Author: Andrew Sullivan

Arit John summarizes remaining legal challenges to the ACA. A big one:

As we explained earlier this year, Halbig v. Sebelius is a case launched by conservative small business owners in states using the federal exchange. They argue that, because the Affordable Care Act only specifically mentions subsidies for exchanges “established by the state,” the federal exchange can’t grant subsidies. And if they can’t get subsidies, then the insurance becomes unaffordable, so they want the court to block the IRS from implementing the law. The government argues that, obviously, they meant for everyone to get subsidies, and the case is ignoring all the prep work the administration has done to provide subsidies in all states.

Alec MacGillis comments:

On this the two sides agree: for a court to strike down the subsidies in the federally-run exchanges as out of keeping with the text would utterly devastate the Affordable Care Act.

Expanding coverage only works if many people are buying coverage in the new exchanges, the only way large numbers will do so is if the plans are relatively affordable to them, and the way the law makes coverage affordable is by providing income-based subsidies, in the form of tax credits, to the vast majority of people buying plans on the exchanges. Since no fewer than 36 states have opted to let the federal government run the exchange for their residents, ending the subsidies for people in those exchanges would blow up the law in whole swaths of the country, if not all of it.

Drum isn’t so sure:

Would it, in fact, cripple the law? Or would we end up with Obamacare being available only to about half the country? This is a trickier question than it seems. In the non-subsidy states, a couple of things would be going on. First, a lot of the provisions of Obamacare would still be in effect: community rating, guaranteed issue, the individual mandate, etc. Having all these in place without the subsidies might be bad news for insurers, which means the insurance industry could start putting real pressure on holdout states to set up their own exchanges. Second, there would be a whole lot of people who had gotten subsidies the year before and were now having them yanked away. Taking existing benefits away generates far more passion than refusing to approve benefits in the first place, and eliminating the subsidies could end up generating irresistible public pressure to set up state exchanges in order to put them back in place. Put these two things together and you have a lot of pressure to set up state exchanges in the states that don’t have them.

A report released yesterday by the National Research Council (NRC) cautions that “the uncertainties associated with passing tipping points in the climate system are dangerously large.” Dan Vergano puts it in context:

The new report differs from past ones in taking continued global warming as inevitable and looking for impacts on humanity and animals, not just geophysical and weather effects like melting glaciers or drought. “The report is a break from the past in that it includes abrupt changes in the environment that can result from even small, steady increases in temperature or other climate change effects,” says geoscientist Peter Clark of Oregon State University in Corvallis, who was not on the report panel. “I think that is an important point [that] the report is making.” …

In coming decades, the report forecasts a high risk of the disappearance of summertime Arctic sea ice—an abrupt climate change impact already under way—and extinctions in the ocean and on land.

Rapid ecological shifts that threaten farmland as well as wildlife across broad regions, such as tropical forests, are rated as a “moderate” risk. An abrupt slide of the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet into the ocean would suddenly sink coasts worldwide under 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) of water. The report rates the risk of this calamity as “unknown” although probably low for this century. …

[P]aleoclimate expert Thomas M. Cronin of the U.S. Geological Survey office in Reston, Virginia, expressed caution about the report’s conclusion that abrupt climate change would likely drive coral extinctions in the ocean or wipe out species in tropical forests. In the latter case, he said, “it is hard to separate human effects, or the timescale of possible extinctions.” On the other hand, Cronin also suggested that the report underplays the threat of the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation disastrously halting, or the sudden release of large quantities of methane from warming Arctic permafrosts.

Recent Dish on climate change here, here, and here.

Liat Clark investigates a new idea from collaborators at the MIT SENSEable City Laboratory: the Copenhagen Wheel, a “smart” wheel “that can be attached to almost any bike, transforming it into an electric hybrid that powers up seamlessly when you need it most”:

Unlike other similar products coming to market — including the FlyKly, which recently smashed its Kickstarter target by $600,000 — Superpedestrian’s unit (which slots on to your back wheel) is not about powering up continually to save your lazy legs. A series of sensors are embedded in the red casing, which track your speed, incline, pedal-pushing prowess and other factors, in order to calculate when you need the power most. As such, the battery-powered 5.5kg pack will save energy, while also recharging every time you brake, powering up to speeds of 32km/h with a range of 48km. …

[Superpedestrian founder Assaf] Biderman is secretive about the magic formula that goes into making the red unit run, and part of the system will be patented after the first stock ships in 2014. Those cogs and sensors are what makes the power seamless and smart, with all that data being fed to a smartphone app so the user can track their route and progress and share it with other like-minded cycling enthusiasts in real time. He would tell us that it houses the usual inertial sensors you might expect — accelerometers, gyroscopes, rotational and heading sensors — a GPS sensor and a strain guage. In total there are 12.

Biderman envisions “a whole ecosystem of apps around the product”:

“… It could help you find that route that many people like you have identified as ideal by gathering information from the environment, whether it’s potholes, how much elevation up and down or by comparing statistics with others. … Riders could opt in and share information about where everybody moves together — municipalities would love to know.”

(Image of the Copenhagen Wheel via Superpedestrian)

Yesterday, a judge ruled that Detroit is allowed to go through bankruptcy. And it looks like it will be painful for The Motor City’s pensioners:

In his ruling, [Judge Stephen] Rhodes turned away arguments that the bankruptcy violated the federal constitution. The use of federal mechanisms for resolving municipal debts does not violate the tenth amendment, he said, citing the Supreme Court case of US v Bekins. Then he turned to the state constitution, which protects the pensions of public workers, except in the case of bankruptcy. Mr Rhodes ruled that those constitutional protections “do not apply to the federal bankruptcy court” and that pensions ought to be treated like the city’s other debts.

Scott Shackford praises the judge’s decision to allow pension cuts:

Rhodes’ comments on pension cuts may well prove to be extremely important not just for Detroit, but for any city currently in bankruptcy or considering bankruptcy. Chad Livengood of The Detroit News tweeted quotes from the judge as he delivered the ruling. The judge said that pensions are no different from other contracts under federal bankruptcy laws and “not entitled to any heightened protection in bankruptcy.” That’s a big deal. Pension protectors have been trying to argue that public employee pension benefits can’t be cut back and are protected by state laws or within state constitutions. Federal bankruptcy courts don’t have to care. Cities like Stockton and Vallejo, Calif., have resisted trying to change their pension plans even while in bankruptcy. Maybe this ruling will give city leaders the political courage to address one of their biggest sources of budget debt.

David Cay Johnston worries about the precedent:

Norman Stein, a Drexel University law professor who is an expert on pensions, said that if the Detroit order stands it will become standard practice to slash benefits. “It would be a human catastrophe of the first order if pensions of vulnerable older workers can be cut whenever a local government goes to bankruptcy court,” Stein said. “We will be consigning firemen and policemen, who did nothing wrong other than protecting the city and depending on the city’s promise, into old-age poverty.”

Heather Long is more sanguine:

In coming months (the tentative deadline is now 1 March), Detroit’s emergency management team has to present a workout plan to the judge. Creditors will have plenty of opportunities to object to the plan, and the judge will likely ask for revisions along the way. At the end of the day, the judge will decide whether to accept it based on one key criteria spelled out in the bankruptcy law:

The plan is in the best interests of creditors and is feasible.

That’s a huge protection for creditors, which include the city workers and retirees. The judge isn’t going to accept any old plan from the city. As Judge Rhodes has already stated, he is sympathetic to the needs of city residents and retirees. The proclamations that pensions will go from an average of $19,000 a year to about $3,000 are PR scare tactics. Deep cuts – or anything close – aren’t going to meet the legal test that the plan is in the “best interests of creditors”. It’s possible pensions won’t be cut at all.

Kevin Roose weighs in:

Whether or not the Detroit pension cuts end up happening — and it’s likely that they will, in some form and amount — today’s decision represents a major development for the entire country. Four cities in California, for example, are currently wrapped up in negotiations about whether they can cut pensions as part of their bankruptcy petitions. These other efforts to shed debt by cutting pensions might ultimately fail, or be overturned by the Supreme Court. But now that hosing pensioners is possible in Detroit, there’s not much to stop other cities from trying to do the same thing when they run into trouble.

McArdle sympathizes with the retirees but sees no alternative:

This is terrible for the pensioners, who are likely to see their checks cut back quite a lot. But it’s hard to see what else could have happened. Detroit can’t pay its debts and keep the city running. There is no more tax revenue for the city to take; the citizens are poor, and the commercial base is the sort of low-margin retail and dining that cater to a very poor population, plus a few corporate headquarters bobbing in a sea of beautiful, empty Art Deco office buildings.

A reader writes:

I hope this thread takes off with reader comments like many of your others! There is a lot of room to maneuver between the cruel, artless, and deliberately upsetting lies encouraged by the revolting Jimmy Kimmel and the cold, unblinking presentation of reality to children. Indeed, I find bullshitting one’s children is a singular and abiding joy of parenthood! For example, I have insisted for years to my now seven year-old son that (a) chocolate milk comes from brown cows, and (b) dogs can drive.  He has never really believed me, but I have stuck to my guns with increasingly unlikely embellishments (e.g. not just any dog – only those that can pass a special driving test).

I believe there is value for children in sniffing out and articulating why certain massive whoppers peddled by their normally-trusted parents are untrue. In this way, healthy skepticism is developed without making children distrustful (as perhaps you should be if your parents will reduce you to tears just because a second-rate comedian told them to) or naive (believing adults always tell the truth).

Another is on the same page:

Count me as yet another defender, and practitioner, of lying to one’s offspring. When done right, it is good for their souls. I refer to the paradoxical cults of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.

What strange mythic beings those three are! They are neither gods nor fictional characters; they are a hybrid of the two. The child is expected both to believe and then later disbelieve! They start out as Truth Revealed, but end up as Fun Lies. They enact, within the child’s own lifetime, a mini-Enlightenment. Their final sermon is doubt; their greatest miracle is their own refutation.

For Santa doesn’t just die, like some plain old corn god; it turns out that he never even was. He was a lie, a trick, a prank. But the disillusionment is gentle; for the presents were real, and they keep coming. The god fails, but parental love remains.

I see Santa as an initiation rite into skepticism. He is a noble lie; for he turns children into philosophers. Santa is the patron saint of unbelief.

Another:

My oldest came home in 2nd grade and said a bunch of kids at school were telling her that Santa isn’t real and it’s just her parents.  She then asked me if that was true.  In my defense, I was nursing her infant sister, wasn’t sleeping, and wasn’t thinking.  I thought she knew the truth and was testing me.  So I told her that Santa isn’t real and that we gave her all her presents.  She freaked out.  She started crying hysterically and mourned Santa as if he died.  It was horrible.  I called my husband at work and he was so angry at me.  It was awful.  So now I lie:

Mom, have you ever tried any drugs?
Answer: Nope
Mom, were you a virgin when you met Dad?
Answer: Yep
Mom, what does tea-bagging mean? (got this one when she was in 6th grade)
Answer: It’s a new political movement.  Taxed Enough Already.

How the hell was I supposed to explain tea-bagging to an 11 year old? The Jimmy Kimmel stuff is funny, though a bit cruel, and I wouldn’t do it to my kids, but sometimes you just have to lie.

Another:

Fantasies about Santa Claus can be seen as part of psychological development, as we move from pre-rational, to rational, then onto trans-rational (hopefully). I may not believe in Santa anymore, but I’m glad he’s still around, as a reminder of generosity. In the same way, the Garden of Eden may be fully believed at one point, dismissed as fantasy later on, but hopefully seen in a trans-rational perspective as a valuable meditation on good and evil. Most of us get stuck at some stage or another. Perhaps religion, understood differently, can act as a sort of conveyor belt.

Another notes:

I have to object to the reader’s characterisation of the “Christian tendency to turn religious holidays into occasions for inventing impossible narratives (a flying fat man and a giant bunny delivering toys and candy respectively).” I’m sorry, but that is a British/American tendency, not a Christian one. Spain, for one, did not turn either Easter or Christmas into any such thing, nor did any country in its vicinity.

Another narrows that point even more:

I suspect that for the common difficulties of balancing truth with commercial myths – Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny – the problem is uniquely American. Growing up in England, as I did, to American parents, none of these were on the map. Christmas had Father Christmas, but he was a minor and distinctly human figure – good for a sack of chocolate gelt or Cadbury bar, but not the main chance. Santa, the fairy, and the bunny didn’t exist. I suppose we missed out on certain fantasies, but they weren’t missed. It was nifty enough to get a few coins under the pillow as payment for a tooth, or to find a bright blue egg behind the couch – no explanation needed. A straightforwardness worth emulating, I think.