Obamacare fabrications

Obviously, the Oklahoman hates the Affordable Care Act. Even though, as noted, it is hardly some sort of socialist takeover of the country's healthcare system, the plutocracy crowd hates the idea of paying more in taxes to try and up the overall quality of life for those less-fortunate.

Thus, they ran today's letter from David O'Daniell of Oklahoma City. O'Daniell's is a response to a letter from a former member of the Oklahoma state Legislature who was, in turn, trying to clear up some "confusion" sewn by some comments of current Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, as well as in a lazy Oklahoman editorial. (See how that works-- the Oklahoman runs some right-wing propaganda, someone critiques it, and then they make sure that someone comes back to defend it!)

In is letter, O'Daniell just whines about how expensive his insurance is going to be in the coming years, saying,

My premium went up 18 percent over last year's premium. Additionally my agent informed me that because I'll be turning 55, my premium will increase 15.3 percent in September of this year; new with Obamacare. This computes to an annual premium increase of 36 percent.

My agent also informed me that next April my premium is expected to increase an additional 25 to 30 percent to accommodate Obamacare.

And here's the deal: this could be true, but if so, he almost certainly doesn't reflect the average case. As FactCheck notes with regards to increases in premiums, "not much will be different as the law is put into place for those who get insurance through their employers, and that’s the bulk of Americans." Thus, it is almost entirely likely the Mr. O'Daniell is getting his insurance on the "individual market" and not through his employer. Increases in premiums in such plans is entirely expected because they will be accepting the previously uninsured-- mostly people in "high risk" pools who will need lots of care.

This is an important distinction to make, and one that the media-- yes, even the "liberal" mainstream media-- has failed to make. Talk of huge hikes in health insurance premiums are not going to happen to most Americans because most Americans get their insurance through their employer and that market is likely to remain stable. The "individual market" will see some initial "sticker shock" because it is going to see a huge influx of people who were previously uninsured join their ranks-- and a not insignificant number of those people are going to be people who insurance companies would never have otherwise insured because of their health issues!

Moreover-- and Mr. O'Daniell doesn't talk about this, so we have no way of knowing-- but according to FactCheck:

most of those getting insurance through the individual market as a result of the health care law will do so with the help of federal subsidies. Those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four and $44,680 for a single person in 2012) qualify for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.

In other words, depending on his financial situation, O'Daniell will likely qualify for subsidies to pay for these hikes-- subsidies that "would push [his] costs 'well below' what [he] would have been charged in the absence of the law."

Again, there's no way to know Mr. O'Daniell's actual situation (or if he's even telling the truth-- the Oklahoman will run anything if it pushes the right-wing agenda, even if it's just a lie). But it's almost certain that his situation is not representative, and moreover, that if he told the full story (such as how he will qualify for subsidies), he wouldn't have anything to complain about.

The Oklahoman, however, has to shill for its plutocrat friends, and so letters like Mr. O'Daniell's will continue to appear.

Hoaxy

Today, Kent McInnis of Oklahoma City proves that he doesn't quite understand what a conspiracy theory is. His letter is a response to a recent feature on the crazy things people believe-- things like that the moon landing was staged, or that that the government covered up a UFO crash near Roswell, NM. Though not present in the on-line version, the print version has some graphics noting what percentage of people believe in what crazy ideas:

Notice the 37% who "believe global warming is a hoax" in the lower left.

Well, this is what set Mr. McInnis off. He writes

Along with believers in Bigfoot, aliens, UFOs and faked moon landings is a reference to the 37 percent of Americans who are certain global warming is a 'hoax.' Since global warming proponents see evil capitalism as the boogieman, it seems odd to reference in the article those who deny a conspiracy.

Just because one hears a cry that the discussion is settled, doesn't end the debate. Consensus in science is what put Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the sun didn't revolve around Earth. As Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said, 'Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.'

Unfortunately, Mr. McInnis doesn't seem to know what a "conspiracy" is. It's fine to disagree with the "consensus" on some issue of research. Perhaps you think that the sun is made mostly of iron, instead of helium and hydrogen, like the consensus thinks. That's fine. But note: saying, The sun is mostly iron, and the rest of science has it wrong! is not the same thing as, The sun is mostly iron, and this helium and hydrogen stuff is a hoax put on by the rest of the scientific establishment to trick you all so they can further their own nefarious schemes!

In the second case, you're actually saying that a huge number of scientists are deliberately lying-- they're fabricating numbers, publishing fraudulent research papers, and so on. Moreover, every year, as new graduate students joint the ranks, they are all informed of the conspiracy and agree to play along. All of them. And all in the name of an actual agreed-upon agenda.

Think about that for a minute. There must be thousands of climate scientists all carrying out research on this topic. And virtually all of them see human activities as causing climate change in negative ways. To imagine that all of them are making this up to stop some "capitalist boogieman" is, in fact, a conspiracy!!

Mr. McInnis concludes by saying

The Oklahoman should have listed the percentage of Americans who accept as true that global warming is man-made. They're the ones who believe in monsters under their beds!

Zing! Well, not really. But coming from a guy who doesn't understand what a conspiracy theory is, it was a nice try,

Yawn

As predicted, the editors of the Oklahoman have run what is almost certainly the final salvo in this month's theocratic battle. Unfortunately, Douglas Thompson of Oklahoma City has no idea how evolution works and has to resort to tired questions that he likely got out of a Jack Chick tract:

I don't know whether the earth/universe is 6,000 years old or 26 billion years old. I wasn't there when the universe began. Neither was Grow or anyone presently on the earth. I do know that one of the most complicated pieces of equipment ever flown (the space shuttle) was designed by men. Evolutionists say that the most complicated of all organs — the brain — contains 86 billion neurons and had no one to design it; essentially, it happened by chance. Does this make sense?

The classic argument from personal incredulity. Unfortunately, science doesn't work because some ignorant auto mechanic has trouble imagining that it's possible.

Worse, though, is that a state's major newspaper thinks that it's a good idea to publish letters written by ordinary people who question accepted mainstream scientific theory with old, discredited arguments. Unfortunately, the Oklahoman has to appeal to its mindless theocratic base, and so we get embarrassments like this.

AWOL editors

The Oklahoman has surprised me of late. A few days ago, I was convinced that we'd see a new dust-up in the evolution "debate" the paper loves to push as part of its theocratic agenda. And yet, it has remained eerily quiet to date.

And then, we get today's well-reasoned letter about taxes from Donnie Elms of Harrah, who writes:

This isn't the time to pass income tax cuts. Our roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc., are in need of repair, as are our schools. Teachers and prison guards are underpaid. The only place any taxes should be cut is on medicine and groceries, which would benefit everyone.

Before getting to the nuts and bolts of the content of this letter, observe how wonderful it is in its simplicity! There are no odd, disjointed uses of sarcasm, or the questionable use of metaphor, or tired, childish insults. Moreover, the letter addresses several relevant themes. One wishes that-- regardless of the argument presented-- the Oklahoman could run more letters like this.

In addition, the actual sentiment of the paper is a breath of fresh air, especially when compared to the cognitive disconnect that seems to plague the editors of the Oklahoman. After all, these are the people who routinely lament the poor condition of the state's infrastructure and services. Even their news-- which is often just the propaganda arm of their own right wing agenda-- talks about such things. Yet, at the same time, they argue that cutting taxes is a must-- even then the average family would receive virtually nothing from such cuts.

When they do come to terms with their own contrary views, the editors sound pathetic:

Oklahomans are justifiably proud that the state has a balanced budget requirement. It avoids the irresponsible deficit spending of the federal government. But balancing the budget requires lawmakers to make hard choices. To keep the cost of government from ultimately imposing a greater tax burden on working Oklahomans, lawmakers will have to say “no” to even many worthy proposals.

So... in the hope of making sure that Kevin Durant doesn't pay as much in income taxes, we have to under fund (at best) services and needed improvements? As they already noted, the current proposed tax-cut plan would " [provide] just $39 per year for a median-income family" in tax savings. Is that really a "greater tax burden" as they claim above??

The only defense of this that the editors have offered is the standard fall-back: how much more impact would that [$39 per family] have if left in the private sector?

Ah yes, the private sector. Where, if every family spent that $39 at a national chain restaurant, we'd all magically have new roads and more police officers.

To be sure, there is a time when a strong case can be made for tax cuts. But given the state of the economy when compared to the state of Oklahoma's infrastructure, Mr. Elms' letter makes much more sense than the always-cut-taxes mantra espoused by the plutocratic editors of the Oklahoman.

In the past, I'd argue that the editors' proven penchant for running opposition letters only so that they can run letters responding to that opposition (often spouting standard right wing talking points) means we are in store for some poorly-written letters attacking Mr. Elms for his "socialist" views. But the editors seem to have been on vacation of late. Only time will tell...

Brain dead

They don't come much dumber than this letter from Ray Robinson of Shawnee. In response to an announcement that the president wants to fund a long term brain research lab at a cost of ca. $100 million (for the first year), Mr. Robinson whines

President Obama wants Congress to approve $110 million in new spending for brain research. “Ideas are what power our economy,” Obama said. Does he not know that the country is broke and getting deeper in debt by the second? His ideas don't power the economy; his ideas are only about spending. If for some stupid reason this is approved, the first brain that needs to be studied is his.

First off, is it not possible for the Oklahoman to run letters that critique President Obama without stooping to childish rants and insults?

Secondly, it's pathetic that Mr. Robinson is writing about issues of budget and economy when he clearly has no firm grasp of either. Is he really complaining about a hundred million dollars? That's about thirty cents per person in this country. That's change-under-seat-cushions money. We build fighter jets that cost more than that per plane! Perhaps, instead of ordering 80 such plans, the US Marine Corps could just order 79? Boom. Problem solved.

And unlike that 80th F-35 that would almost certainly just collect dust for its entire lifetime (when was the last time the Marines were launching scores of planes into battle?), a center to engage in serious brain research could actually lead to improvements in during diseases like Alzheimer's and better deal with concussions and strokes.

And lastly, is it really the case that the US is "broke"?!? The attempt to portray the US federal government as nothing more than a giant family of 300+ million people spread across most of a continent breaks down upon even the most basic scrutiny. No doubt Mr. Robinson is too stupid and too incurious to even think about such things, but one wonders how he would answer this question: would anyone loan a "broke" entity (a family, company, country, etc.) money at virtually no interest? Because the answer is no. None is lending a "broke" country money for nothing.

Would that the Oklahoman just ran letters from smart people making smart arguments. Unfortunately, smart arguments tend not to fall in line with most plutocratic/theocratic arguments. And thus we are left with this sort of crap. We should expect better.

Round two

As I've noted before, every once in awhile, the Oklahoman likes to rile up its theocratic base by delving into the evolution "debate" via its letters section. This usually begins with some idiot attacking evolution-- usually in an out-of-the-blue manner-- and is followed up by some reasoned replies from well-meaning people who unfortunately stand no chance against decades of willful brainwashing. This will go on for awhile, but ultimately, the final salvo in the debate goes to the creationist.

It's been awhile since then, so I guess the editors decided it was time for more. Thus, a few days ago, the Oklahoman ran a letter wherein an uneducated and uninformed writer tried to take science down a peg or two by asserting that the conflicting opinions of different fields of research showed that evolution "wasn't possible." And now, we get round two, where David Grow of Edmond rightly notes that the field of anthropology has nothing to do with human evolution and also questions (much more politely than I did) the notion that it's been "proven" that it would take over 26 billion years for humans to evolve.

Mr. Grow ends his letter with a parting shot:

There's still a lot to learn about the universe and evolution. But as scientific discovery accumulates, the anti-science claims of creationists become increasingly irrelevant.

Mr. Grow is right, of course, and it's sad that he felt compelled to write his state's major newspaper to express such sentiments. After all, most major newspapers run letters that discuss major issues of the day that are grounded in reality. But the Oklahoman is no ordinary newspaper and letters pushing the editor's far right theocratic agenda are par for the course. No doubt in the next few days we will see replies to Mr. Grow's attacks on creationism as the paper continues its rile-up-the-base movement.