Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

A possibly-obvious preamble: other parties, including Democrats, are also inconsistent and shift priorities based on opportunism. The main thrust of this article is that Republicans are much more consistently opportunistic, to the point that the only reliable party platform it has consistently held in the past few decades is to simply obstruct the Democrats. 

An old example that I can bring to bear is how the party that is most beloved by the National Rifle Association supported and passed gun control legislation under Reagan, when he was governor of California. What on earth would cause this? Because disarming politically active minorities was a bigger priority than their sacred second amendment rights. And before anyone dismisses the Black Panther Party as a violent extremist group, which is how it was painted in mainstream media, it bears noting that most of their fears turned out to be correct: it turns out the police were unfairly targeting black people and the federal government was illegally monitoring them

Even before that, the Republican party’s Southern Strategy was only opportunistic. Before the party leadership to make it an issue because they realized it could drive a wedge between southern voters and the Democratic party, Evangelicals favored abortion rights for women. The Southern Baptists, the largest evangelical organization in the US,  passed resolutions to that end at their Conventions of 1971, 1974 and 1976. However, once the party saw the opportunity, evangelical organizations pivoted and made it a political issue

Despite being the laissez-faire party of economic and personal liberalism, Republicans started and supported the War on Drugs as a way to control minorities during the war and civil rights protests of the 1970s. And not necessarily because they were racist – merely politically convenient

More recently, before the health care framework was implemented in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, it was originally concocted by the very conservative Heritage Foundation and then adopted by Republican then-governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. And while I’ve criticized the legislation before (let’s face it, it’s a gift to the private health care insurance industry to require folks to carry health care insurance), taking it down now has become merely a battle-cry for Republican leadership, even though they decided not to do anything about it when they held both houses in Congress and the Presidency.

Perhaps most recently, the Republican senate majority leader Mitch McConnel, as well as many other Republican Senators, had championed the idea of not even considering presidential appointees to the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, during the last year of their term. This was called the Thurmond rule, after the Senator who blocked president Lyndon B. Johnson’s appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice. Oddly, the Republicans only seem to apply it when the president is a Democrat, if at all.

Famously the party of fiscal responsibility, The Republican presidencies have consistently seen increases in the government’s debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio, and economic recessions. To the point where president Trump was not only outspending prior presidents before the Coronavirus epidemic, but even used the epidemic to pass a $1.2 trillion bill while refusing any oversight on it. Further, they’ve perpetrated the myth that lower taxes (the purple line in the graph below is the top income tax rate, and the blue line is the effective average corporate tax rate) boosts the economy, even though it has no impact on median wages or employment (the red line in the graph below).


Of course, no party can stay in power without voter support. Again, like the other main party, the Republican party’s messaging has a significant impact on its supporters. However, it is either more effective, or the supporters have similarly malleable positions on policy, depending on whether their party favors or opposes it at any given point in time. For example: 

I’d love for this observation to age horribly, or even be inaccurate, because I personally espouse many of the ideologies that Republicans have occasionally espoused, and have frequently voted for Republicans. But, as of late 2020, it seems very much to be the case that obstructionism is the only ideology the Republicans consistently espouse. 


Since Obamacare causes such controversy, and for good cause, it’s worth trying to untangle some of the issues presented by what I’m generically going to call government-managed health care. I’m using this umbrella term to cover anything that remotely resembles Medicare, the Veterans Health Administration, and the myriad of similarly large health care systems managed by governments across the world. Given the amount of debate on the issue, some other clarifications seem necessary. This article isn’t looking at the quality of the care, or whether it has any private components to it. These are certainly very important issues, but I’m only human, okay? One thing at a time.

Unless there are gross inefficiencies, which government is often unjustifiably famous for, the government’s overhead for administering health care is dramatically lower than private entities’ because profit and marketing are less important factors. This is even true for Medicare, despite the ridiculously high cost of health care in the US. But this only gets us a half way to the answer. The question is perhaps better measured by how much we currently spend on health care, and how much of that is paid for by the taxpayer.

First, although some struggle with costs, governments across the world already shoulder this burden. So it’s definitely possible. And before someone compares the cost of care in the US to the cost of care elsewhere, many, if not most, of the medication used elsewhere is also used here. Since private companies do not sell medication at a loss, it follows that the sales in other countries also operate profitably, and therefore, those costs are necessarily similar. The truth may be that US patients may be the victims of broadly-orchestrated price-gouging, but that’s beyond the scope of this article. In the US, taxpayers already fund over 60% of all health spending. And that number doesn’t account for the discounts on taxes that we give to companies operating emergency rooms, which is one of the main ways health care is provided to Americans. The US tax code grants non-profit status to hospitals that have emergency rooms. So, in effect, we’re saying, you don’t have to pay the government money you’d normally owe it if you’re spending it to run emergency care. This kind of quid pro quo is about the same as if the government taxed the entities and then spent money to provide similar health care. The amount of money spent on emergency care may not be much, but that’s, in part, because the uninsured, which are most of the emergency care patients, simply don’t seek medical care that much. I can’t really blame them, given the prices they have to pay, and the fact that the median household wealth for those without insurance is less than $20,000 (as opposed to over three times that if you’re insured).

So, it’s likely that US taxpayers already cover about 70 or 80% of US health care costs. Given the difference in overhead mentioned above, it’s easy to imagine that a government-managed health care system would incur lower costs, and therefore the percentage of actual health care costs covered would rise very close to 100%.

Another point that nudges the equation towards “why aren’t we already doing this?” is the fact that health problems are a significant drag on the economy. This works out in several ways. It might be the fact that the guy making your lunch can’t afford to get treatment for whatever contagious disease he might be tossing into your salad. Or the notion that employers have to, whether required by law or as a draw for employees, frequently offer health care coverage, which is a cost they incur. Or the number of medical bankruptcies. Or the vast number of other costs associated with preventable or treatable disease.

Given the above, recognizing that taxpayers already foot most of the health care bill and changing things simply so that the money is spent more efficiently would not only alleviate one of the biggest concerns for Americans, it would also probably galvanize the economy and productivity in a big way. Fiscally speaking, it seems like a no-brainer, and it appears that Congress is only against it because there are very wealthy donors that profit under the current scheme. Sorry, I’m contractually required by Brett to go there.

More info, if desired, at the Physicians for a National Health Program.

I’ve Always Wanted to do This

Posted: August 4, 2016 by Nazim in Abortion, Uncategorized


This man is my hero. That is all.

WHAT HAPPENED:  Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that the contraceptive mandate could not compel religious institutions to provide birth control to their employees.  “Fine” said the government, “You don’t have to provide birth control, and instead you just have to fill out these two forms and we’ll take care of it for you”.

WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:  “NO!” replied the host of religious institutions who were not satiated by the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling in Hobby Lobby.  “Two forms, as nominal as it may seem, constitutes an affirmative act in favor of providing birth control and that is a sin.”  And that is where we stand now, in that the Court must determine whether two forms is an acceptable burden to place on a company that is denying medical care to their employees, or if two forms is a condemnation to hell-fire and brimstone.

WHAT IS THE RULING:  Thankfully, this case is not yet decided.

RAMIFICATIONS:  Everything and nothing.  Everything if the idea that a hypothetical employee of the Catholic Church cannot get birth control serves as the opening of Pandora’s Box toward overruling Roe v. Wade and diminishing Women’s Rights.  Nothing if you are neither person described in the above referenced sentence.

ROOT FOR ZUBIK IF:  To you, the idea of hell isn’t ridiculous.

ROOT FOR BURWELL IF:  You would like to end more sequels to this never-ending horror movie of a Supreme Court case, which by the way, was what I was going for with the picture above of Dennis Hopper fighting Leatherface in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

WHAT HAPPENED? Texas passed a law that raised standards on facilities performing abortions.  Provisions included having a physician who had attending privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and requiring that clinics have the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers.  In response to these requirements, most of the abortion clinics in Texas closed down.

WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?  The Supreme Court has held that any law that puts an “undue burden” on a women’s right to choose violates the 5th Amendment.  This law, which could be argued is intended to increase the standards for abortion clinics, creates an undue burden not on the face of the law, but in the effect that the law has on women in Texas.

WHAT IS THE RULING?  This case is not yet decided.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS?  The ramifications in both directions are fairly significant.  If the Abortion Clinics win, it adds an extra wrinkle to the “undue burden” test, that allows the Court to consider the effect of the law instead of just its intent.  If Texas wins, state government seeking sneaky ways to restrict abortion rights have the roadmap to doing so.

ROOT FOR WHOLE WOMEN’S HEALTH IF:  You a pro-choice advocate who doesn’t trust the government to follow directions on abortion, and/or admit defeat.

ROOT FOR TEXAS IF:  You are a pro-life advocate living in the middle of no where.