iftttwall

Today is the 25th anniversary of the fatwa against Salman
Rushdie. Brendan O’Neill has marked the occasion with a
contrarian essay that condemns the censors of the Islamic world
but also argues that “the true motor of the culture of
offence-taking and censorship today” is actually “moral cowardice
among the cultural elites of the West, not moral fury on the part
of Muslim groups.” Here’s the core of his argument:

When Western publishing houses and theatres
do hold back from publishing or displaying material critical of
Muslims, often it isn’t because massive mobs have been hammering on
their doors but rather because they themselves feel uncomfortable
with expressing strong, possibly offensive opinions. So in 2008,
Random House decided not to publish Sherry Jones’ novel The
Jewel of Medina, which tells the story of the Prophet
Muhammad’s relationship with his 14-year-old wife Aisha, after one
academic reader said it ‘might be offensive to some in the Muslim
community’. Both the London Barbican and Royal Court Theatre have
in recent years cut or cancelled plays critical of Islam on the
entirely pre-emptive basis that they might stir up Muslim
anger. In each case, it wasn’t threats from agitated Muslims that
caused the censorship—rather, elite fear of the spectre of agitated
Muslims generated self-censorship. Today’s concern about what
‘might be offensive’ to Muslims is best understood as an
externalisation of the cultural elite’s own internal doubts about
art, politics and debate, a projection of their own uncertainty
about what is sayable and unsayable on to an imagined mass of
seething Muslims.

In essence, what the fatwa has provided over the past 25 years is a
justification for the cowardice of the West’s own gatekeepers of
knowledge and publishers of literature, who, feeling increasingly
unsure about what can be said and depicted in this era of
multiculturalism, cultural sensitivity and professional
offence-taking, often display an instinctive urge to hold back, to
pulp, to unpublish….And of course, this in turn inflames some
Muslim groups’ belief that they have the right to surround
themselves with a forcefield against offence.

I’m wary of efforts to determine a single “true motor” for any
historical development, but I think O’Neill has certainly
identified an important motor. And his point about
projection is well-taken. It doesn’t take much imagination to think
of other times a process like this has been at work—in the attempt,
say, to respond to Benghazi by suppressing
a movie.

Bonus link: Our interview
with Rushdie.

One of last year’s heartbreaking stories involved
13-year-old Andy Lopez, who was shot to death by a Sonoma County
deputy sheriff in October after the deputy spotted him carrying a
realistic-looking pellet gun. Deputy Erick Gelhaus said he called
on Lopez to drop the gun, and shot him seven times as the boy
turned toward the officer with the barrel of the gun rising. Steven
Greenhut says that given the high-profile nature of the Lopez case,
one would expect the legislature to weigh in, especially given a
number of other recent and troubling use-of-force incidents. But as
often happens, legislators have come up with
a “solution” that skirts the main issue.

View this article.

There’s an awful lot we still don’t
know about Obamacare.

For example, the federal government can’t yet say what
percentage of the 3.3 million people who have signed up for
coverage through Obamacare have paid their first month’s premium.
Eventually, the government may be able to track that information
directly, but it can’t right now because payment processing is
among the back-end computer systems that have not been built
yet. 

What that means is that we don’t know how many of those 3.3
million sign-ups are actually enrolled in insurance—and how many
remain uninsured. But the total is almost certainly quite a bit
smaller than the administration’s sign-up figure.

The New York Times
reports that roughly 20 percent of sign-ups haven’t paid:

Lindy Wagner, a spokeswoman for Blue Shield of California,
said that 80 percent of those who signed up for its plans had paid
by the due date, Jan. 15. Blue Shield has about 30 percent of the
exchange market in the state.

Matthew N. Wiggin, a spokesman for Aetna, said that about 70
percent of people who signed up for its health plans paid their
premiums. For Aetna policies taking effect on Jan. 1, the deadline
for payment was Jan. 14, and for products sold by Coventry Health
Care, which is now part of Aetna, the deadline was Jan. 17.

Mark T. Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, said last week
that the company had 135,000 “paid members,” out of 200,000 who
began to enroll through the exchanges. “I think people are
enrolling in multiple places,” he said in a conference call. “They
are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back
on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled
in.”

Kristin E. Binns, a vice president of WellPoint, said that 76
percent of people selecting its health plans on an exchange had
paid their share of the first month’s premium by the due date of
Jan. 31. 

Obviously this isn’t a complete picture. But it’s worth noting
that this isn’t the only report to suggest a non-payment rate of
about 20 percent. At the end of January, CNN Money
also reported
a likely attrition rate of 20 percent. And insurance industry
consultant Robert Laszewski has also estimated that non-payment
will likely end up in that range. 

If that’s the case, then the true number of enrollments is
closer to 2.64 million—well below the administration’s target for
this point in the open enrollment period. Based on early state
data, it’s even possible that the final rate of non-payment will be
higher: As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily
recently
noted, Washington state’s payment rate is only about 50
percent, and Nevada’s is just 66 percent. I’d bet that these
percentages rise. But even still, it’s clear that follow-through on
sign-ups has not been particularly robust. 

We also don’t know how many of the people who have enrolled were
previously uninsured, and how many were already covered but are
switching to exchange-based coverage. But there are some signs that
the percentage of people now getting coverage who did not have it
below could be quite low.

Laszewski, a well-connected health insurance consultant,

told CBS News that the percentage of sign-ups who are newly
insured could be in the range of 10 percent:

[Laszewski] says that to calculate a more accurate number, one
must subtract about 20 percent of the enrollees because they
haven’t paid (and so aren’t technically insured); as well as about
two-thirds of the enrollees because they were already insured prior
to signing up for Obamacare.

“Looking at the total of 3.3 million, netting out the non-pays,
and listening to the anecdotal carrier reports, it doesn’t look
like we have more than a fraction–certainly something less than
10%– of the previously uninsured,” said Laszewski.

Again, we can’t be certain here. But Laszewski’s estimate tracks
with other reports and information we’ve seen. A
survey by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health reform found that
only 11 percent of those buying insurance on the exchanges were
uninsured. Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC that his company’s
plans had failed to
attract the previously uninsured.

It may be a while before a more accurate picture of how the law
affected enrollment emerges. But for now, one thing we can be
fairly sure of is that the headline sign-up numbers don’t tell the
whole story. 

There’s an awful lot we still don’t
know about Obamacare.

For example, the federal government can’t yet say what
percentage of the 3.3 million people who have signed up for
coverage through Obamacare have paid their first month’s premium.
Eventually, the government may be able to track that information
directly, but it can’t right now because payment processing is
among the back-end computer systems that have not been built
yet. 

What that means is that we don’t know how many of those 3.3
million sign-ups are actually enrolled in insurance—and how many
remain uninsured. But the total is almost certainly quite a bit
smaller than the administration’s sign-up figure.

The New York Times
reports that roughly 20 percent of sign-ups haven’t paid:

Lindy Wagner, a spokeswoman for Blue Shield of California,
said that 80 percent of those who signed up for its plans had paid
by the due date, Jan. 15. Blue Shield has about 30 percent of the
exchange market in the state.

Matthew N. Wiggin, a spokesman for Aetna, said that about 70
percent of people who signed up for its health plans paid their
premiums. For Aetna policies taking effect on Jan. 1, the deadline
for payment was Jan. 14, and for products sold by Coventry Health
Care, which is now part of Aetna, the deadline was Jan. 17.

Mark T. Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, said last week
that the company had 135,000 “paid members,” out of 200,000 who
began to enroll through the exchanges. “I think people are
enrolling in multiple places,” he said in a conference call. “They
are shopping. And what happens is that they never really get back
on HealthCare.gov to disenroll from plans they prior enrolled
in.”

Kristin E. Binns, a vice president of WellPoint, said that 76
percent of people selecting its health plans on an exchange had
paid their share of the first month’s premium by the due date of
Jan. 31. 

Obviously this isn’t a complete picture. But it’s worth noting
that this isn’t the only report to suggest a non-payment rate of
about 20 percent. At the end of January, CNN Money
also reported
a likely attrition rate of 20 percent. And insurance industry
consultant Robert Laszewski has also estimated that non-payment
will likely end up in that range. 

If that’s the case, then the true number of enrollments is
closer to 2.64 million—well below the administration’s target for
this point in the open enrollment period. Based on early state
data, it’s even possible that the final rate of non-payment will be
higher: As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily
recently
noted, Washington state’s payment rate is only about 50
percent, and Nevada’s is just 66 percent. I’d bet that these
percentages rise. But even still, it’s clear that follow-through on
sign-ups has not been particularly robust. 

We also don’t know how many of the people who have enrolled were
previously uninsured, and how many were already covered but are
switching to exchange-based coverage. But there are some signs that
the percentage of people now getting coverage who did not have it
below could be quite low.

Laszewski, a well-connected health insurance consultant,

told CBS News that the percentage of sign-ups who are newly
insured could be in the range of 10 percent:

[Laszewski] says that to calculate a more accurate number, one
must subtract about 20 percent of the enrollees because they
haven’t paid (and so aren’t technically insured); as well as about
two-thirds of the enrollees because they were already insured prior
to signing up for Obamacare.

“Looking at the total of 3.3 million, netting out the non-pays,
and listening to the anecdotal carrier reports, it doesn’t look
like we have more than a fraction–certainly something less than
10%– of the previously uninsured,” said Laszewski.

Again, we can’t be certain here. But Laszewski’s estimate tracks
with other reports and information we’ve seen. A
survey by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health reform found that
only 11 percent of those buying insurance on the exchanges were
uninsured. Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC that his company’s
plans had failed to
attract the previously uninsured.

It may be a while before a more accurate picture of how the law
affected enrollment emerges. But for now, one thing we can be
fairly sure of is that the headline sign-up numbers don’t tell the
whole story. 

As
expected, the lower house of Belgium’s parliament, the Chamber
of Representatives, has voted to extend the country’s
euthanasia laws to children. King Philippe must approve the change
before it can go into effect.

More from RTT:

Euthanasia is the intentional termination of a very sick
person’s life by a doctor in order to relieve him or her of their
pain and suffering.

The right to euthanasia for minors bill was passed in the lower
house of the Parliament, the Chamber of Representatives, by 86 to
44 votes. 12 MPs abstained from voting.

The Belgian Senate overwhelmingly
approved the proposed change to euthanasia legislation
last December in a 50-17 vote.

As the Associated
Press explains, only two other countries have legalized
euthanasia, the Netherlands and Luxembourg:

Besides Belgium, the only other countries to have legalised
euthanasia are the Netherlands and Luxembourg, said Kenneth
Chambaere, a sociologist and member of the End-of-Life Care
research group at the Free University Brussels and University of
Ghent.

In Luxembourg, a patient must be 18. In the Netherlands,
children between 12 and 15 may be given euthanasia with their
parents’ permission, while those who are 16 or 17 must notify their
parents beforehand.

Although the change to euthanasia legislation had widespread
public support it was opposed by
some doctors and Roman Catholic clergy.

Following in the footsteps of
judges in Utah and Oklahoma, a federal judge has ruled that
Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage recognition is an
unconstitutional violation of the 14th amendment.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen opened her ruling with a
quote from Mildred Loving — of the famous Loving v.
Virginia case that overturned laws forbidding interracial
marriages — that she made in 2007, a year after voters approved the
state’s ban on gay marriage recognition:

 “We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives,
and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t
that what marriage is? . . . I have lived long enough now to see
big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given
way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone
they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful
children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of
Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to
me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if
others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I
believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex,
no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom
to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s
religious beliefs over others. . . . I support the freedom to marry
for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all
about.”

In the ruling, Wright Allen rejects the argument that gay
couples are trying to establish a new right. Marriage, she notes,
is treated as a fundamental right:

Just as there can be no question that marriage is a fundamental
right, there is also no dispute that under Virginia’s Marriage
Laws, Plaintiffs and Virginia citizens similar to Plaintiffs are
deprived of that right to marry. The Proponents’ insistence that
Plaintiffs have embarked upon a quest to create and exercise a new
(and some suggest threatening) right must be considered, but,
ultimately, put aside.

The reality that marriage rights in states across the country
have begun to be extended to more individuals fails to transform
such a fundamental right into some “new” creation. Plaintiffs ask
for nothing more than to exercise a right that is enjoyed by the
vast majority of Virginia’s adult citizens. They seek “simply the
same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals:
the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive
relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the
person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.” … “This
right is deeply rooted I the nation’s history and implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s
ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free
from government interference.”

She goes on to invoke the Loving decision to reject the
state’s marriage recognition ban on the grounds of upholding
“tradition.” She rejects federalist arguments because the civil
liberties arguments involved permit federal constitutional review.
And she rejects the “for the children” argument (which she actually
titles “The ‘for-the-children’ rationale”), stating that, while the
state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of
children, “needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are
being raised by the couples targeted by Virginia’s marriage laws
betrays that interest.”

The full ruling can be read
here. No doubt to avoid the post-ruling ruckus in Utah that
resulted in some gay couples getting legally married before a stay
was put in place for appeals, the judge has put a stay in place
already so the state can appeal the ruling.

This case might not be one to end up before the Supreme Court.
Like California, Virginia’s attorney general has announced he will

not defend the ban. The Supreme Court notably bounced the
California gay marriage ban back to the state last year, arguing
that the proponents of the initiative did not have standing to
defend it in federal courts. But Utah is defending its gay marriage
recognition ban, so keep an eye on where that case goes.

Also this week, a federal judge in
Kentucky ruled that the state cannot refuse to recognize gay
marriages that were performed in other states where it’s legal. He
didn’t rule that Kentucky must recognize gay marriages performed in
the state. But if, for example, a gay couple gets married and New
York (where it’s legally recognized) and moves to Kentucky, the
state is obligated to recognize it, too.