Today is the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, which is already improving the lives of millions of Americans. To highlight some of the ways the law is making an impact, the Department of Health and Human Services has put together a series of videos featuring the stories of Americans who are already benefiting from the law.
Here’s Vanessa M. explaining how the law’s repeal of lifetime caps on coverage ensures that families like hers with developmentally delayed children won’t face gripping economic insecurity:
Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2013 federal budget proposal is the talk of the town in Washington today, and for good reason. As Greg Sargent pointed out this morning, the debate over Ryan’s plan will “…ultimately, force the American people to make a big choice between two starkly different sets of priorities and ideological roadmaps for the country’s future.”
Ryan seems to embrace this struggle, justifying his budget plan in moral terms. The crux of his argument is that we have a foreseeable, catastrophic debt crisis on the horizon, and that rejecting his solution represents an immoral dereliction of leadership. Here’s Ryan speaking at the American Enterprise Institute this morning:
Ryan seems to believe it’s morally necessary to gut protections for the poor and vulnerable right now in order to avoid gutting protections for the poor and vulnerable in the future.
What Ryan doesn’t address, though, is his own culpability in exploding the debt that he thinks necessitates these cuts. Let’s take a short walk down memory lane:
Ryan voted for Wall Street deregulation that led to the economic collapse of 2008, which exploded the debt and destroyed millions of jobs.
Ryan voted for tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that helped turn Clinton-era surpluses into huge Bush-era deficits and overwhelmingly benefited millionaires and billionaires.
Ryan voted for a Medicare prescription drug benefit that added almost $300 billion to the deficit and prohibited the government from negotiating withpharmaceutical companies for fairer prescription drug prices.
Ryan consistently voted for the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in addition to killing over 100,000 people added over $1 trillion to the debt.
Ryan is arguably as responsible as anyone in Washington for running up the national debt, yet he doesn’t hesitate to preach about the moral imperative to get behind his plan to solve the debt problem he helped create. Even if his plan were a serious solution instead of an Ayn Rand-inspired ideological agenda, Ryan would do well to repent of his own complicity in the debt before moralizing to the rest of us about it.
This week marks the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, which passed thanks in part to the faith community’s remarkable efforts. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from the law’s new cost-savings and protections, and more is on the way.
Here’s a helpful interactive flowchart to help you figure out how the law benefits you:
At the conclusion of their administrative committee meeting about religious liberty and the religious accommodation on contraception coverage Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement detailing their position on the issue.
Fr. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Senior Fellow at Georgeown University’s Woodstock Theological Center, passed along some helpful analysis for interpreting the document.
While pointing out that the bishops remain united in their opposition to the rule and distrust the Obama administration’s accommodation, Reese highlights some of what’s not in the document:
There is no talk of the Obama administration waging a war on religion or being anti-Catholic. While the language is strong and uncompromising, it is not inflammatory.
There is no mention of the fact that Republican politicians have abandoned them and that a legislative solution (like the Blunt-Rubio proposal) is unlikely even in the House.
There is no talk of civil disobedience or cancelling health insurance for their employees if they do not get their way.
But Reese also notes something we’ve talked about extensively before. In a rush to prove that this debate is “not about contraception” and all about religious liberty, the bishops have still failed to answer the $64,000 question — what are the limits to that principle?
The statement infers that religious liberty is an absolute right that cannot be restricted. If this were true, Mormons and Muslims could practice polygamy and those who believe God demands the separation of the races should be exempted from civil rights legislation.
Michael Sean Winters notices the same thing. Responding to the bishops’ call for conscience protection for any individual who has a moral objection to a law, he says:
This is frankly shocking. Were the drafters of this task unaware that these words could be used — actually such arguments were used! -– by segregationists? They cited the biblical story of Ham to justify their stance, and I suppose a biblical citation counts as a religious claim.
Bishop Lori has vaguely outlined his own view that freedom is limited by a compelling government interest (seemingly rejecting exemptions for Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses), but that seems to have been the bishops’ only attempt to answer this essential question. Until they address it more specifically, it’s extremely difficult to engage with their overall arguments on religious liberty.
Last month, we covered the testimony of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University Law student who testified in favor of the HHS regulation requiring all insurance plans to include birth control and other preventive services without co-pay. In particular, she highlighted the consequences of letting employers deny women these services, relaying the story of a friend who lost her ovary after she could no longer afford to pay out of pocket for contraceptive pills to treat her ovarian cysts.
Since Fluke’s testimony and the subsequent backlash from the far Right, the media has been saturated with coverage of the debate between religious liberty and reproductive freedom. However, as Nicole Neroulias’ recent Huffington Post piece rightly points out, framing the story in these terms misses this part of Fluke’s actual testimony.
“[A]s Fluke tried to explain in her opening statement, both frames miss the big picture: Women take the pill to address myriad health issues, from ovarian cancer, menstrual problems, hormone imbalances and fertility treatments to cystic acne, et al. This is the angle I’ve been waiting in vain for religious and mainstream journalists to acknowledge and investigate.
And logically, even when clergy approve of contraceptives for unrelated medical reasons, how would they have their institutions apply these directives? Should women who work at Catholic hospitals and schools get a doctor’s note for their bosses before requesting insurance reimbursement for the birth control pill? Would ovarian cysts and infertility make the cut, but acne and bad cramps be more along the lines of God’s will?”
This logistical problem is currently playing out in Arizona, where proposed Blunt Amendment-style legislation that would allow employers with moral objections to opt out of contraceptive coverage includes an exemption for employees who need it for health reasons, but only if they get permission from their employer.
I presume this measure is meant to prevent employees from lying about health problems to exploit this as a “loophole” to gain coverage for contraception. The law even makes it easier for employers to fire women for doing so.
But what about the 44% of women who use contraception for both health and birth control reasons? Do they have to convince their boss they’ve renounced the latter? Will people’s job security hinge on their bosses’ interpretations of their sincerity?
Further, does this principle apply to other drugs that can be used in multiple ways as well? Do single men with Viagra prescriptions need to prove they suffer from pulmonary arterial hypertension? Do employees need to convince their boss they aren’t abusing their painkiller prescriptions for recreational purposes? Is it practical to try to enforce legal lines that are based on the intention a person has when he or she uses a drug?
Turning bosses into moral and medical authorities over their employees seems to go far beyond bill proponents’ ostensible goal of limiting an employer’s involvement in practices they disagree with and clearly into the realm of directly controlling the behavior of their workers.