Shawn Donahue is an attorney at Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and last Tuesday he spoke at the House Corporations Committee meeting to oppose a bill that would ensure “no pregnant applicant for medical insurance coverage would be denied coverage due to her pregnancy.”

I want to stress at the outset that Donahue seems like a decent man, and I sensed that he was somewhat uncomfortable speaking out against this bill.

“No one believes in the importance of pre-natal care more than Blue Cross,” said Donohue, “We’ve invested in it.”

That’s true. “Getting early and regular prenatal care is one of the most important things you can do for the health of both you and your baby,” says Blue Cross on its website. The site contains a wealth of information and advice on healthy pregnancies. But we don’t have to assume that Blue Cross is promoting neonatal care out of any sense of public service. Healthy pregnancies are cheaper for insurance companies. An insured baby, with proper neonatal care, is less likely to have expensive health problems going forward.

The importance of prenatal care is underscored by the health risks associated with not having such care.

“Women in the United States who do not receive prenatal care have an increased risk of experiencing a neonatal death… Lack of prenatal care is associated with a 40 percent increase in the risk of neonatal death overall…” says the Guttmacher Institute, citing a study, “Black women are more than three times as likely as white women not to receive prenatal care, and regardless of their prenatal care status, their infants are significantly more likely to die within their first 27 days of life than are infants born to white women.”

Other risks from not receiving adequate prenatal care include low birth weight for the infant, and pre-eclampsia, a form of organ damage, that affects the mother. From a human perspective, this is terrible and unnecessary. From the perspective of an insurance company, such health problems are expensive.

Yet, said Donohue, speaking for Blue Cross at the Rhode Island State House, “The only way insurance works is if you purchase it when you don’t need it so it’s there for you when you do. If you allow people a special enrollment period, whether they’re diabetics, cancer patients or pregnant people, they won’t buy it until they need it.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) mandates that Rhode Islanders buy private insurance on the state run health insurance exchange, HealthSourceRI. “If you’ve missed the open enrollment period,” said Donohue, “ you’ve broken the law and now you are penalized for that, and the penalties start to grow.”

Donahue is talking about financial penalties of course, but the real penalties from a societal point of view are dead babies, or babies and mothers with terrible health outcomes. Suddenly the financial penalty for not complying with the ACA mandate seems rather small and meaningless, doesn’t it? But more to the point, it’s exactly these negative health outcomes that Obamacare was supposed to address.

“We don’t let people buy insurance on their way to the hospital in an ambulance,” said Donahue. I would say that having to worry about financial issues during a medical emergency is a major system failure, and further, these gaps in care for vulnerable Americans expose the weaknesses in today’s for-profit health insurance industry, of which Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island is a big part.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

“The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.”

On the national scene Bernie Sanders has championed single payer, calling it Medicare for All. “Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege,” says Sanders, “Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.”

State Representative Aaron Regunberg has introduced, for the second time, a bill to bring the benefits of a single payer health insurance program to Rhode Island. His bill would “act would repeal the ‘Rhode Island Health Care Reform Act of 2004 – Health Insurance Oversight’ as well as the ‘Rhode Island Health Benefit Exchange,’ and would establish the Rhode Island comprehensive health insurance program.”

His bill deserves our support.

“You come to HealthSource, and right there, you can very easily sign up for coverage regardless of your income,” she said. “We’ve developed an infrastructure that’s really designed for this unified approach.”

Wallack explained Rhode Island decided to create its own exchange because it presented “significant advantages, in terms of local control and customer service.” With a state based exchange, rather than a federal one, they could better tailor their services to the needs of Rhode Islanders.

HealthSourceRI uses what she called a “one door policy,” meaning that customers could come in and not only apply for health insurance, but check to see if they were eligible for Medicaid and other benefits. This is where much of the exchange’s success comes from, since this is a policy only a few states have adopted.

Wallack said that making customers jump through hoops only serves to make things more confusing, and they miss out on important information because of it. Right now, Wallack and her team are expanding their open door policy, and making it possible for customers to begin to apply for other assistance programs like TANF or SNAP.

“When we’re done building our system, you’ll be able to sign up for those with one stop shopping,” she said.

Wallack added that there are a number of ways that customers can use this one stop shopping, that all services are provided online, over the phone, or in person. Face-to-face assistance is also provided right in the community health centers, so customers can sign up for insurance right in their hometown. HealthSourceRI also has enrollment events during the open enrollment period, which is from Nov. 1 to the end of January each year. During open enrollment, a customer can renew, reenroll, or sign up for coverage, or just change their plan. There are two other types of enrollments as well- special enrollment and Medicaid coverage. Special enrollment occurs when a customer’s circumstances change throughout the year and they need to change their plan, and Medicaid coverage happens throughout the year to see if a customer is eligible for Medicaid.

“We try to find any avenue where we can come into contact with people who may be looking for coverage,” Wallack said concerning their community accessibility.

This level of accessibility has worked for the exchange, proved not only by the Gallup poll but the hard numbers that HealthSource has collected so far for this year. In 2015, they have enrolled 32,554 individuals as of July 31. Most people who enrolled were age 55 and over, sitting at 29 percent. 53 percent of enrollees were female, while 47 percent were male. More than half of the enrollees – 59 percent – were eligible for financial assistance in the form of an advanced premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions. These numbers show an upward trend from last year, with over 7,000 more enrollees. Small businesses are signing up through HealthSource as well, with 542 employers enrolled in 2015, compared to the 381 from 2014.

The Gallup poll found that states that set up their own exchange and expanded Medicaid saw the biggest drop in their uninsured rate, something that the Ocean State has been doing since day one. According to Wallack, as long as they continue with this, Rhode Island can serve as a model for other states and their healthcare exchanges, especially as HealthSourceRI moves forward. Within the next month, HealthSource will be releasing its own survey, which will give more accurate results than the Gallup one, because it will only look at Rhode Island. But, the national survey still shows a trend, and that Rhode Island is headed in the right direction.

“What I take from this, is that those policy decisions, as well as our decisions to take a coordinated approach, was successful for us,” Wallack said.

HealthSource’s next step is to find those last remaining uninsured individuals, and understand why they’re uninsured, as well as work with employers to make sure that they are able to retain coverage. Now, their job is to help control healthcare cost growth, provide support for small business, and provide affordable choices for everyone, especially that last 2.7 percent.

“We’re here,” said Kelly Medieros, who has worked for BVCHC for ten years, “because we want fair wages and affordable health care.”

In a written statement, Anabel Garcia-Campos, an Administrative Medical Assistant, said, “many of us who work here can barely afford to live—some employees earn less than $25,000/year, and we have to pay $5,000 for family health care.”

BVCHC has been expanding recently, capitalizing on the increase in business the health care provider has received under Obamacare. The number of patients served by the company has increased to over 15,000.

“We’re bursting at the seams,” said BVCHC executive director Raymond Lavoie.

To meet demand the company has constructed of a new building in downtown Pawtucket for nearly $7 million and purchased another building for $1.4 million in late 2014.

“Management can definitely afford to pay us living wages,” says Anabel Garcia-Campos, “but while they’re getting richer, they’re leaving us behind!”

Christine Constant, a registered nurse, said in a statement that “low wages and high turnover take a toll on how we do our jobs” and says that a living wage and affordable health care will “stabilize our workforce so we can keep providing consistent, high-quality health care for our community.”

Dr. Oliver Fein, representing Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP-RI), gave a talk Monday night to a class of second year med students at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School in Providence. The talk was open to the public, but due to the snow storm attendance was low. That’s too bad, because Dr. Fein’s talk was an informative and eye opening examination of both the history of public healthcare in the United States and the possibility of transforming the current system beyond Obamacare and towards a system of truly universal coverage, what supporters call, “Medicare for All.”

In the video, Dr. Fein covers the history of healthcare in the United States, starting with President Truman’s suggestion that some sort of universal health care program might be a good idea, right up to President Obama’s successful passage of the Affordable Care Act. (For Dr. Fein’s summary, go here.)

At the 17 minute 30 second mark Fein leaves history behind and explicates the ideas behind a single payer healthcare model, or what he calls an “Improved Medicare for All.” Such a system would build upon and expand Medicare to the entire population, improve and expand coverage in the areas of preventive services, dental care and long term care, eliminate deductibles and co-payments, expand drug coverage (eliminating the “donut hole”)  and redesign physician reimbursement.

Several points leapt out at me during Dr. Fein’s presentation. Using data from 2009, Fein reported that 62% of personal bankruptcies were due to medical expenses and 75% of those who declared bankruptcy had health insurance. For too many people, it seems, health insurance did nothing to prevent financial disaster.

Fein also reported that overhead costs in administering Medicare run about 3.1%. Commercial healthcare runs near 20%. This means that 17 cents (or more) of every health care dollar is wasted on administrative costs or corporate profits under our current system of private insurance. This is money that could be going towards patient care.

Fein concluded that a system based on private insurance programs will not lead to universal coverage and will not create affordable coverage, whereas a Medicare for All system can lead to universal comprehensive coverage without costing more money.

“What will happen if we don’t do this?” asked Fein in conclusion, “By [the year] 2038 a person’s entire household income will… have to pay for health insurance. A condition that’s not compatible with life.”

Rhode Island

Gerald Friedman, a PhD and Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst released a 41 page report earlier this month on the possibility of adopting a single payer healthcare system here in Rhode Island. Friedman maintains that a single payer plan would result in significant savings for most Rhode Islanders and only increase healthcare spending for those making over $466,667 a year.

Representative Aaron Regunberg, from the East Side’s District 4, is planning to introduce legislation for a statewide single payer healthcare plan this session. Model legislation from the PNHP is available here.

More information about the Rhode Island branch of the PNHP can be found at their website.

According to Local 251, “As a non-profit entity, Lifespan and RI Hospital are supposed to put the healthcare needs of the community first. Unfortunately, management has taken cost cutting measures, causing shortages in equipment and staff that undermine patient care.”

Literature at the Speakout quoted a nurse, Aliss Collins, saying, “When we are understaffed, I cover 56 patients in three units. It’s not right for the patients or the employees.” There was a story at the Speakout of another nurse who was forced to buy her own equipment for measuring oxygen levels, because the hospital did not provide it.

Obamacare has allowed Lifespan/RI Hospital to take in an additional $33 million in net revenue last year, because so many Rhode Islanders are now covered under Medicaid. Yet rather than invest this money in patient care, Lifespan pays its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally,” according to the union.

At the same time, hospital employees such as single mom Nuch Keller make $12.46 an hour with no healthcare coverage. Keller’s pay does not even cover her rent. She regularly works 40 hours or more per week, yet Lifespan continues to pay her as a part-time employee. And in case you missed it, Keller works at a non-profit hospital, and receives no healthcare.

The Speakout was intended to show community support for the workers of RI Hospital, and was attended by Representatives David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, as well as General treasurer Seth Magaziner. There were also representatives from many other unions and community groups such as Jobs with Justice, Unite Here! and Fuerza Laboral. Many religious leaders, including Father Joseph Escobar and Rev Duane Clinker, were on hand to show support.

It was hard not to feel that something new was happening at the Speakout. The level of community support and solidarity made one feel as if a union resurgence were imminent, which many feel is necessary if obscene inequality is to be combated.

It was Duane Clinker who helped put the event into perspective for me. He said that unions have often limited their negotiations to wages, hours and benefits, and health-care unions have long argued staffing levels, but “when/if organized workers really make alliance with the community around access to jobs and improved patient care – if that happens in such a large union and a key employer in the state, then we enter new territory.”

This struggle continues on Thursday, January 29, from 2-6pm, with an Informational Picket at Rhode Island Hospital. “The picket line on Thursday is for informational purposes. It is is not a request that anyone cease working or refuse to make deliveries.”

Full video from the Speakout is below.

Nurses are required to get continuing education. This month’s class was Ethics. I sat around a table with co-workers debating moral challenges – little white lies, getting extra change at the supermarket, etc. I kept my head down, suppressing an urge to giggle nervously, like the mortal and venial sins blotting my soul might show through my blouse- but then it got interesting.

The group leader passed around a morality problem called The Heinz Dilemma. This is a famous ethical problem posed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg in the 1950’s. It goes like this:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

My first impulse was that I’d stand lookout while Heinz grabbed the goods. But on second thought- is Heinz supposed to stuff a hunk of Radium in a paper bag? He’ll be glowing in the dark before he gets home.

Anyway, this is all hopelessly 20th Century. As dilemmas are said to have 2 horns, a 21st Century 2-pronged approach is needed– power politics and social disgrace.

• Step 1: Crowdsourcing. Mrs. Heinz posts a picture of her languishing self on social media with a plea for donations. This has the dual benefit of helping her with her medical expenses while outing the profiteering druggist. If they succeed in raising the cash quick they can buy the medicine, and buy time while they go on to…
• Step 2: Social Disgrace. Start with the doctors who thought Radium might save Mrs. Heinz. They may be customers of the druggist. The druggist doesn’t care about a nobody like Heinz, but ticking off the doctors is bad for business. Time is short, so direct action is needed. Heinz should get a few friends to stand out on the sidewalk with him as he begs for help. If Mrs. Heinz can’t make it they can wear t-shirts with her picture. Invite Channel 10. Clergy in garb and professionals in attire make good visuals. Heinz should have a statement prepared for when the press shows up.
• Step 3: Lobbying Politicians. This is another form of crowdsourcing- taxes fund social welfare, laws protect the vulnerable. While Heinz takes it to the streets he also needs to take it to the marble halls where decisions get made. The greedy druggist is a political opportunity to crack down on profiteers. In fact, when he feels the heat he might decide that it is better to give Heinz a break. And there may be competitors ready to make a cheaper generic version of Radium if protecting the druggist’s patent becomes a political liability.
• Step 4: Opposition Research. There’s got to be some dirt on this druggist. It’s a sure thing he’s made enemies with his cruel, mercenary ways. Go for the throat.

Poor Heinz, I picture him forever languishing in post-war Germany, with ex-Nazis for neighbors. I hope his wife got better. I see them like an old movie, perhaps because so much of the dilemma is black and white- the authoritarian stance of the druggist who puts profit before people, the helplessness of the individual, the voiceless wife…did I mention that the whole setup is hierarchical and masculinist? Carol Gilligan did.

In the bigger picture, we have to deal with ‘Heinz’ situations all the time. A part of my generation is missing, lost to AIDS. It was not so long ago that people had to break rules and make new rules as the epidemic raged. (see Dallas Buyer’s Club) Each new drug that made its way through the approval pipeline was expensive, and states were slow to pay. Internationally, pharmaceutical companies played the role of the heartless druggist, protecting their patents at the cost of lives in poor nations. (see here how the West blocked generic AIDS medication in South Africa.)

Right now we have a cure for Hepatitis C, but the cost is about $1,000 a pill. It’s a strain on the system, and how to manage it is not clear. Recent history of activism and political pressure driving down the cost of some drugs gives encouragement. It’s cheaper in the long run to treat illness, and people will not quietly go away when a cure exists just out of reach. Even poor Heinz stopped being a good German when he was pushed too far.

What if there was a wealthy nation that let millions of its citizens die over the years because they could not afford medical care? What if potential remedies were rejected in favor of protecting profits? Where is the morality in a system that values national defense, but not defense against preventable illness? What ethical standard withholds care until a citizen is disabled- then puts them on disability?

Like a wise man once said, “it’s a complex world.” The Affordable Care Act is partial and imperfect, but it has made health care accessible to millions of Americans who were previously uninsured and is something to build on. No dilemma here, the US needs to join all the other developed nations and move forward to universal health care.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby is yet another example of the courts ruling in favor of a weird kind of corporatism, another step towards a legal landscape where legal fictions established to protect investors become imbued with rights that supercede those of ordinary persons.

Still, there was something especially galling about the wording of this decision, and though Justice Ginsberg’s dissent nailed most of it, “We the People” are still stuck living in the world of the five old men who crafted the anti-science, anti-human, majority opinion that established a new class of citizens who are separate and unequal under the law: women.

And lest you think not being a woman somehow protects you, lawyers are already moving to expand this decision in ways that might have us yearning for the simplicity of Sharia.

Why should Hobby Lobby, a store that sells glitter, glue-guns and craft paper, have more rights than my daughters? I knew I wasn’t alone in my views. I needed to do something, but how does one go about appealing a Supreme Court decision? How does one go about letting the powers-that-be know that this decision cannot stand, and that something needs to be done?

I decided to hold a rally outside the only Hobby Lobby location in Rhode Island and call for a national boycott of all Hobby Lobby stores. The rally had two purposes. The first was to send a message from Rhode Island, the birthplace of religious liberty and freedom of conscience so loud that even the Supreme Court would hear it. Our little rally, and similar rallies across the nation, (Oklahoma, DC, Alabama, California, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin…) would tell the government that we do not want laws that grant corporations control over its employees’ private lives.

We want specific changes, like the repeal of RFRA, the Orwellian named Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was used as a justification for the Supreme Court decision. But more generally we want the right of women to make their own decisions regarding their health care, including decisions having to do with reproductive health care including abortion, to be protected and expanded, not attacked and restricted.

The other thing we want to do is boycott Hobby Lobby. We want to deprive this corporation of the money they use to hire the lawyers needed to attack our human rights. This is the “starve the beast” strategy. Without money, David Green, the multi-billionaire who thinks his vast fortune is a license to inflict his narrow Evangelical religious beliefs on the world is just another guy on a soapbox shouting at passers-by on a busy city sidewalk, entitled to his opinion but easily ignored.

So at the rally we announced a permanent, never ending boycott against Hobby Lobby. The 125 people who came out to our protest Saturday afternoon and the hundreds more who support us are all committed to never spending so much as a penny at any Hobby Lobby, ever. Further, these women and men have friends, families and distant Facebook contacts across the nation and across the world. They will convince most everyone they know to follow their lead.

Our rally let people know they have a choice. Barely a minute went by without someone driving past in their car, tooting their horns in support. The coverage we received in the Providence Journal reached thousands on-line and in print. Channels 10 and 6 ran news reports, letting thousands more people know.

The accepted wisdom is that there is no bad publicity, except there is. Hobby Lobby is the corporation that led the way on this kind of lawsuit, and as a result, it will be the first to reap the economic consequences of its decision.

The Rally

The day itself was great. One day after Hurricane Arthur dampened our Independence Day plans we were presented with a warm windy day with near zero humidity. I arrived five minutes early, wondering if any of the 175 people who promised to be there would actually show up, aside from a few close friends. I need not have worried. As I arrived car doors opened and at least twenty people came out carrying signs, ready for a positive, peaceful protest. From their the event grew steadily, peaking at 125, with people coming and going throughout the day. Maybe 175 people participated in all.

I had informed the Warwick Police Dept of our intentions, and their asks were well in line with our intentions: Don’t block traffic and don’t trespass on private property. Keep it peaceful and be careful. The police had a car parked nearby,  but this wasn’t a lawless crowd. We had people on our line aged 13 to 83. Some of the women had fought for women’s rights in the 1950s and 60s and were wondering why they were forced to fight the same old battles again, in the 21st Century. The only danger we presented was to Hobby Lobby’s bottom line.

My friends from the Humanists of Rhode Island were in attendance, and stuff like this is never a solo effort. So many people contributed to putting this together. If I list all their names I’ll leave someone out by accident, so I won’t even try, but you all know you are great. Friends from other groups, especially Carolyn Mark or RI-NOW and Lauren Niedel of the RI Progressive Democrats were fantastic. Also, my friends from Unite Here! allowed me to borrow their bullhorn, which I will return soon, promise! I made new friends as well. Thank you Julie! And so many more.

A gathering this large in an election year brought out the candidates as well. Clay Pell, running for Governor, arrived with his wife, Michelle Kwan almost as soon as the protest got started. He listened to the concerns of the women and men present. Later, one of Pell’s opponents for the Democratic Primary, Angel Taveras arrived, shaking hands and posing for photos. Brett Smiley, running for Mayor of Providence, came to Warwick because he “has always been a big supporter of women’s rights” and candidate for Lt. Governor, Frank Ferri, arrived near the end of the protest to show his support.

The biggest surprise was the quick visit of Representative David Cicilline, whose office originally told me could not make the rally, but the Congressman drove by and decided to make a quick visit on his way to a family event. This allowed me to make my big ask, repeal RFRA, in person, and though Cicilline did not commit to introducing or signing onto such legislation, he did allow that something needed to be done.

Counter-Protesters?

From the beginning the event page on Facebook for this event was a target of trolls who somehow feel that the Supreme Court’s decision was a positive thing. I received at least one warning that there would be counter-protesters arriving and also one threat that I had to report to the police in Providence and Warwick.

However, while we were underway, only about four people who disagreed with us showed up, and they engaged in forceful, if not always cogent debate with various members of the protest. Their complaints were mostly of the “abortion is against the will of God” kind which is a bit off topic. This is about religious freedom, not about one group’s particular theology. I recognized two of the women as members of Barth Bracy’s Right to Life group, and it was immediately obvious that they did not actually understand what the Supreme Court had decided. They simply wanted to argue about abortion.

In all, the counter protest was a fizzle, if any such thing was actually in the works. And it’s hard to see what a counter-protest would look like. Would these people be arguing for more corporate control over employee health-care decisions? Would they argue for less freedom, less autonomy and less human rights?

Outcomes

Hobby Lobby, obviously, is still in business. Our one-day protest did not bankrupt the beast. But our rally sent a message. I know they felt it in their day’s receipts, and they will continue to feel it, even as competitors like Michael’s and AC Moore reap the benefits. Our rally succeeded in getting our message out. We announced in no uncertain terms our intention to challenge corporate personhood and champion women’s reproductive rights.

We won’t win this in one day, one week or one month.

But we will win this.

Given that, was the Supreme Court correct to allow an employers religious beliefs to dictate an employees health care coverage? Is Obamacare working? Does the government belong in the health care industry? Justin Katz, Bill Rappleye and I debate these questions and more this week on Wingmen.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

One question Katz seems loath to answer is whether he believes a fully-privatized health care market would provide care for poor people. I’d love to read an Anchor Rising post on how fully-privatized health care market would somehow trickle down health insurance to poor people.

The controversial SCOTUS decision sent ripples through progressive Rhode Island today. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also released a statement critical of the high court.

Here is Cicilline’s full statement:

Women, not their bosses, should be in charge of their own personal health care choices. While much work remains, we have made tremendous progress in affording women full equality over many years and this decision rolls back that progress by limiting women’s access to contraceptive health care services.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to ensure women have access to quality, affordable health care, including contraception and family planning — services that are critical to a woman’s health care needs. In fact, an overwhelming majority of women use birth control or contraceptives at some point in their lives and the idea that they should be denied access to these basic health care services because their boss finds it religiously objectionable is ridiculous. While today’s ruling will not undo all the benefits under the Affordable Care Act that allow millions of women to access birth control, it wrongly dictates that a CEO’s religious beliefs outweigh a woman’s right to access affordable contraception. This unfair discrimination contradicts the values of a majority of Americans and has no place in the 21st century. Importantly, today’s decision also sets a bad precedent encouraging other for-profit corporations to deny health care coverage to their employees based on their owners’ religious beliefs.

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling and will continue working to stop attacks on women’s access to complete health care services and to advance women’s basic rights. This fight is not over.

This week we debated whether Obamacare is working (guess who suggested this topic!) and Katz articulates well where we agree on health care policy:

“What government is there to do is to say if you need help this is what these programs are set up to do,” he said. “If you need help this is a place you can go to find help.”

But he thinks the government-funded advertisements are going too far. I don’t. Especially given that conservatives like Katz are actively trying to subterfuge the program with their own ads and commercials. But leaving that aside, austerity by way of information asymmetry is a truly perverse political assertion.

Me: “I honestly think it’s unconscionable to try to keep that information from people. That’s not a cool way to save money.

Justin: “Taking people’s money to give it away to people who didn’t know they needed it is not conscionable.”

Watch the video to hear how loud Katz bangs on the table as he talks!

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England