History un-lesson

For a variety of reasons, the whole Ten Commandments issue has come up again and this means that the editors of the Oklahoman are all too happy to run letters from facts-challenged theocrats that spout various right-wing theocratic myths as truth. Thus, we get a letter like this one from Bill Baker of Oklahoma City, who writes:

Ten Commandments monuments on public property raise an issue that needs clarifying. Simon Peter Iredale, the British minister and author, said that since England is historically a Christian country, “the principles and values of the kingdom of heaven are at least possibilities to our laws.” Those who founded this nation and its Constitution were predominantly Christian in their faith. Like their forefathers in England, they based America's constitutional law on Christian principles and values.

 OK, first things first. Who the fuck cares what a no-name British minister and author has to say about English law and its connection to Christianity?!? Seriously, this guy may as well have written "My neighbor down the street once said..." and left it at that, because that is about as might weight as any normal person is going to give to some dime-a-dozen minister who didn't even grow up in the UK and has no actual training in British law or legal history.

Next, as has been discussed ad nauseam, "those who founded this nation" were hardly the sort of Christian that Mr Baker imagines, and many would qualify more as "deist" than anything else.

And finally, do we see anything in America's laws that are uniquely Christian? When Mr Baker writes

These foundational laws, and the commitment of our forefathers, to them created the freedoms and quality of life we today are privileged to enjoy as our heritage. The sacrifice of patriots who've defended them since have preserved them for us. The Ten Commandments monuments are a solemn tribute to the wisdom, foresight and sacrifice of these patriots. Today's Americans owe a debt of gratitude to our forefathers.

The first thing you want to ask is 'how does a Ten Commandments monument in any way pay tribute to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin'? After all, Jefferson was the guy who argued in a letter to one Thomas Cooper in 1814 that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Note also, for the record, that the editors suck. Re-read the first sentence of the above, cut-and-pasted from the on-line edition of the paper. It says "These foundational laws, and the commitment of our forefathers, to them created the freedoms..." but the comma should obviously go after "them" and read: These foundational laws, and the commitment of our forefathers to them, created the freedoms...

A real newspaper would actually employ editors who had a basic grasp of how English works.

Anyhow, after these lame assertions, Mr Baker finally concludes:

The First Amendment doesn't mandate the Christian faith for each person; however, it does mandate the freedom to worship as one chooses — or not at all. Ten Commandments monuments on public property are a tribute that recognizes our historic, constitutional commitment to the principles and values that the Ten Commandments provide. Other faiths not based on and committed to honoring the Ten Commandments don't truthfully represent this Christian nation and its commitment to these civilizing principles and values. Neither can their monuments.

Wait. So the Ten Commandments are a "tribute" that "recognizes our . . . constitutional commitment" to principals such as "You shall have no other gods before [Yahweh]"? Because last time I checked, that wasn't in the Constitution. And what the hell-- now "other faiths" that don't honor the Ten Commandments "don't truthfully represent this Christian nation"?!?!

These sorts of letters are pathetic. They are poorly written (and edited!) and factually challenged. But because they push a theological agenda-- The US is a Christian nation!!!-- the Oklahoman runs it. Obviously the editors could never run an editorial saying such things, and syndicated columnists are too smart to write a column expressing such a ridiculous notion. But the editors know that they can get their point across by running some nitwit's letter as "opinion" knowing that that dog whistle will perk up the ears of their thralls.

It's a pathetic tactic, but if there's one thing we know about the Oklahoman, it is that it's pathetic.

"Finest healthcare system in the world"

A few days ago, one of the Oklahoman's part-time columnists managed to get yet another screed published. Predictably, it's a rant against Democrats, and filled with the sort of useless invective that only comes with being an irrational and uninformed right-wing thrall. He starts:

What a mess Obama's so-called Affordable Care Act is making of our health care protection system! Obamacare should be called Democare since not a single Republican in Congress voted for this “historic” and terrible law. Another reason to call it Democare is because it's demolishing the finest health care system in the world.

Holy crap. Before getting into the main point, let's stop and note how utterly lame this is: "Another reason to call it Democare is because it's demolishing..." -- Get it? "Demo" for "Democrat" but also for  "demolishing"? Hilarious. This guy must have yucked it up with the folks at the local diner for six or seven minutes over that one.

Would any real newspaper run this sort of thing? No need to answer: the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper.

In any case, let's get to the REAL issue: is ours the "finest health care system in the world" and if so, is the Affordable Care Act "demolishing" it? To the first point, the clear answer is no. No, for real.

Amazingly, a real-life example of this was just discussed in the Oklahoman. It's an incredible story and everyone should read it. For the editors of the paper, of course, the focus is on the "miracle" of a teen-ager beating some ridiculous cancer. But a glaring aspect of this doesn't quite get the attention it deserves:

The next step? Doctors would perform a stem cell transplant using stem cells from Lorelei's oldest sister, Hannah. It was a similar concept — use Hannah's healthy stem cells to replace Lorelei's sick ones. Lorelei would have Hannah's immune system, and thus, it would hopefully kill off her cancer. 

Before the transplant, they had to put up an unexpected fight....

When the family's insurance company told them it wouldn't cover the transplant from Hannah to Lorelei, the family took to Twitter. Andrea's job had been in social media, meaning she had quite the network as well.

Uh. Holy shit. This girl is going to die and needs a stem call transplant in order to live, and her insurance company... uh, denied it???

In desperation, they take to Twitter and manage to generate enough social media buzz that the insurance company reverses its decision. When interviewed, the kid's mother said:

The big deal there is nothing new happened, so why did they deny in the first place? Because they could — because they knew some people are going to die before they fight.

Got that? And this is the "finest health care system in the world"???? Please stop.

When considering whether or not the Affordable Care Act is going to "demolish" our current health care system, one might just say "I hope the hell so" after reading a story like the above. But what does it really do? We've talked about this already, but a key point is that it stops "annual or lifetime limits on healthcare" and stops insurance companies from dropping coverage "when you are sick or for making a mistake on your application."

Naturally, we don't know why this girl's insurance company was denying her coverage for this life-saving transplant and it may be the case that even under the new rules of the Affordable Care Act, they would have done it. But we know that presently, insurance companies spend considerable sums trying to find ways to deny coverage:

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing? 

Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.

Indeed, from this story, we read that an insurance representative said that they "would not reveal exactly why Lorelei [the patient] was originally denied," but added that there is a "medical review process to ensure that our members receive appropriate, necessary and effective care" all while "adher[ing] to the plan certificates and regulatory guidelines that direct us regarding coverage decisions, determining what therapies are of proven efficacy, and evaluation of unusual therapies."

Got that? Whenever you hear about Sarah Palin and "death panels" from the Affordable Care Act, come back and re-read the above. Because here are your death panels. The company used its "regulatory guidelines" to decide that they didn't want to spend any more money on a girl, even though she would otherwise die. Seriously. That is a death panel.

Again, this is the "finest health care system in the world"? And stopping these sorts of practices is a bad thing?

Anyhow, the part-time columnist Tom Miller goes on:

The Democrats call anyone who tried to repeal, change or improve their 'prized' legislation all sorts of bad names. Why has Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius not been replaced? Isn't she responsible for the details of the ACA operations? And how about the Supreme Court's split decision to uphold this legislation as constitutional? The court was the last line of defense for the people of this great country and the justices actually had to change the bill's terminology of the penalty clause, to a tax, to make the bill acceptable.

 I could go point by point, but it would be tedious. I mean, whining because someone may have called the GOP "bad names" (who uses "bad names"?!?!) when they tried 47 times to repeal the affordable care act?? And why replace Sebelius? He gives no reason except that she's "responsible for the details" of something he doesn't like. And he's mad about the Supreme Court? Look, I don't know if Mr Miller is a lawyer or not, but reading this brief makes it pretty clear that no justices "changed" any terminology in the Affordable Care Act to make it acceptable:

It takes a particularly obstinate—even hostile—reading of the IRR provision to find that it is not labeled a 'tax.' True, the result of a failure to obtain insurance is in some places called a 'penalty.' But the letter t is followed by the letters a and x, in that order, forty-five times in the section of the Tax Code setting out the insurance requirement alone... 

In any event, the claim that only a statute expressly labeled as a 'tax' can be justified under the taxing power is false. In fact, since its earliest cases interpreting the taxing power, the Supreme Court has held that it is the effect of a statute as a tax, not its mere label, that controls.

So in other words, the Supreme Court didn't do anything nefarious here. (And, indeed, it's not the Court can't actually change terminology; they simply rule if the bill as written is Constitutional or not.)

Tom Miller is an idiot and a fool and no real paper would run the sorts of letters he writes-- he's ignorant of facts and writes like a child. But the Oklahoman likes his anti-Democrat message and so they'll run his drivel and put it on their opinion page to aid in pushing their plutocrat agenda. The state deserves better.