Ruminations, August 16, 2009

Islamophobia

Phobias are, according to the American Psychiatric Association, “an irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger.” At times, phobias can be parallelizing and debilitating. These fears may be based upon logical although exaggerated dangers (such as snakes – some of which are dangerous – and heights – from which a fall can kill you) or entirely unreasonable, such as actor Billy Bob Thornton’s fear of antique furniture.

When a phobia overtakes institutional rational behavior, it is a cause for society to take note and, when possible, remedy.

A current example of a phobia was exhibited last week by the Yale University Press. The Yale University Press, a part of one of our foremost educational institutions, announced that it was to publish a scholarly book entitled, The cartoons that shook the world, by Jytte Klausen. The book is an account of the 12 cartoons of Mohammed that were published in a Danish newspaper four years ago and the ensuing riots by some Muslims that lead to some 200 deaths.

According to most Muslims (but not all), depictions of the prophet Mohammed are blasphemous. Nonetheless, depictions of Mohammed have occurred throughout history in the Western and Muslim Worlds.

The surprising aspect of the Klausen’s book is that Yale has chosen to eliminate the publication of the 12 offending cartoons themselves. Why? You know why: Yale is afraid of potential Muslim violence. But isn’t this tantamount to publishing the Bible but leaving out references to God since to do so might incense some atheists? Or, how about publishing a book on the Supreme Court but leaving out references to Roe v. Wade on the grounds that some anti-abortionists have been violent in the past and could be offended by the reference.

Author Klausen is offended by the actions of Yale but has chosen to go ahead with the book’s publication. She is even more offended by attempts at Yale to subject her to what she calls “gag order,” prohibiting her from talking about the rationale for the cartoons’ omission.

Yale is not alone in its fear of violence of radical Islam; most notably, The New York Times, during the height of the cartoon controversy, wrote of the controversy but refused to publish the essence of the controversy itself – the cartoons.

Yale and The New York Times like to think of themselves as bastions of integrity ever seeking truth and unafraid to take unpopular stands. The truth is that they are less than honest when they cower in debilitating fear of a few radical Muslims. At best, we can say that they suffer from Islamophobia. At worst …

Mistakes

A mistake is when you add two plus two and get five. A mistake is when you tell someone to take a left when you meant a right. A mistake is when you put salt in coffee instead of sugar. We all make mistakes and we all forgive mistakes. Maybe that’s why when people commit gross immoral actions that reveal a singular lack of character, they try to pass the action off as a “mistake.”

Take politicians Mark Sanford (R, SC) and John Edwards (D, NC). With careful planning and forethought and at great expense, these individuals carried out extra-marital affairs and called their actions “mistakes.”

Now we have National Football League quarterback Michael Vick. If you haven’t been following his exploits, Vick was recently released from prison after being convicted of a felony promoting dog fighting over a six year period. Vick has been accused of hanging dogs from trees, putting injured dogs in with killer dogs and finding amusement in his actions. Vick said that he made a “mistake.”

Can these guys be rehabilitated? Do they deserve a second chance? That’s arguable. But don’t tell me that their gross immoral actions and lack of character are “mistakes.”

Health insurance

Last week, David Axelrod, Special Advisor to President Obama, sent out an email. In it, he listed arguments supporting the new health care proposals. He also labeled as “myth” the idea that health care reform will “bust the budget” with little to backup that assertion.

Maybe Axelrod’s right and maybe he’s wrong. How can we determine that? First, let’s look at the price structure of health insurance itself.

For every $4 dollars an insurer pays out for claims, it needs to collect about $5 in premiums to cover expenses.  And, insurance companies have been looking for ways to cut the overhead expenses for years and continue to do so. So if we increase insurance company payments to health providers by legislative fiat, it seems that we will have to increase insurance revenues.

Back to Axelrod’s health care proposals and how they affect costs.

1. “Ends discrimination for pre-existing conditions.” By definition, pre-existing conditions are high risk. Axelrod may argue that it is morally right to end this kind of selection. But, there is no question that this will increase costs to insurers.
2. “Ends exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays.” What is one person’s “exorbitant” is another’s customary and reasonable – we need a better definition. But, if insurers are going to eliminate deductibles and co-pays, that means that they will be paying more and costs go up.  
3. “Ends cost-sharing for preventive care. Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” The money to pay for this extra coverage will come from where?
4. “Ends dropping of coverage for seriously ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.” Most major insurers do not drop coverage for the seriously ill but this is an important consideration. For those companies that do drop coverage of the seriously ill, won’t this provision increase their costs?
5. “Ends gender discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.” Women tend to have more medical problems and tend to seek medical advice more often than do men so they have historically been charged higher premiums. At one time, African Americans were charged more for life insurance because they had shorter life spans but it was deemed a social good not to discriminate; so we don’t. Similarly, we may think that it is a social good to have the same premium for men and women. If women’s premiums are reduced, men’s will have to be raised to make up the difference.
6. “Ends annual or lifetime caps on coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.” This may be a good idea but it is going to cost more money.
7. “Extends coverage for young adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.” This isn’t a bad rule. There will be an increased cost for the extra coverage but it is minimal.
8. “Guarantees insurance renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full.” Not a bad idea but again, it will increase costs.

It’s hard to see how we can afford this program if we jump into it right now. An insurance company cannot increase their payments without a commensurate increase in its premiums. Furthermore, using Axelrod’s figure of 45 million uninsured and adding them to the ranks of the insured at an average cost of $4,000 per person comes to $180 billion per year. Then too, where will we get the doctors, nurses and medical technicians to handle 45 million more check-ups a year?

Axelrod makes good moral arguments for the need for health care reform. But it takes more than the audacity of hope to implement a plan as far reaching as the one he proposes. And until he and his colleagues can adequately put the numbers on paper and develop a solid implementation plan, it should be opposed.