On Healthcare Reform & Civil Rights History

A lot is being made about the Democrats plan for health-care reform. One minute it looks like they have their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which means they can push through whatever they want. The next minute, they lose Kennedy's seat, and everyone says healthcare is dead. The next minute, everyone starts talking about reconciliation as a way to only need 51 votes in the Senate to get the bill. Then, you have Republicans calling reconciliation a "back-room deal" even though they used those tactics when GWB was in office.

It's apparent that something needs to change with healthcare. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the bill needs to have this or that. I haven't looked at all the numbers. And most people haven't. So, it annoys me when people cling to their Glenn Becks of the world and just repeat what they say (ex: public option is bad), when they haven't performed the analysis themselves. I'm not saying the public option is good either. I'm saying I DON'T KNOW. Is that such a novel concept?

Now, people are looking at the polls and saying that less than 50% of people are in favor of the health plan. These are the same citizens that hated the stimulus, but loved all the individual tax breaks and incentives that it created.

However, the biggest thing I think about is, who cares about public opinion? Obviously it is an election year and the Democrats are nervous about losing their seats, but sometimes on an issue you have to go above public opinion. Do you think when the Supreme Court made its decision on Brown v. Board of Education that >50% of citizens agreed with it? Hell no. It took 10 YEARS for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to finally become law. Why did it take so long?

By the early 1960s, the nation s congressional history contributed to growing legislative pressures for a comprehensive civil rights law. Although political pressures prevented President John F. Kennedy's administration from proposing legislation to Congress in 1961 and 1962, the President took steps to ensure minority rights in voting, employment, housing, transportation, and education by executive action. (link)

Political pressure = motherfuckers in Congress from the South + public opinion. That means that the public didn't want black people to have their Civil Rights, because if politicians would have voted for it in 1954, then would have lost votes in the subsequent election. It wasn't until the early 1960s that public opinion changed somewhat and allowed the legislation to go through.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. (link)

How does this all tie together? All I'm saying is that someone needs to grow some balls in Congress and pass something that going to rein in costs and create the incentives for lower-cost healthcare. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is, but the alternative (doing nothing) doesn't look too promising either.

On Homosexual Couples And Their Children

I was recently presented with an interesting question.

What do I think about gay people raising kids?

My initial reaction was, "why the hell not?" However, since I always try to analyze things and ACTUALLY look at data instead of the limited knowledge that I have or my parents had/gave me, I decided to investigate it a bit.

Gay people are treated pretty poorly in our country. It's pretty bad for something that is innate in people (despite what religious people will tell you otherwise).

The traditional view of gay couples is that they are somehow unfit for children. Allegedly the kids are losing out because they don't have that traditional mother and father figure in their household. This all stems from the various studies that show that kids who only grow up with one parent end up worse off than those with two parents. So the extension of the argument would be that since children of gay couples are missing one of the key parental roles, then they will magically end up as kids who only had one parent.

That doesn't really make any sense though. You just can't change the variables to your liking and then assume the worst possibility. How do you know that children raised by gay couples don't end up BETTER off because of various factors? To find out, we have to look at the actual data as opposed to the ignorance that is being passed around in America.

Looking at the actual data, children of gay couples end up BEING THE SAME as children in traditional households. According to an article (citation below) from 2006:

Does parental sexual orientation affect child development, and if so, how? Studies using convenience samples, studies using samples drawn from known populations, and studies based on samples that are representative of larger populations all converge on similar conclusions. More than two decades of research has failed to reveal important differences in the adjustment or development of children or adolescents reared by same-sex couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples. Results of the research suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes than is parental sexual orientation.

So as it turns out, two decades of research shows that there is no negative effect on children. This is not just one article that shows the lack of an effect. This is two decades of research. Therefore, the idea that children of gay couples are somehow worse off is a complete myth that is being propagated by religious conservatives. So if there is no negative effect on children, why do gay couples have much difficulty in adopting children? How does that make any sense to anyone?

Citation:
AU: Charlotte J. Patterson
TI: Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
SO: Current Directions in Psychological Science
VL: 15
NO: 5
PG: 241-244
YR: 2006
AD: University of Virginia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also an interesting philosophical side of the issue.

Let's say that children of gay couples ended up slightly worse off in their lifetime. Maybe 10% worse off by whatever metrics you use. The difference is small, but statistically significant.

Here's the thing. Even in this situation, if I give you the point that gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, then you open yourself up to many other issues.

What if I started showing you studies that show kids with teenage parents end up worse off, or kids who grow up in the ghetto end up worse off? What are you going to do with them? Are you going to tell people that they can't have kids if they are teens or live in the ghetto? Where do you draw the line? Why do you not let gay people raise children, but then let teen parents have their kids? Really, what is the difference if children of teen parents end up just as worse off as children of gay parents? Why are gay people being targeted?

Think about it.

On Proposition 8

When I read about what happened with Proposition 8, I want to throw up in my mouth. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense to me. Why is there even a question about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed? Of course it should be allowed. No questions asked.

Gay people are treated so harshly in America. Yeah, if you're "regular" and "straight", sure you can go get your marriage. Hell, aren't there still drive-through marriage places around the US? It will take 30 minutes. You don't even have to "love" the person. So, for heterosexual people, they can get married and divorced over and over again until the annoyed with the process. But for gay people, it's not even an option. Even for gay people who really really love one another. Why not?

I went to key website for Proposition 8 to find out why people are against gay marriage. The whole campaign centers around the "negative" effects of redefining marriage. According to the site:

"For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."

I don't know where to start with this statement. Of course gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, except that you have two people of the same sex instead of two people of the opposite sex. That's really the only difference. The only problem is that gay people don't fit into this traditional view of marriage. But, that's the thing about traditions, sometimes they need to go. And how does gay marriage undermine "the value of marriage"? I get it, by restricting people who do love each other, you reinforce marriage, which is supposed to be about a connection between two people. But obviously, that doesn't make any sense. How about we just say marriage is defined as the relationship between two people who allegedly love each other?

Why is gay marriage such a big deal anyway? For heterosexuals, it has little to no impact on their lives on a day-to-day basis. How is the "value of marriage" diminished?? How does make any sense? For things like crime, sure you want to have some police out there to protect people who could be robbed. But if we open up marriage...the only winners are gay people. There are no losers. Heterosexuals aren't affected at all. I think this video sums it up perfectly.

Just get over the traditional view of marriage. It's antiquated. It's similar to the fight that black people had to face to be recognized as equal and women had to face to vote. It's very obvious that black people are just the same as white people, women are just as smart and capable as men, and gay people are just as qualified to be married.

As this article mentions: the only thing that is getting between gay people and marriage is religion. The concept of marriage that is advocated by Christianity can ONLY be between one man and one woman. But here's the thing, America is not a theocracy. We were founded by people who wanted to escape problems of religion and government put together. You've heard of it right? It's the basic concept of Separation of Church and State. So let's keep them separate. Don't pretend that the issue is not a religious one. Because if you do, you will continue to add to the Bigotry in America.