Aaron Carroll has a blog post entitled A pickle for conservative states refusing the Medicaid expansion.

The background is that Obamacare was designed with the companion Medicaid expansion in mind. However, the Supreme Court threw a wrench into matters when it decided that Obamacare was constitutional but it was unconstitutional to mandate that the states expand Medicaid. Instead, now states have the option of expanding Medicaid (mostly at federal expense) or not.

Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for people who were supposed to qualify for Medicaid. So, you have a bit of a doughnut hole occupied by people too well off to qualify for Medicaid under current standards but not so well off that they get beyond the expanded Medicaid eligibility and begin to qualify for health insurance premium subsidies under Obamacare.

On the other hand, *legal* immigrants (and I emphasize legal because that’s so often a sticking point — illegal immigrants are out in the cold regardless) don’t qualify for Medicaid unless they’ve been here for 5 years. Because Congress knew in advance that Medicaid wasn’t going to cover them, they’ll be eligible for subsidies under Obamacare. Conservative states that reject the Medicaid expansion might well see a situation where their poor-but-not-poor-enough citizens get no medical insurance assistance but legal immigrants occupying the same economic space do get assistance by virtue of not being citizens.

Random thoughts on reading President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

This kind of finesses my thought that history demonstrates pretty conclusively that these rights do not exist outside of government and are most definitely alienable. Alienating individuals from their right to life and liberty has historically been the rule and not the exception. And, in the State of Nature, with no government, an individual has no rights; merely the temporary strength to enforce his preferences.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Skepticism of the invisible hand, it looks like. But those who, themselves, express skepticism of government rules always take for granted those rules of which they approve — restriction of liberty in order to recognize the existence of property, for example. (“In what manner is a right of property in land conferred on me? By imposing upon every body, except myself the obligation not to touch its produce.”) And, by taking such rules for granted, and only protesting when pressed that they are not advocating anarchy, they seek to minimize the acknowledged role of government in order to maximize the simplicity and emotional impact of their anti-government rhetoric.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.

Bleeding heart liberalism. All of society’s ills cannot be cured at all. To some, in fact, those ills are evidence that God’s favor is lacking; and absence of those ills in some are evidence that the individual is Elect. This is the economy-as-morality-play mentality. It is pretentious of us to attempt to mitigate the righteous punishment of the Lord. (And if it means that we get to keep our stuff and not worry about the poor who will always be among us, so much the better.)

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

Collective action, eh comrade? And that business about new responses sounds like so much “living document” claptrap. What’s next, penumbras?

We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

At some level, a lot of Americans don’t really trust this. To some extent, it’s that morality play thing. If you work hard and conform, you will not be in need. And, even if you work hard but you don’t also conform, you deserve what you get. Because there is also a tribal thing going on. You have to be one of Us before we will regard you as something other than a taker when you are receiving aid. What’s required to be “us” varies – sometimes immutable characteristics like race might be be reasons for exclusion. Other times, it might be something arbitrary like religion or language. And, yet other times, it might be your approach to economic issues — if you attempted to rise above your station by following a fulfilling job rather than taking the crappy, soul-deadening, but more or less stable job, you deserve what you get. The potential of grinding punishment from risks gone bad helps keep people in line.

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

Bah, latte-sipping, tofu-eating, hippie-loving nonsense. Real Americans drink bad coffee; eat meat; and love to burn oil. The President wants to emasculate us, condemning us to driving the electric car from the Simpsons’ as envisioned by the “Gasoline Producers of America.” [In a wimpy voice]: “Hello, I am an electric car. I can’t go very fast, or very far. And if you drive me, people with think you’re gay!”

And, speaking of being gay:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall[.]
. . .
Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Seneca Falls refers to gender equality. Selma refers to racial equality. And, Stonewall refers to gay equality. That’s a good rhetorical maneuver. You take two “givens” and then try to shoehorn in a more controversial third; putting the burden on the objecting listener to provide meaningful distinctions that separate the third from the first two.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

And, to me, this is the nut. “Citizens.” It’s a significant word. I didn’t use it in the tag line to my blog by accident. Being a citizen confers rights as well as responsibilities. It means that this country is ours; that this government is ours. I read and write about proposed legislation because I enjoy it, sure. But also because I feel like in a small way it’s a way in which I can fulfill my role as a citizen. To pay some attention to what our government is doing and to explain and spread that information to my fellow citizens.

We are the government, we are the country, and those things are us. Only us. Government is not a malevolent third party, abstracted from us. Rather, for good and bad, it is an extension of the citizenry. Government is often an unwieldy tool, but it is a tool all the same. It can be used for good and bad, but ultimately it is a reflection (albeit at times a fun-house mirror reflection) of its citizens.

Politics will continue to be small-bore, particular, and more than a little ugly. The daily grind will continue to demand most of our attention – the mortgage still needs paid, the kids still need to get to school, a customer will still have an emergency that’s going to be your problem, your sporting team will still have a big game coming up, there will be parties, weddings, graduations, deaths, births, holidays, illnesses, and all the rest of it. But, every once in awhile, it’s nice to step back and take the long view of what this country is and what your role in this country might be. And, then, take a deep breath before diving back down into the muck.

Because it’s never too early to start thinking about the next election, I thought I’d check out the List of Presidents of the United States and just see what the history was in terms of incumbent party versus challenging party after a two term President. I skipped the beginning Presidents because things were so much different during the time of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. So, we’ll start with Andy Jackson and go from there:

1. Jackson succeeded by same party – Martin Van Buren (1 term).
2. Lincoln/Johnson succeeded by same party – Ulysses Grant (2 terms)*
3. Grant succeeded by same party – Rutherford B. Hayes (1 term)
4. McKinley succeeded by same party – Teddy Roosevelt (2 terms)*
5. Roosevelt succeeded by same party – William Howard Taft (1 term)
6. Woodrow Wilson succeeded by opposing party – Harding/Coolidge (2 terms).
7. Harding/Coolidge succeeded by same party – Herbert Hoover (1 term)*
8. Franklin Roosevelt succeeded by same party – Harry Truman (2 terms)*
9. Harry Truman succeeded by opposing party – Dwight Eisenhower (2 terms)
10. Eisenhower succeeded by opposing party – JFK/Johnson (2 terms)*
11. Nixon/Ford succeeded by opposing party – Carter (1 term)
12. Ronald Reagan succeeded by same party – George H.W. Bush (1 term)
13. Bill Clinton succeeded by opposing party – George W. Bush (2 terms)
14. George W. Bush succeeded by opposing party – Barack Obama (2 terms)

*I clearly had some trouble figuring out how to organize those cases where an incumbent won re-election but the vice-president filled some of the first or second term.

No terribly clear patterns, but I guess it looks like in modern times, it’s been less likely for the two term President’s party to win the following election, and almost impossible to win the next two elections.

SB 468, introduced by Sen. Schneider, is one of those oddly specific bills. According to the digest:

Grants civil immunity to the operator of a bowling center for injuries caused to a bowler who slips or falls in the bowling center due to the presence of a substance on the bowler’s shoe that was acquired outside the bowling center and tracked in. Requires the operator to post a conspicuous notice near the entrances and exits to the bowling center. Provides that the civil immunity does not apply if the operator fails to maintain the premises in a safe condition or the injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

Aside from being more specific than we probably want in a law of general applicability (injuries particularly caused by a substance on a shoe tracked in from outside?), the exceptions tend to swallow the benefit of the immunity. For example, it only applies if the premises were otherwise maintained in a reasonably safe manner. The usefulness of immunity statutes comes from not having to go to trial to have a jury decide whether or not you acted reasonably. Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability. I don’t see this statute ever saving a bowling center operator from having to go to trial.

NPR’s Morning Edition had an interesting segment entitled Making Marriage Work When Only One Spouse Believes In God.

In college, I dated a couple of religious girls and it didn’t strike me as a big deal that we had different opinions on the subject of God. I should have had more of a clue when the Pentecostal broke down crying one evening; she cared for me but was afraid because I would be going to hell. (True story: I dealt with this irritation by going home and drinking and playing Mario Brothers; a beer per level. I’m still a little proud of beating level 8 in that condition.) But, I didn’t have much of a clue because: a) I’ve generally occupied a clue-free zone when it comes to the other sex; and b) I drank a lot in undergrad.

Fortunately, I’ve always led sort of a charmed life when it comes to life’s major crossroads; and I fell in love and married my wife who sees eye-to-eye with me on religious matters. (I suppose there are gradations: I’m probably a bit closer to the agnostic/atheist divide than she is.) When we had kids, it became very clear to me that I would have had a very difficult time of it if my spouse had significantly different religious beliefs than me. I remember one incident where I felt my blood boiling when I learned that a preschool teacher had informed my child that the Big Bang theory wasn’t true. I’m not sure how you cope with that sort of chasm when it’s a spouse you’re butting heads with on what to teach the kids.

And, that’s where I felt a little disappointed by the Morning Edition story. They talked to a couple where one was Lutheran and one was atheist. They respected each other’s opinions, but neither was going to embrace the religious beliefs of the other. Nonetheless, they had a sort of “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” approach to the religious component of their relationship. And that’s laudable. (Some of my best friends are religious!) But they didn’t have kids. I would have liked to learn more about the approach of atheist/believer marriages in how they raise their kids. Probably this wouldn’t be a lot different than marriages where both are believers but from significantly different faiths. I suppose the spouse with the more ardent faith gets to lead the children’s religious upbringing.

Still, I imagine that’s very difficult. My wife and I are simpatico on most of the big issues, and I’m sure that’s made our lives much easier.

Interesting article by Richard Florida entitled, The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence.

-City level correlation between unemployment and murder by gun as well as overall death by gun.

-No association between mental illness, stress, or illegal drug use and gun deaths at the state level.

-No state level association between gun violence and unemployment or economic inequality. Some association at the city level between economic inequality and murder by gun (but not suicide).

-State level associations with gun deaths and poverty, lower incomes, “red states,” and blue collar economies.

-Negative state and city level correlation between gun violence and college graduation levels and knowledge-based economies.

-[This one stood out to me]: Association between gun suicides (but not murders) and share of people who drive alone to work. Both are probably a function of social isolation.

-At the metro level, a negative correlation between share of young males and overall rate of gun death.

-Share of black population has a positive correlation with both gun related homicides and overall rate of gun death. No similar correlation with share of Hispanic population.

-“[S]tate level analysis found gun deaths to be significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.”

I’m sure data will have precious little to do with the gun control debate, but it’s out there, apparently.

Some interesting thoughts on corporate religion today from some of my favorite bloggers. Tipsy, who is opposed to the Obamacare contraception mandate has a post entitled Corporate Freedom of Religion? wherein he notes that, opposed as he is to the policy, the idea of corporations having religious beliefs gives him pause.

Sheila Kennedy, generally in favor of the mandate, has a post entitled Thus Spake the Profits noting that the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby corporation doesn’t seem to extend to an objection to stocking inventory produced cheaply in a country with mandatory forced abortions.

Both raise the question of when and how a corporation, a legal fiction, can be said to believe anything. How close do they have to be to the activity? Is the corporate veil pierced to allow its owners’ religious beliefs to leak through to its employees but not to allow its owners’ profits to leak through to its creditors? Are those religious beliefs offended if its employees are allowed to use money from their paycheck to fund immoral behavior? Allowed to use compensation in the form of insurance to fund immoral behavior? Are those religious beliefs offended where products come from suppliers with morally objectionable behavior?

And, just because it’s a hobby horse of mine, I’ll take a moment to reiterate that I don’t think libertarians can logically embrace the corporate form. It’s a government construct designed to shield an individual from personal responsibility for the consequences of his or her actions; about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

In any event, I already think we’ve gone too far with the “corporations are people” legal fiction. They have their uses, and policy and legal protections should reflect those uses. But, they are different from flesh and blood people in fundamental ways. Not having the capacity to believe anything is one of those differences.

A column at CNN by an IU Medicine professor named Aaron Carroll is entitled America flunks its health exam, and highlights a whole lot of fail in the health of the American public.

It’s a good thing that we Americans don’t spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the rest of the world, let alone traveling to their countries, otherwise we’d start having questions that couldn’t be answered by a bunch of hand waving about how we just can’t afford good things or how your average person is an irresponsible (or worse, immoral!) brute, who should be blamed for his condition.

Anyway, per Prof. Carroll:

Compared to peer countries, we’re the worst when it comes to still births, infant mortality and low birth weight (even adjusting for different metrics).

Our little kids (5 and under) die more often than 16 peer countries. In this category our rates of neglect and abuse are the worst.

Our growing children are the fattest and most likely to get pregnant and STDs. (Our adolescent pregnancy rate is 3.5x the average).

Our males 15 – 19 are more likely to die, especially from gun violence and, from 20-24, our males are 7 times more likely to die of violence.

It seems that other societies are doing better by their people than we are. At some point, if we are not, it’s not because we can’t but because we’d prefer not to. We’d rather hold on to our cherished ideologies and notions of life-as-morality-play instead of pragmatically looking at what’s working in other countries and what’s not working in our own.

Joe Weisenthal, writing for Business Insider has a column entitled Why The ‘Mint The Coin’ Debate Could Be The Most Important Fiscal Policy Debate You’ll Ever See In Your Life. And the reason he says it’s important is because it gets to a central economic question that’s almost never discussed: “What Is Money?”

The background is the idea floating around to have the President circumvent the artificial debt ceiling crisis with the artificial creation of a trillion dollar platinum coin. The rejoinder from opponents is mostly some variation of “that’s silly,” but they can’t quite explain the particulars of why its silly because that requires them to explain their underlying notion of the essence of money; a notion that is most likely vague and quite possibly incorrect.

Money is a symbol of value, not inherently valuable itself. It’s possible that the things we use to symbolize value have inherent value of their own; but, to the extent you’re exchanging goods and services relying on the inherent value of the thing you receive (a gold coin perhaps), you are not getting paid with money so much as you’re bartering for goods.

Weisenthal says that “money is the creation of the state.” In recent history it has been, and that might be the most practical way of creating money; but I don’t think money has to be a creation of the state. Rather, it has to be regulated in some fashion so that the money supply is proportional to the value created by the economy. If that ratio is maintained, then the money retains its ability to store the value of the goods and services you exchange for that money.

I would have liked to see more in the article about the nature of money, but much of the discussion is the process of how governments create it. But, there is a good quote at the bottom:

Remember, money is a fiction. Real wealth is capital assets, our infrastructure, our cars, our houses, and most importantly the potential human ingenuity and cooperation. Money is just something that the government creates to facilitate the trade in all of those things.

In the case of money, it’s easy to mistake the symbol for the thing being represented. Money is a representation of value, a proxy for value, not the value itself. The economic doctrine of bullionist form of mercantilism was premised on this misconception.