More right-wing scare tactics on Obamacare

By Carl 

So, next year, the Affordable Care Act fires up in earnest. Yesterday, Vermont released its proposed health-care exchange rates for 2014, the first state to do so.

Guess what? There's great news:

After years of anticipation, Vermont became the first state Monday to publish proposed 2014 individual health insurance rates under the federal health law. Despite Republican and insurers' predictions, there was no "rate shock" in the new premiums, according to the Vermont governor's office and insurance representatives.

That state may not be the best barometer of the impact of the heath overhaul on premiums, however, because it already prohibits insurers from using health status to determine an individual's premiums. It is one of only seven states in the country which have so-called community rating regulations.

Vermont also requires prices to be the same regardless of person's age. Two of the health law's biggest changes include prohibiting insurers from using health status to determine premiums and prohibiting insurers from charging older people more than three times the rates of younger people.

Now, the caveats in those last two paragraphs should be noted: Vermont already had tight reins on some of their insurance carriers.

But here's the thing: the right wing is terrified of the free market coming to one of the most lucrative plutocracies known to so-called "free" enterprise. The ACA expands coverage to encourage young people and others who don't have health insurance to pick some up or be subject to a tax. This will have all sorts of good ripple effects for the rest of us who have insurance and are getting older and sicker by the minute.

Read more »

Will New York legalize same-sex marriage?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Governor David Paterson's handling of the Kennedy-Gillibrand drama (the protracted silliness surrounding his appointment to fill Hillary's vacated Senate seat) left much to be desired, but this is certainly very admirable -- and very welcome:

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor's plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor's desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

There may not be the votes, yet, to pass same-sex marriage legislation -- New York is not exactly Vermont -- but it seems to me there is no good reason not to begin the legislative-legalization process, even if the first effort falls short. I understand that there may be some desire to wait until passage is a fait accompli, that is, until there are the votes to legalize, but preparing for the right time could take too long, and, in any event, there will always be some reason to delay, some excuse not to proceed.

As fantastic as it was that Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative, as opposed to the judicial, process, it would be far more significant for a major state like New York to take a leadership position on the issue -- a big push for the dominoes to start falling, and for justice to be achieved, all across the country. It's a risk, to be sure, and there may be rounds of failure before success, but Paterson is doing the right thing here.

Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Take that, Gov. Douglas (and all you bigots across the land). The people of Vermont have spoken (through their elected representatives):

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

I finally saw Milk over the weekend -- an excellent movie, very nearly a great one. If only Harvey were around to see this.

Well done, Vermont. What a progressive, civilized place you are.

**********

For more, see The Anonymous Liberal:

I repeat my prediction that, within a decade, the Supreme Court will strike down bans on gay marriage nationally.

Many conservative critics (at least the principled ones) are today praising Vermont for legalizing gay marriage the "right way," i.e., by a vote of the legislature and not by judicial decree. But I think that analysis vastly oversimplifies the issue. The reality is that what happened in Vermont today likely would not have happened but for the actions of judges in Massachusetts, and several years earlier, in Vermont.

*****

Perhaps more importantly, however, these early judicial decisions changed the scope of the public debate. They forced people, for the first time, to grapple with the obvious tension between prevailing attitudes regarding gay rights and the inequality inherent in existing marriage laws. The fact that the world didn't collapse after gay people were allowed to enter into civil unions and then marriage also helped people adjust to the idea and get over their initial apprehensions. It changed public opinion. Without the court decisions that paved the way, it is very unlikely that this day would have come (at least at the speed it did).

Read the whole post.

See also Pam Spaulding for the oh-so-predictable reactions from the theocratic bigots of the right.

**********

In related news:

The D.C. Council unanimously voted yesterday to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, joining a growing number of states to loosen restrictions on the unions.

Also well done, District of Columbia.