Has the Affordable Care Act Increased Access to Healthcare?

The Affordable Care Act is wildly unpopular (currently 37% approval versus 56% disapproval). There are many reasons for this – President Obama’s “you can keep your plan” deception, numerous scandals, overreaches, and infringements on religious liberties, rising costs, the disastrous roll-out of the exchanges in 2013, and so forth.

Supporters of the ACA usually try to distract from the law’s many failings by seizing on whatever good news they can find. In most cases, this means talking about the growing number of Americans who have health insurance. “Millions more Americans now have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. How can you oppose a law that expands access to health care? Why do you hate poor people?”

On the surface, this sounds convincing. If more people now have access to health care, that would be a good thing.

But this is actually a misleading figure. It’s the wrong metric to be looking at. Not to insult anyone’s intelligence, but health insurance isn’t the same thing as health care. Increasing the number people with health insurance is only helpful if it results in more people receiving the medical care that they need. Which begs the question. Has the Affordable Care Act increased the number of people receiving the medical care that they need?

A recent Gallup poll sheds some light on this. It turns out that the percentage of Americans putting off medical care due to cost is actually continuing to increase…despite a drop in the uninsurance rate.

Personally, I care more about helping sick people than I do about increasing health insurance purchase rates. For that reason, I oppose the Affordable Care Act.

The Secular Humanist’s Dilemma

1. Secular humanists define moral actions as “those which promote human flourishing.”

2. Countless studies have shown that religious individuals are happier, healthier, and more charitable with their time and money than non-religious individuals.

3. Therefore, secular humanists have a moral obligation to promote the spread of religion.

President Obama Attacks a Woman’s Right to Choose…to Stay Home with Her Kids

You know a society has its priorities backwards when it celebrates what is unnatural (a mother’s choice to dismember her unborn children) and criticizes what is natural (a mother’s choice to raise her children).

This week, the president of the United States took another swipe at mothers who choose to stay home with their children.

“…and sometimes someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

In recent years, the Democratic Party has built its platform on women’s issues. In theory, the emphasis on “choice” would imply equal respect for the working mom and the stay-at-home mom. Yet in practice, liberal attitudes and policies are profoundly anti-family. (And why wouldn’t they be? Broken families = more Democrat votes. Single women are far more likely to vote Democrat than married women.)

Imagine the public outcry if a conservative politician had suggested that mothers entering the workforce is “not a choice we want Americans to make”.

Progressives claim to value tolerance and diversity, yet in practice they have little tolerance for opinions different than their own. What progressives do care about is collectivism, and collectivism requires conformity, and conformity requires indoctrinating children. Hence the attacks on stay-at-home moms, and the attacks on homeschooling, and the push for enrolling children in public daycare programs and preschools. Melissa Harris-Perry explains:

The Atheist’s Disillusionment

PZ Myers is a pretty well-known biologist who blogs about his atheism. He recently posted an article, “The Atheist Disillusionment,” which gives a glimpse into the infighting within the modern atheist movement.

From the first sentence, it’s breathtakingly euphoric:

“I’ve been writing about atheism for about 10 years now. What has driven me is a combination of awe at the amazing insights produced by science, so much deeper and more substantial than any collection of myths, and a furious rage at the lies and injustice and corruption of humanity by religion.”

I’m not sure why Myers thinks there’s somehow a direct connection between atheism and science (considering modern science owes its very existence to the influence of religion). But it’s a common mistake.

He next discusses the importance of eliminating religion:

“We’re not only going to have to inspire and inform everyone about the beauty of the natural mechanisms that drive our world, and the error of seeking shortcuts in the falsehoods of antique traditions, but we’re also going to have to educate everyone about the Darwinian concepts of unity and diversity…”

The use of Darwinian concepts as a guideline for social engineering has a pretty impressive body count over the last 100 years. Not sure I’d advise going down that road.

“It’s not about wealthy white man meaning, after all, but something more universal…”

“…Being an American atheist means I’ve been an isolated, tiny, disparaged minority my whole life, living in a sea of people who fundamentally disagree with me, and I have not been discouraged.”

How does a wealthy white male go from privileged villain to persecuted minority in 2.7 seconds? I think PZ Myers has found a way!
.
The rest of the article is a weird blend of SJW advocacy and anti-religious narcissism. Enjoy.
.

In the Words of Leo Tolstoy

NOTICE: We’ve had a problem lately with slanderous and abusive comments. The site admins have decided to disable all comments for the foreseeable future. 

_____

“No longer able to believe in the Church religion, whose falsehood they had detected, and incapable of accepting true Christian teaching, which denounced their whole manner of life, these rich and powerful people, stranded without any religious conception of life, involuntarily returned to that pagan view of things which places life’s meaning in personal enjoyment.”

“Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law (not written in books but in the hearts of men, and binding on every one) its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency.”

tolstoy

“Condemn me if you choose — I do that myself, — but condemn me, and not the path which I am following, and which I point out to those who ask me where, in my opinion, the path is.”

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

A Bad Reason for Disbelieving the Bible

A commenter on this blog recently wrote the following about the Bible:

“It’s clearly cobbled together in order to try and make a complete statement, but the sources are so diverse that it does not succeed. If Roman Catholics accept this mess cobbled together by committees (“OK guys, which books should we include? What do we want our Christianity to be? If there is a God then he hasn’t made that clear so we better do the job for him.”) It’s history has no more credibility than the Book or Mormon or the Scientology story – all made up by men.”

I’ve run into this argument a few times before. It denies the credibility of the Bible because of when and where it was put together (or “cobbled together,” for those who prefer emotive language). In other words, “the Bible obviously isn’t the inspired word of God, because we know that it was put together cobbled together by committees somewhere around 400 A.D.!”

This cold, hard logic comes as a crushing blow to all those silly Christians who believe the Bible (King James Version!) fell from the sky on a silver platter.

Except Christians don’t believe that.

Seriously though. I’m pretty sure there are exactly zero Christians who believe that.

Christians believe the books of the Bible were written over the span of hundreds of years by numerous individuals who were directly inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Christians believe God worked through these writers to deliver His message. So it’s not at all unreasonable to think that God could have worked through men on committees to ensure that the correct books were included in biblical canon.

TL;DR – Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God. And penned by human authors. And collected and distributed by humans. None of this is surprising or disturbing.