I’m collecting here the best explainer posts, widgets, and videos on the health care legislation that just passed. Immediately after the bill made it through, I started getting questions from friends who are politically aware enough to know it was happening, but not nearly as hooked-in as I am–and I couldn’t even tell them what was in the bill. So, here’s my attempt to help with that problem. Above is a video from GRITtv (yes, my place of employment) with Maggie Mahar of HealthBeatBlog.org and Jacob Hacker, the inventor of the public option (that we didn’t get) explaining what’s in the bill and when it takes place.
The Washington Post made this really great interactive gadget that should tell you how the bill will affect you.
The New York Times also has a gadget, though not quite as cool to my mind as the WaPo’s, it is simpler.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a handy subsidy calculator as well, just in case the last two widgets didn’t tell you enough about your personal finances.
From CNN, a rundown on when different provisions kick in.
Nick Baumann at Mother Jones with a plain-English rundown of what happens this year.
MoveOn.org has Ten Things Every American Should Know, though frankly it’s more like Ten Talking Points. Still, stats worth looking at.
CBS has a nice summary of the bill in bullet points.
**Not really an explainer of personal effects, but this David Leonhardt piece from the New York Times is a must-read for the general direction of the bill–and why Republicans and tea partiers are so angry about it.
This is just a start; I plan to keep collecting. Please leave your suggestions in comments, and feel free to steal this! Almost all of these suggestions came to me via Twitter, thanks to everyone who sent ‘em.
It’s Blog for Choice Day. And this year, a year many of us thought might actually be a good one for sexual and reproductive rights, has turned out to be a very lousy one indeed. We saw Democrats force the Stupak amendment into an otherwise fairly decent House health care reform bill, and do nearly the same thing in the Senate onto an already-pretty-crappy health care reform bill.
We saw the murder of Dr. George Tiller, abortion provider, in cold blood.
We like to talk about choice. We fight over terminology. But what have we really done, in the years since Roe v. Wade, other than hold the line and nervously try not to lose what we’ve won?
We criticize Democrats for not supporting us, we who put them in office. But what are we pushing for? When my Democrat Congresswoman from my quite Democratic district (BROOKLYN, people) sends me a form letter in response to my calls and emails about Stupak, reassuring ME that there won’t be any federal money spent on abortion, what does that mean for us? Even the Democrats are more worried about antichoice arguments than they are about people like me bailing on them. Where are we going to go, after all, right?
Well, I’m tired of it. It’s 2010. We need to be fighting for more gains, not hiding in a defensive crouch and praying we get to hold on to what we’ve got. Rights are not granted, they are taken.
Not enough. I want positives. I want to use this moment to affirm our right to a healthy, joyful sexuality and to talk about how we can achieve that. A messy, unruly sexuality—hell, part of the beauty of it is that it’s not clean and neat. It is like eating a peach, in the last lines of Prufrock, juices running down your chin, sweet and tangy. Those decisions that happen in a minute are sometimes wrong, and sometimes unplanned things come out of them, but we don’t need to be saved from it, we need to have resources and support to deal with it, from a relationship gone sour to unfortunate STIs or Plan B for a birth control failure—or, whether Congress likes it or not, safe, legal, insurance-covered abortion.
I want to come out of the closet and say yes, we like sex, and we have the right to have it. To say that if the government spends millions of dollars every year on technologies that are only good for killing people, it can include abortion in a health care plan.
We didn’t get to the point of Roe v. Wade by having nice polite arguments. We got there by being angry, and demanding, and pushing. We got there by staking out a firm position: that our bodies are our own and we have the right to do what we want with them. We got there by calling for free abortion on demand.
So this year I don’t want to hear any sugarcoating. I don’t want any dancing around the words. Abortion. Sex. Pregnancy. There it is. “Choice” means a lot of things, it’s true. But this year we should all remember at bottom what it is we fought for.
Seriously? At this time last year not only did we just have a new president that we were all excited about, we also had a brand-new super-exciting majority in the Senate. 58 votes! SO COOL!
Oh yeah, that’s right. We’ve had 60 votes for a couple of months, after Arlen Specter switched and Franken finally got his seat. While Franken’s made the most of that seat, the rest of the party has been mostly fucking spineless, undisciplined, and too busy worrying about the center.
The center didn’t elect Scott Brown. The tea party crowd elected Scott Brown with the help of a depressed Democratic base (gee, let me think, a boring law & order prosecutor type who doesn’t campaign and makes John Kerry look like a raging populist is gonna get them all fired up? Plus, um, Liebercare looks a lot like MassCare, which is not exactly popular with a lot of the Dem base either.)
Lesson we SHOULD learn from this shit? The teabaggers have the strategy right. Make a whole lot of noise, throw some money around, and bend the party to YOUR will instead of folding your hands and giving it the benefit of the doubt. (Also, candidates matter. A lot. Just ask that guy…what was his name again…Obama?)
But come the fuck on. With 60 votes we were going to get watered-down shitty health care reform that would mandate us giving our hard-earned cash to the people who’ve been fucking us for years. Can we stop pretending that we lost anything valuable Tuesday night? We lost the myth that any seats are safe. That’s GOOD news. Let’s have some real campaigns now.
You know, over and over, lefties and liberals have told feminists that they have to look beyond sexism and abortion rights. Hell, I’ve been one of them. I criticized feminists during the primaries who seemed to excuse blatant racism from the Clinton campaign while freaking out about Obama calling a reporter “Sweetie.” I’ve noted that historical feminism was a white middle-class movement with white middle-class goals.
But right now, I’m really, really pissed about this Stupak amendment (as if you couldn’t tell). And yes, this is an issue that is personal for me: I’m a cisgender woman, heterosexual and of childbearing age, and I have no desire for kids.
And I’m sick and tired of hearing that I should look at the broader picture, that there are worse issues than sexism, blah blah blah.
I’ve heard this from well-meaning “liberal” men, but I’ve also heard it from activists I admire, who are usually RIGHT when they point out the myopia of much of the feminist movement (such as it is).
But this is the thing: millions of poor women, many of them women of color, will be hurt badly if this amendment stays in the bill. Shit, it’ll affect me, but I can probably still get an abortion if I need one. This isn’t a bourgeois issue and we’re not being myopic or selfish assholes to be righteously, ferociously angry and ready to fight this tooth and nail.
This is women’s lives. I care about race and class issues, poverty and health care and immigration and transgender people’s rights.
There are lots of lines in the sand that I’ll draw. One of them has been crossed right now, and yes, it’s personal. Because over and over again our issues get written off as things that should be compromised for the greater good, or we’re made to feel guilty because we’re worrying about something silly when there are worse oppressions out there.
I’m not going to play oppression olympics or other such bullshit. I’m just going to keep fighting this with every breath I’ve got, and I don’t care who you are, if you tell me I’m wrong for that, you can kiss my ass.
First, it would codify the Hyde Amendment provisions in the bill so that the ban on federal funds being used for abortions besides those resulting from rape or incest, or in cases where the mother’s life is endangered would remain intact regardless of Hyde being reauthorized. As it’s currently written, the bill’s restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion coverage would end if the Hyde Amendment, which has been reauthorized by Congress on an annual basis since 1976, is not reauthorized.
Secondly, it would not allow individuals purchasing insurance at least in part with federal affordability credits to buy a plan that covers abortions. The bill as currently written would allow individuals to use affordability credits to buy insurance that includes abortion coverage, but it requires any such plan to segregate the credits from individual premium payments and ensure that only the premium payments are used to fund the abortion services portion of the plan.
Affordability credits are available under the bill to people who don’t get insurance from work and earn between 150% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. The Stupak amendment would bar all people in this income bracket from purchasing insurance that covers elective abortions unless they can afford to pay for a separate abortion coverage plan on their own. People earning below 150% of FPL would already be ineligible for abortion coverage because they will be on Medicaid, which does not cover abortions under Hyde. There are no concrete numbers for how many people would be denied an abortion-coverage option under the amendment, but it would likely be at least 20 million.
Thirdly, the Stupak amendment would dictate that the government-run public option does not provide abortion coverage. The bill currently leaves the decision of abortion coverage in the public option up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Allowing the public option to cover abortions would not violate the Hyde Amendment because the public option is not government funded; will be entirely financed by individual premiums, just like the private plans.
You better be contacting Congress and letting them know that you’re pissed. This is ridiculous. This is NOT what we voted for in giving the Democrats huge majorities and this is NOT what we wanted in health care reform.
I questioned the prize committee’s definition of the word “peace” when Al Gore won it for environmental activism, which seemed a wee bit of a stretch for me. This time around, the committee at least seems to be thinking in the general direction of “peace”:
The committee praised Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” during his nine months in office and singled out for special recognition Obama’s call for a world free of nuclear weapons, which he first made in an April speech in Prague.
Heralding Obama as a transformative figure in U.S. and international diplomacy, the committee said: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
So. This will, no doubt, make conservatives flip the fuck out. Maybe it’ll move his poll numbers among the rest of the population. (Maybe the Nobel committee just wants us to get some decent health care?) But what reaction do I, an American progressive/hippie pinko commie type have to the bestowing of the Peace Prize on the president whom I spent the better part of a year volunteering to get elected?
The snark is flowing fast on Twitter. Melissa Harris-Lacewell: Because he appointed all his electoral adversaries to the cabinet. #ReasonsBHOwonNPPandBecause he invited a white policeman over for a beer! #ReasonsBHOwonNPP #BlackMenDontDoThat.
But really, it does seem a little…early? I mean, the man’s been president for nine months. The extraordinary goodwill that he’s generated around the world? Mostly a result of him so very obviously NOT being George W. Bush. I mean, yes, he’s done some things that are impressive. He’s given speeches in Muslim countries calling for understanding, he’s called for a world without nuclear weapons, he’s not behind the coup in Honduras and has actually taken some steps to return the rightful president, etc. He wants to get out of Iraq, though it appears to be going far slower than we’d have hoped.
Let’s be clear: we didn’t elect Dennis Kucinich. Shit, we KNEW we weren’t electing Dennis Kucinich. But I think a lot of us were hoping for more than we’ve gotten. Pushing for the Patriot Act renewal and more funding for war in Afghanistan harder than he seems to be pushing for a public option on health care is only the latest set of disappointments.
I wonder what’s left to give him if he DOES accomplish something major? If he manages to broker peace between Israel and Palestine? Hell, if he actually ends the two wars he inherited? Our own Matt Duss joked: Obama will receive prize on Dec 10. Has until then to end Isr-Pal conflict, get Iran to abandon nukes, end Iraq/Afgh wars. No pressure. (I guess they could always give a prize to Hillary Clinton for all that, and once and for all cause Bill’s head to explode: Carter, Gore, Obama and HIS WIFE?)
Others pointed out the massive peaceful protests in Iran this year and how that deserves more of a peace prize than Obama. Mousavi’s history with prior Iranian regimes probably discounted him (fairly, I think) but what about acknowledging the people who crowded the streets protesting for change? What about the people in Honduras calling for the return of their president under repressive conditions?
The Nobel Prize and other things like it celebrate individual achievement, but working for peace isn’t an individual thing. It requires collective action. It requires solidarity, communication, interaction. It’s not like writing a great book (or a great oeuvre). In a way, giving the peace prize to a sitting president while peace protesters are arrested in this country demeans the massive, not-officially-sanctioned peace movement that marched against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet a lot of those people worked to put Obama in office as the best way to stop American warmongering, so perhaps blogger Cyn3matic was right when she said: Nobel Peace Prize=GIANT repudiation of W and the misbegotten Bush-Cheney years. This is the world saying, ‘08 voters, we AGREE. She noted that she felt vindicated in her anti-war marching years ago by this vote, and so perhaps in some way this is an acknowledgment of all the American people.
But turning it down would be a slap in the face to an international community that is showing, in the most generous way possible, that it wants the U.S. back as a leading component of the global order. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.
So while I see what Obama’s done so far as a step in the right direction on some issues, perhaps, but mostly just shifting us back to where we were under Clinton (a place that I was not at all happy to be, so we’re clear), I guess the rest of the world thinks something bigger is changing here.
So I’m increasingly fascinated by the politics of food. I grow massively annoyed by the marketing of “green” as an upscale lifestyle choice–I’m out of work right now aside from whatever freelancing I can cobble together, and I cannot afford to buy my groceries at the local organic food co-op, which sells the same things as Whole Foods but is even more expensive (though at least it’s not a rotten corporation). I buy cheap food at the cheap bodegas and might have to make a trip to the grocery superstore a few blocks over, and cheap food mostly translates to cereal, rice, pasta, and frozen vegetables so I don’t die of scurvy.
I do spend a few extra bucks on fresh apples and other fruit, at the local farmer’s market if I can manage it.
Then the other problem: I don’t cook. I am almost 30 and I doubt that at this point I’m going to turn around and decide I love cooking, and though Michael Pollan’s right about a lot, he’s not going to be able to talk me into liking cooking the same way that hundreds of earnest people have not been able to talk me into liking the Beatles.
Much the same as the Beatles, I understand that cooking is important. I just don’t enjoy doing it. Moreover, at this point I feel GUILTY for walking away from the computer to spend half an hour or more in the kitchen when I have work to do, and when I’ve reached my quota for the day, I don’t feel like doing any more work.
And there are many people out there who have less money, less education, and less free time than I do.
So, where’s MY cookbook? I don’t need 30-minute meals, I need 5-minute meals. Organic farmer’s markets aren’t going to solve my food dilemmas as long as the food at the crappy corporate grocery is cheaper.
I’m interested in urban gardening and real food co-ops and ways that people can provide real food activism that isn’t preachy and condescending. I’m interested in ways we can make our food better for us, better for the environment, and available to all. Eating healthy shouldn’t be a privilege, and climate change will never be addressed if only the top 5% of the country can afford to “live green.”
I’m betting Erik has some thoughts on this, since the intersection of his academic work–labor issues and environmental issues–is really what I’m talking about. But I want to hear from everyone. Unless you’re going to tell me to learn to cook (or just listen to the Beatles one more time, man…)
My latest piece is up at Global Comment. Some thoughts on healthcare, freelancing, racism at town halls, and equality.
For a country that relies on the bootstrap myth, the U.S.A. certainly has a health care system that punishes people who attempt to live that way. The self-employed, the small business owner, and most especially the scraping-by creative types—artists, designers, freelance journalists—have no easy way to get health insurance. We are stuck buying our own care on the “free” market, where a single person has very little bargaining power.
On Tuesday, September 1st, I became one of America’s 46 million uninsured. I have a graduate degree, a decent amount of published writing, and multiple regular freelance clients. There is a better-than-average possibility that I could pay my bills with my writing, except for that one problem. A survey by AHIP, the national organization of health insurance providers, reports that I can assume to pay an average premium of $4734 in New York state, where I reside.
Paul Krugman explains that employer-based health insurance is regulated by the government. Corporations can get tax advantages for providing health care for employees; benefits are not considered taxable income, so companies pay less in wages and make it up in health care. Krugman notes, “[T]o get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.”
Campus Progress reports that only 60% of the population is covered by employer-provided health care. 26 million small business owners or their employees remain uninsured despite having a steady source of income—because it simply costs too much.
At the risk of diving in here when I haven’t been posting much to self-promote, my first story is up at the Nation’s site. It’s about the Philadelphia Museum of Art security guards and their struggles to unionize, and how they’re a great example of the need for the Employee Free Choice Act.
There’s kind of a dearth of interest in labor issues among the “netroots,” as I noticed when Arlen Specter had to bring up EFCA himself while being questioned at Netroots Nation. While I’m nowhere near as knowledgeable as some when it comes to union history and organizing, I try to do my part. Anyway, here’s the beginning and please read the whole piece over there.
The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a recognizable icon even to those who have never set foot in the city. Immortalized in the movie Rocky, when a sweatsuit-clad Sylvester Stallone bounded up the stairs while training for his big fight, the museum became a symbol of the working-class tenacity that Philadelphians are known for.
On September 6, those steps will host a different kind of blue-collar battle: the museum security guards will be holding a rally in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and their right to form a union.
I’ve been following the story on Twitter all day, as U.S. news outlets are really not covering it at all. People livetweeting from Iran as the country explodes at the election results, information being passed on as it is received and people attempt to verify it in real time…
Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post has been liveblogging and collecting info as it happens, but watching the story come in over Twitter is really exciting–and frightening. We place a certain amount of trust in news that comes to us from mainstream outlets, while here we just assume that people are who they say the are and that they are where they say they are. Or we desperately try to verify, a task that would be much easier if news outlets had nearly the amount of reporters on the ground that they should have.
Video, however, is worth a thousand words.
Live video shot by amateurs and uploaded to YouTube has an even more visceral effect than the glossy photos taken by professionals. It feels real, immediate, frightening, and exhilarating. No doubt the repression is coming, but these people are willing to face it.
