About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Weekend Mornings on MSNBC

And Also: Victorious was amusing today, bringing back an old favorite and having subplots that allowed the supporting cast to shine. Cat also was not quite as over the top here. The deus ex machina ending at the dog sitting was a bit much though.


There is a lot out there for those who wish to find out about current affairs, online and on the air, but it is something of a mixed bag. 

As I noted at BTC News, I find Up With Chris Hayes (8-10 A.M. weekends) worth noting specifically, a panel discussion show for progressives with some effort to include a conservative voice (and at times guests) as well.  The format lets the show cover topics in a more extended fashion than is sometimes provided outside of PBS and documentaries.  The topics are big enough that everything is not covered but it is impressive. And, I think the fact the host seems relatable to me personally (him playing basketball in high school notwithstanding) helps too. It seems fitting that by chance it came out he grew up near here. 

Melissa Harris-Perry (previously Lacewell) followed starting today, she too often seen on Rachel Maddow's show (Maddow a Rhodes scholar; MHP is the only tenured professor serving as a cable news host, according to a recent NYT article that also talks about Hayes).  It seems like she follows the same basic approach, perhaps providing a bit more personal commentary along the way, Hayes in effect having a permanent panel there.  She is a professor after all, and has that vibe.  To toss it out there, she's biracial, though generally doesn't bring it up -- she's in effect black, underlining (like Obama) race is somewhat variable. 

MHP started today by herself and then interviewed some Republican Party representative and only later had people there ala Hayes.  Didn't start well for me -- the guy spouted some talking points, including the tiresome b.s. about the filibuster proof majority (Dems had one, for a bit of time here and there, when Specter switched and three different senators were not too sick to attend, one dying eventually, and even then, only with conservative Democrats who didn't sign on for various things) and later having a rather poor summary of privacy rights over history. 

A bit on that, since she used it to discuss the contraceptives policy.  Various issues are raised by Obama critics, though they aren't quite consistent about things.  For instance, in the long (over 500 comments) thread over at Volokh Conspiracy (not for the first time) there is criticism of use of preventive health care as the hook as if only liberal "experts" care about that.  When this sort of total different wavelength is involved, you tend to get replies so fill with assumptions that it takes a paragraph to answer a sentence. Another issue is the "problem" is pregnancy is deemed a "disease."  As my discussion earlier noted, the actual idea is that it raises various health concerns that makes unwanted pregnancy not ideal.  This seems obvious to most of us, which is why even the Church supports certain "natural" means of birth control. 

A person suggested that the individual at the covered religious employer is not really burdened here because they can simply get another job or pay for the birth control themselves. Or, anything under the sun a particular employer finds religiously or morally suspect perhaps. Not really. The great number of other work activities, well, what time period are these people living in?  The same thing is true for public accommodations generally.  You need not only shop at places the owners share your faith.

Second, employer based insurance is of fundamental importance, since it is how many obtain health care.*  And, oh guess what, this is the logic to that provision in the PPACA too, shared risk pools further that end.  If individuals had to randomly deal with various things some employer finds morally suspect, it would be a lot more complicated.  Finally, this is where "privacy" pops up too -- a church, sorta private.  A hospital or school, especially one getting lots of federal funds? Somewhat less so.  Complicated lines at times, but the balance here is logical and it is after all ultimately the employee's money.  It is not a free service for the public.

I noted last time that abortion funding (which I realize is treated differently, but not to my liking) is seen as something the government can deny since it is not a direct barrier to the choice involved.  But, the importance of insurance to contraceptives (and other) coverage underlines (as the dissents in cases like Maher v. Roe understood)  why practically it is a problem.  Health insurance is a general fund, which individuals have the ability to use as they see fit in various respects.  Some might oppose some uses, just as some might oppose uses of taxes generally or how one uses a government salary.  But, with such diverse beliefs, the decision overall should be left to the individual user.

This reflects an individual right of privacy that had origins -- even for women MHP -- long before Roe v. Wade, but apparently still needs to be understood, even today as applied to contraceptives.

---

* Some note that is the problem, we need to have health insurance independent of employment.  Sure.  We have some of that now for minors, seniors, the poor and some others.  But, the entrenched system in place was largely built around employment.  Change is hard.  Sorry.  Again, we are debating contraceptives.  We have a ways to go. Viewing reality as it really is, right up there on the eightfold path