The Veil of Opulence

The Veil of Opulence
By BENJAMIN HALE
The New York Times
August 12, 2012

More than 40 years ago the philosopher John Rawls, in his influential political work “A Theory of Justice,” implored the people of the world to shed themselves of their selfish predispositions and to assume, for the sake of argument, that they were ignorant. He imposed this unwelcome constraint not so that his readers — mostly intellectuals, but also students, politicians and policy makers — would find themselves in a position of moribund stupidity but rather so they could get a grip on fairness.

Rawls saw clearly that principles of justice like the golden rule or mutual benevolence, are subject to distortion.

Rawls charged his readers to design a society from the ground up, from an original position, and he imposed the ignorance constraint so that readers would abandon any foreknowledge of their particular social status — their wealth, their health, their natural talents, their opportunities or any other goodies that the cosmos may have thrown their way.

In doing so, he hoped to identify principles of justice that would best help individuals maximize their potential, fulfill their objectives (whatever they may happen to be) and live a good life. He called this presumption the “veil of ignorance.”

...Meanwhile, we give little thought to how challenging this can be for those who suffer from chronic illnesses or disabling conditions. What Rawls also saw clearly was that other classic principles of justice, like the golden rule or mutual benevolence, are subject to distortion precisely because we tend to do this.

Nowadays, the veil of ignorance is challenged by a powerful but ancient contender: the veil of opulence. While no serious political philosopher actually defends such a device — the term is my own — the veil of opulence runs thick in our political discourse. Where the veil of ignorance offers a test for fairness from an impersonal, universal point of view — “What system would I want if I had no idea who I was going to be, or what talents and resources I was going to have?” — the veil of opulence offers a test for fairness from the first-person, partial point of view: “What system would I want if I were so-and-so?” These two doctrines of fairness — the universal view and the first-person view — are both compelling in their own way, but only one of them offers moral clarity impartial enough to guide our policy decisions.

Those who don the veil of opulence may imagine themselves to be fantastically wealthy movie stars or extremely successful business entrepreneurs. They vote and set policies according to this fantasy. “If I were such and such a wealthy person,” they ask, “how would I feel about giving X percentage of my income, or Y real dollars per year, to pay for services that I will never see nor use?”

We see this repeatedly in our tax policy discussions, and we have just seen the latest instance of it in the Tax Policy Center’s comparison of President Obama’s tax plan versus Mitt Romney’s tax plan. “He’s asking you to pay more so that people like him can pay less,” Obama said last week, “so that people like me pay less.” Last Monday he drove the point even harder, saying that Romney’s plan is like “Robin Hood in reverse.” And certainly, Romney’s selection on Saturday of Paul Ryan as his running mate will keep this issue in the forefront of our political discourse.

Of course, the veil of opulence is not limited to tax policy. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia advanced related logic in their oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act in March. “[T]he mandate is forcing these [young] people,” Justice Alito said, “to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies … to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.” By suggesting in this way that the policy was unfair, Alito encouraged the court to assess the injustice themselves. “If you were healthy and young,” Justice Alito implied, “why should you be made to bear the burden of the sick and old?”

The answer to these questions, when posed in this way, is clear. It seems unfair, unjust, to be forced to pay so much more than someone of lesser means. We should all be free to use our money and our resources however we see fit. And so, the opulence argument for fairness gets off the ground.

It is one thing for the very well off to make these arguments. What is curious is that frequently the same people who pose these questions are not themselves wealthy, nor even particularly healthy.

Instead, they ask these questions under the supposition that they are insisting upon fairness. But the veil of opulence operates only under the guise of fairness. It is rather a distortion of fairness, by virtue of the partiality that it smuggles in. It asks not whether a policy is fair given the huge range of advantages or hardships the universe might throw at a person but rather whether it is fair that a very fortunate person should shoulder the burdens of others...

Fox News Bias Exposed By Leaked Memos

Fox News Bias Exposed By Leaked Memos
TheYoungTurks
Uploaded Dec 10, 2010

Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) discusses leaked memos from Fox News that expose a clear right wing conservative agenda.

You and I know that Fox News is not fair and balanced, they do conservative programming.

Propaganda. That's exactly what Fox News Channel does. And this is yet another case of overwhelming evidence of that.

Huckabee: No 'attack' on Natalie Portman

Conveniently left out of this discussion, so far: The GOP push to slash many the programs that could ensure these babies a better life.

Huckabee: No 'attack' on Natalie Portman
March 6, 2011
By Cathy Lynn Grossman
USA TODAY

Mike Huckabee, the ex-preacher, ex-governor and GOP front-runner for the 2012 presidential race, has plenty to say about Natalie Portman, unwed motherhood and poverty but not much about the GOP-led budget cuts to programs that help young families avoid the poverty trap.

In the Murphy Brown move of 2011, Huckabee condemns successful women, real as Portman or fictional as Brown's 1992 TV character (blasted by then-vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle as a bad "lifestyle choice") for glamorizing the single mom experience when, in reality most will be raising their babies in poverty, he says.

What he told Michael Medved on air:

One of the things that is troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine. But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie.

What he now says at his political action website Huck PAC:

However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hard-working single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock.

Conveniently left out of this discussion, so far: The GOP push to slash many the programs that could ensure these babies a better life...

Keeping Health Reform Neutral on Abortion

Keeping Health Reform Neutral on Abortion
By STEVEN WALDMAN
AUGUST 13, 2009
Wall Street Journal

Lost in the vitriol about health care is a surprising development: pro-life and pro-choice leaders say they don't intend to use health reform to shift the balance of power in their direction. Many activists on both sides say any big changes to health care should maintain the status quo in the abortion stalemate.

Less surprisingly, while both sides agree on that goal, they look at the same words in the same bills and come to opposite conclusions about what they mean. For instance, the bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee declares, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage" for abortion in the "public option." Pro-choicers say that this neither-this-nor-that language is self-evidently neutral. Pro-life activists argue that since abortion "could" be covered, it will be covered.

My personal view: the legislation passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee does not mandate abortion coverage, as pro-life groups claim, but does leave open the possibility that the government might pay for abortion. Nor did the "neutral" amendment offered by pro-lifers didn't achieve neutrality, as it would potentially roll back abortion coverage in private insurance plans.

From Waldman's Blog:

Full text of the key amendments

Will health care reform cover abortion?

Health reform, abortion and rationing

Of course, it's easy for me to criticize everyone for not coming up with a neutral solution. It's always more fun to carp than be constructive. So here's my best effort on how to make health care reform neutral on abortion.

First, we need to recognize that part of the problem in being neutral is that health care reform would likely introduce some new features, so you really can't just freeze the status quo. Instead, you have to look at broad principles. In general, the federal government is currently prohibited from directly paying for abortion but allowed to indirectly support abortion.

Indirect support currently happens in a variety of ways. For instance, the federal government set up the Medicaid program, pays for much of it, and allows states to pay for abortions. The government provides support to hospitals, some of which perform abortions. The government gives money to family planning clinics for maternal health care, even though those clinics might also do abortions. In each case, the primary purpose of the spending is not to encourage abortion but, but government funds do support some institutions that also, with their own money, perform abortions. That's the status quo...

Bill Clinton says Republicans are promoting fear regarding universal health care

Bill Clinton: GOP promotes fear over health care
By DAN NEPHIN (AP)
August 13, 2009

PITTSBURGH — Republicans have turned to terrifying people in the debate over overhauling the health care system because the GOP has no political clout to fight it, former President Bill Clinton told a gathering of progressive bloggers on Thursday.

Clinton was president when the Democrats made their last major effort to change the health care system. The big difference now, Clinton said, is that Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as well as control of the House.

The former president called "crazy" the charges that promoting living wills and other end-of-life planning is somehow promoting death.

Clinton spoke at the opening session of the Netroots Nation convention, a gathering of politically progressive bloggers and other online activists.

He urged the crowd to support President Barack Obama on health care reform, along with climate change legislation and other reforms.

"The president needs your help and the cause needs your help," Clinton said. "We have to preserve this progress majority now."

However, he advised them that change may not come as fast as they want and that they may have to accept smaller victories as they continue to work for their goals...

Critics who disrupt town hall meetings on health care are un-American, says Pelosi

UPDATE: Apparently disrupters aren't just un-American, they're also not averse to assaulting opponents. Salon.com's Joan Walsh has an interesting article about some of them.

Anti-health care activist Jack Kimball reports on his blog Granite State Patriots that an opponent "accidentally got a bump on the head when I went to grab his sign." He goes on to say, "Oh well, got to have a little fun at these things."




Pelosi Calls Health Care Critics 'Un-American'
FOXNews.com
August 10, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints.

Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claimed such behavior is "simply un-American."

It's hardly the first time Pelosi, who earlier this year accused the CIA of lying to Congress and repeatedly has called Republicans unpatriotic, has employed some serious name-calling to characterize her opponents' views.

The jab Monday drew swift scorn from Republicans and critics who say the health care demonstrations are as American as apple pie.

"I, like most Americans, would find that kind of characterization of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to be offensive," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told FOX News. "There's nothing more American than letting your elected representatives know how you feel about important issues facing the nation."

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, released a statement calling the charge "outrageous and reprehensible."

Pelosi and Hoyer made the accusation as part of a lengthy column in USA Today stressing the need for action on health care reform. The piece was published as lawmakers return to their districts for summer recess, a period that could imperil the legislation if health care critics cause moderate Democrats to lose their stomachs for sweeping reform.

Critics have confronted lawmakers about the bills, sometimes shouting at them, at a number of town halls in the past week alone.

On Monday, Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill tried a new tack in rebutting the protesters while also minimizing their complaints. She got several hands when she asked audience members at a town hall meeting to raise their hands if they're so scared about the federal government running health care that they "can't think straight."

For Pelosi and Hoyer, they charged that an "ugly campaign" is afoot to misrepresent the legislation, "disrupt" the public meetings and prevent members of Congress from "conducting a civil dialogue" on the topic.

"Let the facts be heard," they wrote. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." ...

85% want healthcare reforms, but Republicans are opposed to cuts in insurance company profits

Wide support for government health plan: poll
Sun Jun 21, 2009
Reuters

Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

President Barack Obama and many Democrats in Congress have argued a publicly run healthcare insurance plan would increase competition and drive down the high cost of care at a time when the U.S. economy is mired in a deep recession...




Obama's healthcare push on rocky road in Congress
Jun 21, 2009
Reuters
By Donna Smith

...Obama and his fellow Democrats, who control Congress, have enormous political capital invested in succeeding at providing affordable medical coverage to the millions of uninsured Americans, after decades of failed efforts by others, including the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton.

But opposition is building even as a group of senators tries this week to negotiate a proposal they hope will quiet critics and win bipartisan support.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said he was confident he could craft such a bill.

"We're working together and we're getting closer and closer to a deal every day," he said in a statement. "I'm as confident as ever we'll deliver a bipartisan health care reform bill to the President this year."

But Baucus is working with only few Republicans and there are no guarantees he will succeed.

"I'm certainly willing to try to do something and do it right, but we're a long way from that," Republican Senator Orrin Hatch told reporters.

Public drafting sessions by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee have been marked by partisan bickering over costs and the role of the government.

Democrats want a new government plan to compete with insurance companies and "keep them honest."

Republicans say that would drive insurers out of business and lead to a government-run healthcare system...

[Maura Larkins' note: Don't they really mean it would cut profits for insurance companies? Which is more important, the health of the nation, or the profits of unscrupulous insurance companies?]