bipartisan CIR legislation by a vote of 68-32. Then it moved to the House, where a group of inflexible conservative representatives refused to allow a vote on it.
Yet according to a June 13 FOX News poll, 74 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship “as long as they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check.”
Of course, Iowa’s perennial embarrassment, Rep. Steve King, blundered into this morass, making some of the most hateful comments issued, which did nothing to advance a solution. Rather his comments simply stoked the fears of those uncomfortable with the changing face of America.
The comments of King and others also distract from the very real benefits comprehensive immigration reform would bring to America – and Iowa. I was surprised to learn that groups as conservative as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian Cato Institute support the Senate CIR legislation because of its projected economic benefits. These include:
• Reducing the deficit by more than $800 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Adding more than 3.2 million new jobs, thus strengthening Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration.
And more specifically for Iowa, it’s projected CIR will: • In 2014, add more than $140 million to our Gross State Product and increase personal income by $78 million. By 2045, the expansion would add $1.2 billion to Gross State Product and increase personal income by more than $1 billion. (per Regional Economic Models, Inc.).
• Raise the wage floor for all workers, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.
• Provide a host of protections for Iowa workers, including new worksite enforcement and border security measures to deter future unauthorized immigration.
We know our current immigration system isn’t working. We’re ready to try to fix it. And we even have legislation that’s been passed by legislators from both parties. So why not now?
That’s the question we need to ask Representative Tom Latham and Senator Chuck Grassley.
With all the projected economic benefits, with the work by legislators on both sides of the aisle, with the support of the majority of Americans, why not pass comprehensive immigration reform?
If not now, when?
Before Congress fled Washington D.C. for the August recess, the Senate had passed bipartisan CIR legislation by a vote of 68-32. Then it moved to the House, where a group of inflexible conservative representatives refused to allow a vote on it.
Yet according to a June 13 FOX News poll, 74 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship “as long as they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check.”
Of course, Iowa’s perennial embarrassment, Rep. Steve King, blundered into this morass, making some of the most hateful comments issued, which did nothing to advance a solution. Rather his comments simply stoked the fears of those uncomfortable with the changing face of America.
The comments of King and others also distract from the very real benefits comprehensive immigration reform would bring to America – and Iowa. I was surprised to learn that groups as conservative as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian Cato Institute support the Senate CIR legislation because of its projected economic benefits. These include:
• Reducing the deficit by more than $800 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Adding more than 3.2 million new jobs, thus strengthening Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration.
And more specifically for Iowa, it’s projected CIR will: • In 2014, add more than $140 million to our Gross State Product and increase personal income by $78 million. By 2045, the expansion would add $1.2 billion to Gross State Product and increase personal income by more than $1 billion. (per Regional Economic Models, Inc.).
• Raise the wage floor for all workers, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.
• Provide a host of protections for Iowa workers, including new worksite enforcement and border security measures to deter future unauthorized immigration.
We know our current immigration system isn’t working. We’re ready to try to fix it. And we even have legislation that’s been passed by legislators from both parties. So why not now?
That’s the question we need to ask Representative Tom Latham and Senator Chuck Grassley.
With all the projected economic benefits, with the work by legislators on both sides of the aisle, with the support of the majority of Americans, why not pass comprehensive immigration reform?
If not now, when?
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Get with the program: Why deny science?
A few years ago, I read a novel about the 1889 Johnstown, Penn., flood entitled, “In Sunlight, in a Beautiful Garden.” Through the book and my subsequent research, I learned the captains of industry who owned the South Fork Dam and Resort on Lake Conemaugh chose to ignore or deny a number of reports describing structural weaknesses in the South Fork Dam.
As the National Park Service web site for the Johnstown Flood National Memorial notes, “The life and death of the South Fork Dam is a story of an immense structure that was never given the care such a structure demanded.” The result was the destruction of an entire town and the deaths of more than 2,000 people.
I see a parallel to current attitudes about science. For example, instead of accepting the consensus of 97 percent of scientists (who state our climate is changing due to human activity) and working to institute corrective actions, we have politicians and media pundits denying climate change exists. So . . . are they telling us we should throw our science curriculum out the window? And will they quit going to the doctor?
Speaking of medicine, some of these same science deniers shout loudly about ethical dilemmas like abortion. One of the favorite arguments against it, especially for procedures after 20 weeks, is “fetal pain.” However as a recent Salon article noted, doctors know the nervous system in fetuses is not developed enough to register pain until at least 24 weeks. That is a fact. As the doctor interviewed notes, “Science is not going to get the brain to connect faster.”
So in this case, denials are made to hide the truth.
And ultimately for some science deniers, such protests against reality may reflect a genuine belief tied to their religion of choice. As a Christian, I personally do not believe the tenets of my faith and the facts of science are mutually exclusive.
But in the case of climate change, I suggest the drivers behind the denial narrative are motivated by something more base – money.
If you track the funding behind the few studies refuting global climate change, you’ll find corporations and individuals who make money via the offending pollutants, e.g. coal, oil and chemicals. And the politicians who deny climate change is caused by human activity are financially tied to these companies.
Meanwhile across the world, our denial of facts endangers all life forms. For example, whole hives of honey bees are dying off, and we rely on them to pollinate our crops. If they disappear, how will we sustain our food supply? Or will we be next?
And we know climate change is occurring from our observation of extreme weather events: last year’s drought followed by this spring’s cold, wet weather, not to mention 70-degree temps in August. From the last decade we can add: Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy; massive tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Moore, Okla., to name just two; and major winter snow storms, now being named like hurricanes.
So we can continue to deny reality or we can take action. Because the truth is businesses across the world have been adjusting for years. Ask an insurance actuary. They have been re-writing rates according to weather patterns and locations for at least 25 years.
I think it’s time the rest of us got with the program.
As the National Park Service web site for the Johnstown Flood National Memorial notes, “The life and death of the South Fork Dam is a story of an immense structure that was never given the care such a structure demanded.” The result was the destruction of an entire town and the deaths of more than 2,000 people.
I see a parallel to current attitudes about science. For example, instead of accepting the consensus of 97 percent of scientists (who state our climate is changing due to human activity) and working to institute corrective actions, we have politicians and media pundits denying climate change exists. So . . . are they telling us we should throw our science curriculum out the window? And will they quit going to the doctor?
Speaking of medicine, some of these same science deniers shout loudly about ethical dilemmas like abortion. One of the favorite arguments against it, especially for procedures after 20 weeks, is “fetal pain.” However as a recent Salon article noted, doctors know the nervous system in fetuses is not developed enough to register pain until at least 24 weeks. That is a fact. As the doctor interviewed notes, “Science is not going to get the brain to connect faster.”
So in this case, denials are made to hide the truth.
And ultimately for some science deniers, such protests against reality may reflect a genuine belief tied to their religion of choice. As a Christian, I personally do not believe the tenets of my faith and the facts of science are mutually exclusive.
But in the case of climate change, I suggest the drivers behind the denial narrative are motivated by something more base – money.
If you track the funding behind the few studies refuting global climate change, you’ll find corporations and individuals who make money via the offending pollutants, e.g. coal, oil and chemicals. And the politicians who deny climate change is caused by human activity are financially tied to these companies.
Meanwhile across the world, our denial of facts endangers all life forms. For example, whole hives of honey bees are dying off, and we rely on them to pollinate our crops. If they disappear, how will we sustain our food supply? Or will we be next?
And we know climate change is occurring from our observation of extreme weather events: last year’s drought followed by this spring’s cold, wet weather, not to mention 70-degree temps in August. From the last decade we can add: Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy; massive tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Moore, Okla., to name just two; and major winter snow storms, now being named like hurricanes.
So we can continue to deny reality or we can take action. Because the truth is businesses across the world have been adjusting for years. Ask an insurance actuary. They have been re-writing rates according to weather patterns and locations for at least 25 years.
I think it’s time the rest of us got with the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
