Decoding Healthcare Part 1923809: The Stupak Amendment

Chances are if you paid any attention to the news, you heard that the House of Representatives passed their version of the healthcare bill, which is scheduled now to go to the Senate.  And what people are talking about, for a change, is not the public option, but a funny little thing called the Stupak Amendment (read full text here – it’s only five pages), which says that women will not be covered if they choose to get an abortion and are on the government healthcare plan. (Unlike most healthcare plans, which cover abortions as a medical procedure, not an elective one.)

Now this in and of itself isn’t so crazy – the Hyde Amendment (which has been around since 1976, thus making it practically ancient in American politics) says that no federal money from the department of Health and Human Services can be used to pay for abortions, but states can individually decide if they want to use government money from Medicaid for abortion coverage. (A state by state map can be found here to see if your state allows funded abortions or not.) And if that was all the Stupak Amendment did, I don’t think we’d be talking right now.

But of course, that’s not all the Stupak Amendment does.

The Curious Case of NY-23 (A Study in Party Politics)

That’s right, we mix it up Tobias Funke-style here. (If you don’t get this joke – watch Arrested Development. You’re welcome.)

More to the point – remember how I promised you that party politics are totally interesting and one of you believed me? Well, doubters, let me tell you a little story about New York’s 23rd Congressional district and how this Tuesday it elected, for the first time since the Civil War, a Democrat to the House of Representatives. I’m warning you right here and now this is a long story, but man, is it worth it.

Ain’t No Party Like A Political Party

When you vote in America (and if you are American and able to vote, you should be voting), you first must register, and when you register, they ask for your political party. Most people know what party they are. Traditionally speaking, if you’re a liberal, chances are you’re a Democrat. If you’re more conservative, chances are you’re a Republican. This is all most people know, ever want to know, or feel they ever need to know about party politics in America.

These people are wrong.

Political parties are the backbone of what happens in politics, why it happens, and what will happen next. If you are American, you need to know these things the way you need to be able to identify states on an American map. (And if you can’t do that, I suggest going here and learning how to do so.) And political parties are complicated, important, and actually sort of interesting. But before we get to how they’re interesting, we’re going to have to go through the how they work part, which is where I come in.

Civics for Slackers Grand Re-Opening

Hoorah and hooray, the blog is back!

After a complete cosmetic overhaul (check out all those pages on the sidebar! They’re pretty dope), we are back and (hopefully) better than ever. Here’s a run-down of what’s new:

• Breathe a sigh of relief, everyone, there are no more Sunday Extras.
• Instead, anything fun, interesting, or in any way of breaking importance will be at our shiny new twitter. Follow us @civics4slackers
• New posting style! Posts will be shorter, more often, and include art, and instead of just being about the news will explain How Things Work that you always wanted to know about (like what the hell a majority whip is and if it’s as kinky as it sounds).
• Old posts have been combed through and deleted, but important, big-issue posts have been kept up for reference.
• At some point I would like to set up a place that works as a virtual suggestion box where every time you’re confused, you put it in the box and I’ll get a post up ASAP, but I currently don’t have the know-how to do so. When I do, I’ll let you know.

Thank you to everyone who’s stuck through during the long haitus – you guys are amazing. Without you, this blog would have died a long time ago. I hope that this overhaul will end up being as rewarding for you as I hope it’s going to be for me, and if you have any suggestions, questions, or comments, please leave them. They’re invaluable and I treasure them all.

Growing and Changing

Children! You have spoken and I have listened. And yet, I have not made a decision. For the next few months, CfS is going to be undergoing some growing and changing and, perhaps, hair will sprout in strange places. I hear this is normal for a blog trying to find its feet and niche in the grand wide interwebs.

Until then, you can expect a continuation of variance in theme, style, frequency, and length of posts, which is sort of par for the course anyways. Especially now, more than ever,  I beg of you to comment with your opinions, if you have any.

We now return to your programming, which, per usual, is irregularly scheduled but mostly awesome.

Re-Thinking Civics for Slackers (A Little)

Another slow, slow week. This time, healthcare is to blame. Congresspeople have retreated into their chambers to finally pound out what actual bills will look like, instead of dragging the fight public. There are a few stories that aren’t quite stories yet, like:

• There may be pullback of troops in Afghanistan. Or there may be a surge! Basically, the leading general just submitted a report that was critical of the Afghan government, and now everyone’s discussing what the hell is going on over there.
• Obama went to a bunch of international diplomacy meetings. Nothing new was said, but Michelle Obama wore a  lot of pretty dresses while greeting dignitaries!
• Ted Kennedy’s replacement was named to Congress to fill in until a new Senator can be elected in January. This is only important so he can vote on healthcare reform. He’ll probably not do much else.
• A census worker was found hanged with the word “Fed” written on his chest in felt-tip pen. It’s kind of creepy-weird.
• There’s some crazy stuff going down with ACORN. I would suggest you just read the Wikipedia article, because I can’t even begin to figure out the actual truth of this thing in between all the wonking from talking heads.

So that’s that. Now, we get to the serious stuff., which is about how I’m running this site (or considering running it) from now on.

Senator Ted Kennedy passes away at 77

Very, very late last night, Senator Ted Kennedy passed away after a year-long battle with brain cancer. He was 77.

Senator Kennedy, like much of his family, was a great civil servant, a political idealist, dedicated to civil rights, community service, social justice, peaceful diplomacy, and elevating the less fortunate.  He was Congress’ greatest lawmaker, writing and passing over 300 bills during his time in office. His favorite cause was (ironically) universal health care, which he called “the passion of his life”.

He was larger than life, known for his instantly recognizable red face, his full head of bright white hair, and his limp from surviving a plane crash, and his booming voice. He was not a perfect man – he was a notorious womanizer, a drinker, a reckless risk-taker, and embroiled in the same personal scandal that haunted much of his family. But he was a great friend to many in Washington (and a close friend of the Obamas, who he famously endorsed for president and whose daughters he gave their Portuguese Water Dog Bo, who was bred from the same stock as his beloved dogs). He  served tirelessly and with much respect from both sides of the aisle in the senate for 46 years. Earlier this month he received a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can receive, for his devotion to his country.

As a Massachusetts resident, as a a woman, as a political enthusiast, and as the daughter of a mother with physical disability, I cannot thank Senator Kennedy enough for the work he did not only to improve my life, but the lives of all Americans. You will be sorely missed.

Recommended reading and watching:

• The (very long, very good) New York Times obituary
• Remembering Teddy: Statements from Senator Kennedy’s colleagues
• Ted Kennedy’s last great speech at the 2008 DNC

Healthcare: The Story So Far

A Brief Backstory:
Our healthcare system blows. Let’s not mince words here -it objectively blows. Like, massive, massive chunks. The World Health Organization (who, as the name suggests, is kind of the authority on health and healthcare),  ranks the United States as 37th in the world when it comes to our health care system. We’ve been beaten by Columbia and Saudi Arabia. (Ouch.)  By far the most common reason for bankruptcy in this country is due to medical bills, and most of these people who go bankrupt? They’re insured.

Now, most of you, at this point, are wondering what the hell is going on with that statistic. After all, the idea behind health insurance is that you pay a company regularly to stick around for you and pay for a large percentage of your very expensive medical bills in case something goes terribly, horribly awry. And if healthcare companies aren’t doing that, doesn’t that mean healthcare isn’t working? And the answer is yes, yes it does. Not to mention cost – healthcare premiums (premiums being that part you pay the insurance companies to stick around) are going up. And so is the cost for government funded Medicare (the healthcare you automatically get from the government you reach once you hit a certain age) and Medicaid (healthcare for the really super poor). Now, this could just be because costs inflate over time, and I’m sure that’s part of it. But clearly that’s not all of it, because other countries don’t have this inflation problem. (Seriously, most of the questions I got about healthcare were “I’m from another country – please explain to me why Americans can’t get their shit together.”)

Now, this is as far as the agreement goes. Please note that when I say agreement, I am not saying there is a universal consensus. America has a proud history of fringe crazy people who, thanks to our first amendment, get to be as loud as they want. And while I will defend their right to be crazy to my death, that does not mean that they’re not nutty as a fruitcake.  These are generally the people at town halls yelling a lot about things like death panels and Nazism. They’re not most Americans. They’re not even most Republicans (no matter what some people will tell you). Most Republicans think these people are also nuts. These are the same people who brought you the “omg Obama is secretly not a citizen!!!!” debate. They are the inevitable crazy fringe that every American argument has, and when I say things like “everyone agrees” I do not include these people. It’s sort of like when you say things like “Elvis is dead”. Does almost everyone agree with you and thereby you feel qualified to make that sort of statement? Yes. Are there crazy people who disagree with you? Also yes.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter – who’s to blame for this? How do we fix it? How will we pay for it? Et cetera, et cetera. This isn’t a Yay v. Nay argument, this is where the ridiculously complex omgwtf-eries come in. We’ll get to that later. (Hurrah, multiple posts! This one I plan on illustrating. GET EXCITED.) For now, let’s just go with what the hell is going on right now.

A Quick Note From Your (Dorky, Kind of Hungry, Apologetic) Editor

Once upon a time, there was a blogger named Julia, and she never got anything wrong.

Oh, wait.

Since I’m extremely, extremely liberal, it should come as a surprise to approximately no one that there are certain issues I simply cannot stay neutral on. When I find myself faced with these issues, I turn to more conservatives friends and friends of friends to explain things to me in a way that makes sense.

One such person, Valarie, was (rightfully so) unhappy with part of my Cash for Clunkers post. More specifically, the part where I explained political theory by using the fire department analogy. Of course, nobody of any political affiliation is suggesting we get rid of fire departments, and I never should have implied otherwise. Republicans and/or conservatives are not about having no government, they are about having minimal government.

Here is what I was attempting to say without going into potentially charged issues such as, say, health care (On which a post may be slightly delayed due to that pesky judge who had the nerve to get confirmed to the Supreme Court on a schedule I did not specifically approve of – the nerve! May this also serve as a reminder for people to get in questions on health care if you’ve got them); let’s choose an absolutely ridiculous, completely abstract example. I choose… jellybeans. Go with me here, and pretend that there is actual debate on if the government should or should not give out free jellybeans.

Based on pure political philosophy alone (and discounting any loopholes or details that change the nature of this debate entirely), a liberal is more likely to argue that yes, the government should give out jellybeans, because it is the government’s job to regulate jellybeans so that they are fairly distributed. The government, a liberal would perhaps say, would make sure that everyone got the same quality of jellybeans, which is only fair, since money should not entitle you to a better jellybean. According to the Adam Smith model, a liberal is someone who is willing to thereby to make more contracts with the government and give up more of their personal liberties in order for more government protection and/or oversight.

A conservative, on the other hand, is more likely to say no, the government should not be in the jellybean business. Instead, the free market should be in charge, and that perhaps while that may not always be the fairest to everyone involved, it prevents bureaucracy, the government extending too much control and thus limits free choice, and cuts down on wasteful spending of money that was taken from the taxpayer. They would not want to make contracts with the government because they value their personal freedoms more. And this is all I was trying to explain.

Of course, this example is utterly ridiculous and has zero basis in reality. I re-iterate – no institution will sadly ever mail you free jellybeans, because as delicious and universally popular as that would inevitably be, it is also totally pointless.  Also, Republican president Ronald Reagan famously adored jellybeans, so clearly this example is theoretical bullshit.

If you ever do get free jellybeans in the mail, you should probably be a little suspicious unless you know where they come from. And even if you do kow where they came from, I would caution you anyways. Just as a safety precaution.

Cash for Clunkers

(Again from our buddies at Someecards.com)

What for what now?
The Car Allowance Rebate System (more commonly known as CARS or Cash for Clunkers) is the current American scrappage program (such programs have existed for a long time in Europe and exist somewhat for appliances in this country as well).

A scrappage what?
Here’s how a scrappage plan works: let’s say you’ve got a big  appliance/vehicle/whatever (in this case, a car) that’s old. It uses up a lot of energy, and technology has, in the intervening years, gone on to create more efficient model. So the government says, “Yo! What up. If you get rid of your old crappy model (ie: your clunker), I will give you money to buy a shiny, new, efficient model!” And the Democratic party beheld it, and they saw it as good, and lo, it was passed.

And why would our government do that?
Several reasons:

1. It is good for the environment to get rid of the things that use up a lot of energy. In this case, these cars use up a lot of fuel. Using up a lot of fuel? Is bad for the environment.
2. Using a lot of fuel also means we are dependent on other countries to produce fossil fuels for us. And when you are dependent on another country, that’s never good. (If this were an appliance, fossil fuels create electricity, so this still stands.)
3. It stimulates the economy because it gives people enough money to buy a new car (or whatever you are targeting in this plan).
4. It can help revitalize a dying industry (like, for instance, America’s auto industry. In case you have been living in a black hole, it hasn’t been doing well).

So how’s Cash for Clunkers going in the US?
Freakishly, freakishly well. So well, in fact, that the plan ran out of money. So many people wanted to take advantage of it that the House and Senate gave the green light (hyuck, hyuck) to another 2$ billion. Hurrah! New cars for everyone! Right?

Right?
Wrong! Remember, this is a Democratic plan. Thus, the Republicans are honor-bound to hate it. (And, of course, I am positive Democrats would return the favor.) So what’s their reasoning?

1. Once upon a time there was a guy named Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was a very famous political philosopher who originated the idea of government being a social contract. The idea is that government exists by the will of the people. The people give their consent to the government to provide certain services – a fire and police department, a military, public schools, libraries, et cetera. In exchange, the government takes certain civil liberties. Let’s take the example of a fire department. Yes, the fire department has better training and equipment, but they are not you. They might not be there as fast as you would like , or they might cause water damage, or generally do things not your way (which is a freedom). But most people agree that that is a sacrifice they are willing to make, and so they let go of that liberty in exchange for a service. That’s the basic concept. Now, Republicans believe, inherently, that big government is bad. Thus, in theory (there are, of course, hypocritical exceptions, as there are with all political stances, including my own) they believe more in people retaining their civil liberties instead of giving them to the government so the government can do things for the people, instead of Democrats, who believe that the cost of government doing things is worth it because of the potential benefits, or because they believe it is more fair that way. So basically, Republicans are fundamentally opposed to government interfering and doing these things, even if they work, because that just does not fit within their philosophy of “shit that is okay”.  Republicans believe that the private sector should deal with this and government needs to stay the hell away.
2. There’s this argument going around that, if the government is not competent enough to see the future and know how much money would be needed, how can they be trusted with anything else in the entire world? They can’t see into the future and predict people’s reactions! HOW DARE THEY. (No, this argument does not make a whole lot of sense.)
3. Some claim that this is a waste of money, or that it’s really giving taxpayer money to people who are already wealthy enough to have a car and they don’t need the money in the first place. Others claim that impounding these clunkers could actually be worse for the environment than the gas guzzling and greenhouse gasses are. No facts either proving or disproving this exist yet.
4. Mostly, they just really hate it when the Democrats win. No one likes a smug winner.