Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial Board: Equal Coverage for the Mentally Ill

A struggle over decades to force insurers to cover mental health and addiction services on the same basis as medical and surgical costs is headed for success under new rules issued on Friday by the Obama administration. The rules will cover most Americans with health insurance, including those in many employer-sponsored plans, in other group plans, in some but not all Medicaid plans, and in policies bought on the individual markets.

The rules strengthen a 2008 law that required parity in coverage – but only when an insurer actually offered mental health and addiction benefits. It did not require such benefits. The new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, does require coverage for mental health and substance abuse as 1 of 10 essential benefits in any new health plans. Combined, the two complete the job of offering both parity and coverage.

Gail Collins: Missing the Bad Old Days

It’s been a tough week. Let’s take a break and discuss the catfish inspection program.

There was a time when I had no strong feelings about this subject, but that was before the 2012 election, when we learned that Representative Paul Ryan’s favorite sport was “noodling,” which involves walking along the river and grabbing catfish by their throats. “You get your hand inside the fish, so they kind of, they come up on your hand,” the soon-to-be-vice-presidential candidate told The Times. “Then you just squeeze wherever you are on that fish and pull it out. I know it sounds a little crazy, but it’s really exhilarating.” [..]

Anyway, catfish have seemed a lot more interesting since then. And they’re currently a big issue in Congress, where the House and Senate are trying to put together a joint farm bill. It is very important that they get this done, because otherwise, at the end of the year, the country will revert to Depression-era agriculture laws and we all fall over the dairy cliff. I am not saying another word about this because I know you’re suffering from cliff fatigue. Just don’t plan for any events in early 2014 that involve purchasing a lot of ice cream.

One of the differences between the House and Senate versions of the farm bill involves a special catfish inspection office in the Agriculture Department, which Congress created in 2008. The office, which is supposed to check imported catfish to make sure they’re safe to eat, has yet to start up, although it’s already cost us $20 million.

Joe Conason: Are Politicians Who Cut Food Stamps and Deny Health Access Truly ‘Pro-Life’?

When Wendy Davis proclaimed that she is “pro-life”-a description long since appropriated by conservatives opposed to abortion rights-the right-wing media practically exploded with indignation. How could she dare to say that? But having won national fame when she filibustered nearly 12 hours against a law designed to shutter Lone Star State abortion clinics, the Texas state senator with the pink shoes doesn’t hesitate to provoke outrage among the righteous.

Speaking to a crowd at the University of Texas in Brownsville last Tuesday, Davis, now running for governor as a Democrat, made a deceptively simple but profound declaration: “I am pro-life. I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry their children’s future and their ability to provide for that.”

Her argument directly pierced to the contradiction within the right’s “pro-life” sloganeering. So far the feeble answer from the right is that Davis must be “lying” because nobody who supports a woman’s right to choose is pro-life.

E. J. Dionne, Jr.: What’s the Matter With Motherhood?

If you’re a conservative strongly opposed to abortion, shouldn’t you want to give all the help you can to women who want to bring their children into the world? In particular, wouldn’t you hope they’d get the proper medical attention during and after their pregnancy?

This would seem a safe assumption, which is why it ought to be astonishing that conservatives are positively obsessed with trashing the Affordable Care Act’s regulation requiring insurance policies to include maternity coverage.

Never mind that all of us lucky enough to have health insurance end up paying to cover conditions we may never suffer from ourselves. We all want to avoid cancer, but don’t begrudge those who do get it when the premiums we pay into our shared insurance pools help them receive care.

David Sirota: The Connection Between Poverty and Education

Google the phrase “education crisis” and you’ll be hit with a glut of articles, blog posts and think tank reports claiming the entire American school system is facing an emergency. Much of this agitprop additionally asserts that teachers unions are the primary cause of the alleged problem. Not surprisingly, the fabulists pushing these narratives are often backed by anti-public school conservatives and anti-union plutocrats. But a little-noticed study released last week provides yet more confirmation that neither the “education crisis” meme or the “evil teachers union” narrative is accurate.

Before looking at that study, consider some of the ways we already know that the dominant storyline about education is, indeed, baseless propaganda.

Jacob Swenson and Jamie Merchant: Shooting Ourselves: Mass Killings, Austerity, and the Breakdown of American Society

Sandy Hook. Columbine. Aurora. Tucson. Fort Hood. These names ring out in popular memory as the sites of seemingly random, horrific atrocities.

Mass violence and how we can address it has become a hot-button issue and for good reason. Last week, between October 26thand November 1st, there were five mass killings in the United States. And Monday, a gunman opened fire in a New Jersey shopping mall, firing several shots, but killing only himself.

Our nation leads wealthy democracies in allowing the market to disseminate, nearly unchecked, huge numbers of guns into the hands of a society riddled by extreme economic inequality, widening social polarization, and deep racism. In this context, advocating gun control is the only sane thing to do. Yet, to jump from mass violence to the conclusion that there are just too many guns – and that the solution is simply to reduce them – is to fatally misdiagnose the problem.