So for the last few days there has been a dustup because Sandra Fluke testified before Congress about how she was a law student at Georgetown Law and she and other students had trouble affording birth control pills and the school, which is a Jesuit school, didn’t provide coverage. Then Rush Limbaugh said this:
"What does it say about the college coed who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh continued, “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
And then he said this:
“So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
And now we see that Limbaugh apologized, which I think is right. Using birth control does not mean she is a slut, unless you think a woman is supposed to be chaste until marriage. And no, this is not prostitution under the D.C. Code or any other jurisdiction that I know of.
But in a way, Obamacare and its mandates make this kind of thing inevitable.
We’ve all been there, 17 or 18 years old, and we get into a fight with our parents or maybe a sibling does. “You can’t control me!” the near-adult says.
And the parent says, “as long as you live under my roof you will do what I say!”
For two hundred years we have understood intuitively that “freedom” and “independence” are closely related concepts. Hell, when Destiny’s Child wanted to make a feminist anthem for the movie Charlie’s Angels, they called it “Independent Woman.”
Gerald Ford once said that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”* It also means that the government gets to scrutinize everything in your life. It’s inevitable. If someone has to pay for something, they are inevitably going to ask basic questions, like 1) where is this money going to, 2) is this the most economical way to spend the money, and 3) do you really need what I am being forced to buy for you?
Let’s take a less explosive example: Lipitor. It’s a drug that reduces cholesterol. If there was a mandate requiring Lipitor coverage for every single person, then the questions would start. Why do you need it? Are you eating right? Are you exercising? Or more rudely: why would I have to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle.
Or it might get really rude:
(Language warning.)
And the examples of this are legion. I am not a fan of multiple piercings and tattoos, but I definitely take a “to each their own” attitude about that. But if I am forced to pay for antibiotics and tattoo removal, I am going to start having an opinion about whether you should be doing that sort of thing in the first place. If I have no choice but to pay for your skin cancer treatment, maybe I will have an opinion about you laying in a tanning bed all the time, or on the beach just sunning yourself.
And the examples of people needing treatment due to their “lifestyles” are legion. There is the obvious example of STDs. And there is always this:
You might need age verification to see that and if you don’t want to watch it is video I have used before, of people intentionally getting hit in the, ahem, beanbag. Yeah, it’s admittedly pretty funny... unless they go to the ER and you have to foot the bill, or if you have to pay for in vitro fertilization because their "boys" no longer swim. Then you start to resent that you have to subsidize their stupidity.
And personally I don’t mind paying for regular birth control, but I recognize the Catholic Church’s right to object and I believe in their right to refuse to pay for it. And when it comes to abortion—including the morning after abortion pill which is also in this mandate—and I am required to pay for it, I’m going to start asking some rude questions, the first of which being, “why the hell weren’t you using birth control?”
Now there can be a good answer to that question—the most obvious being rape. But here’s the thing: I don’t want to ask that question. I don’t want to be that involved in your life.
But if I am paying for it, I have to be. You can’t just hand out money with no strings attached. There has to be oversight. Which means that we have to ask those rude questions, like 1) where is this money going to, 2) is this the most economical way to spend the money, and 3) do you really need what I am being forced to buy for you?
See if you are paying for it yourself, you can say, “none of your damn business” to all of those questions. If a private insurance company voluntarily covers these kinds of things, you can say, “this is between me and my insurance company.” But if I have to pay for it—either through taxes, or by being forced to buy insurance that includes that kind of coverage—then it is my business.
And I don’t want to make it my business in most cases. What do I care if you spend 5 hours a day in a tanning bed? What do I care if you have every appendage pierced? What do I care if you smoke?
Liberals tell us to get the law off their damn bodies. They tell us that we should not care about things that the law has cared about for a long time, such as whether two men have sex, or whether a woman has an abortion. And then they push this law on us that forces us not only to care about those things, but about whether you smoke, get body piercings, or get a sun tan. Because under Obamacare, each of those things affect us, financially.
And in truth I don’t want to be that guy. I don’t mind want to be that involved in other people’s lives. But when you involve my money, then you start to involve me. You do not create a zone of privacy by inviting scrutiny.
So by attempting to mandate that all institutions provide free birth control—and abortion pill, let’s not forget that—the Obama administration invited us to ask the basic questions: 1) where is this money going to, 2) is this the most economical way to spend the money, and 3) do you really need what I am being forced to buy for you? And Rush Limbaugh chose to personalize it by asking about the justification of a young woman needing constant birth control.
None of this excuses Limbaugh’s bad judgment in calling Fluke a slut and a whore and it’s good that he apologized.
But what Obama has proposed forces us to discuss the amount and appropriateness of sex among college students, to make it a matter of valid government concern, when I think most of us would like to keep the government out of it completely.
And that is centered wholly on my policy preference for a respect for the “right to privacy” and not touching at all on the court-invented “constitutional” right to privacy found in cases like Roe. As I have said before, if Roe v. Wade means anything, it is an extreme application of the right to control one’s own medical destiny. And Obamacare tramples all over it. Which is why I think Justice Kennedy in particular will vote to strike it down.
---------------------------------------
* This quote has been apparently misattributed to Thomas Jefferson. But regardless of the source, it is undeniably true.
---------------------------------------
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
>> But if I have to pay for it—either through taxes, or by being forced to buy insurance that includes that kind of coverage—then it is my business.
ReplyDeleteHere is where your analysis falls short. Your reasoning is correct -- it's just selectively applied.
(1) As a sidenote, you completely ignore that many health conditions have nothing to do with one's behavior. High cholesterol, for example, can be hereditary.
(2) You apparently think that paying for other people's health care BEGAN with Obamacare, when in fact, Obamacare is based on the recognizable fact that we already pay for other peoples' heath care.
For starters, we "pay for" other peoples' heath care through Medicare and Medicaid. That comes out of our paycheck and/or through taxes. That existed before Obamacare, so you can't point the finger at Obama there.
Incidently, Medicare and Medicaid -- and the fact that they are government programs -- has not lead to the government control over medical destiny/invasion-of-privacy bugaboo that you have predicted. Nor has it lead society at large (or Rush Limbaugh) to ask questions about the personal habits of those receiving treatment through Medicare or Medicaid.
(3) Setting aside Medicare and Medicaid, we "pay for" other peoples' heath care all the time. That's the whole concept behind an insurance POOL. Health care services are by and large not a direct purchase. We all pay into the pool; our medical costs are drawn from it (for various reasons). So, if you don't think you are ALREADY "paying for" Fluke's contraceptives or Rush's Viagra, then you don't understand how insurance works.
(4) And even beyond THAT, we "pay for" other peoples' health care decisions even when they don't get health insurance. When people don't get health insurance, they don't get preventative treatment. When they don't get preventative treatment, they end up with serious (read, expensive) illnesses and end up using the emergency room. And who ends up paying for that? YOU. ME. The hospital doesn't give free treatment -- that is passed on (indirectly) to us.
ReplyDeleteSo we ALREADY have this problem of people making bad health care decisions and everyone else paying for it. Obamacare didn't create that; it seeks to fix the effects of that. At least now (under Obamacare) everyone is in the insurance pool now; that lowers the cost for everyone (except the freeloaders).
So anytime you want to talk about the unfairness of having to pay for someone else's bad health decisions, just remember that you already were paying for it, prior to Obamacare. Now, at least, you'll be paying less.
(4) As for the issue of sex among college students, Limbaugh is an ignorant idiot, and I wouldn't side with him on this question (even setting aside the insult).
Because he is an woman-hating idiot, he apparently thinks that women use "the pill" whenever they have sex -- like a condom. In fact, as most people know (men and women), to be effective, "the pill" is taken daily whether you have sex or not. That's why they typically come in packs of 28 (one for each day of a woman's cycle). The number of pills you take has nothing to do with the number of times you have sex. Therefore, the COST has nothing to do with how many times you have sex.
That, of course, is ignoring the fact that 45% of women on "the pill" take it for reasons having nothing to do with pregnancy prevention (for example, it helps the development of ovarian cysts for those prone to cancer).
The same can be said with an IUD implant, another form of birth control suitable for some women (although, again, it has other uses unrelated to pregnancy prevention). Getting one implant is expensive, but it doesn't mean you are going to have sex all the time, OR EVEN AT ALL.
So even IF the fact that we are "paying" for entitles us to "ask questions" about other people's habits, people like Rush shouldn't be asking them. He inquires about "frequency of sex" because he's either stupid, or trying to get ratings. He's not even thinking about health care.
Ken
ReplyDelete> As a sidenote, you completely ignore that many health conditions have nothing to do with one's behavior. High cholesterol, for example, can be hereditary.
Actually that was implicit in my entire analysis.
And it is not ever purely hereditary. There is no spontaneous generation of cholesterol. So you can always control it by diet. And full disclosure, I take Lipitor. And I don’t demand that the government pay for it.
> You apparently think that paying for other people's health care BEGAN with Obamacare, when in fact, Obamacare is based on the recognizable fact that we already pay for other peoples' heath care.
Which only implies that we need to slip back the other way up the slope.
> (3) Setting aside Medicare and Medicaid, we "pay for" other peoples' heath care all the time. That's the whole concept behind an insurance POOL.
That is voluntary and subject to individuals freely contracting, although I wish it could be uncoupled from employment.
> (4) As for the issue of sex among college students, Limbaugh is an ignorant idiot, and I wouldn't side with him on this question (even setting aside the insult).
Which is why it is good that I didn’t side with him on these comments.
> Because he is an woman-hating idiot, he apparently thinks that women use "the pill" whenever they have sex -- like a condom.
That’s not the impression I got, only that like all birth control it allows you to have sex without the consequence of pregnancy and thus promotes sex. Which I have no problem with, by the way, but those are the facts. And I am not the only person to think that. That is why feminists as a talking point complains when insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Because they recognize that both facilitate sex.
> Therefore, the COST has nothing to do with how many times you have sex.
You did actually read what I wrote far enough to say that I thought Limbaugh was wrong to say all that, right? Because you are arguing something I didn’t dispute.
> That, of course, is ignoring the fact that 45% of women on "the pill" take it for reasons having nothing to do with pregnancy prevention (for example, it helps the development of ovarian cysts for those prone to cancer).
Where on earth are you getting that number? And as one wag put it, there is no such thing as an accurate sex survey.
Anyway, a moot point since Georgetown covered the pill for those purposes, according to Ms. Fluke.
> So even IF the fact that we are "paying" for entitles us to "ask questions" about other people's habits, people like Rush shouldn't be asking them
You don’t think we have a right to know where our money is going?
>> And full disclosure, I take Lipitor. And I don’t demand that the government pay for it.
ReplyDeleteHuh? The government won't be paying for it under Obamacare.
>> Which only implies that we need to slip back the other way up the slope.
Well, if you don't like the idea of paying for other peoples' health care, then the only solution is to simply axe the insurance industry, and we'll treat health care like any tangible good. I would be curious, however, on well you think that would work.
> ME: Because he is an woman-hating idiot, he apparently thinks that women use "the pill" whenever they have sex -- like a condom.
> YOU: That’s not the impression I got, only that like all birth control it allows you to have sex without the consequence of pregnancy and thus promotes sex.
He said (among other things) that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk". He also said Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlain scholarship ... exclusively for women". But if you missed that, you missed that.
> Because you are arguing something I didn’t dispute...
You are arguing that if you pay for something, you have the right to ask questions about it. You're saying that Obamacare "forces you" to have questions about "the amount and appropriateness of sex among college students, to make it a matter of valid government concern".
Except it's NOT a government concern, and we know this because the person who raised the issue of the "amount and appropriateness of colleges student sex" was not Obama, nor anyone in his administration, nor anyone in Congress, nor Fluke during her testimony. LIMBAUGH raised the issue.
>> Anyway, a moot point since Georgetown covered the pill for those purposes, according to Ms. Fluke.
No. Georgetown covered the pill for birth control purposes, AMONG OTHER PURPOSES (according to Ms. Fluke). You're not very up on this controversy.
>> You don’t think we have a right to know where our money is going?
I don't know what you mean by "our money". Individuals or their employers still buy health insurance under Obamacare.
But if you mean that it is "our money" in the sense that we "pay for" the health care of others, then I can TELL you where "our money" is going. It's going to treat yourself, myself and others for all kinds of medical conditions. What conditions? Start here with the A's, and then continue on. That's the answer to your question.
To the extent that you think you are entitled to more information because you are burdening a cost, the answer is no. I pay for wars, but that doesn't give me the right to know about troop movements. By the same token, the fact that you might indirectly pay for other people's health care (including sexually related issue) doesn't mean you can inquire into everyone's private lives. And if the government can manage to provide healthcare while still respecting privacy, so can Limbaugh and so can you.
Ken
ReplyDelete> Huh? The government won't be paying for it under Obamacare.
Fair point a momentary lapse. I don’t want the government to force you to pay for it either.
> Well, if you don't like the idea of paying for other peoples' health care, then the only solution is to simply axe the insurance industry, and we'll treat health care like any tangible good.
In which you confuse voluntary contractual arrangements with government coerced ones...
> He said (among other things) that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk". He also said Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlain scholarship ... exclusively for women". But if you missed that, you missed that.
Well, whether that was a scientific assessment or exaggeration in an attempt at achieving comic effect, only Rush probably knows.
> You are arguing that if you pay for something, you have the right to ask questions about it.
You don’t believe that to be the case? Are you in the habit of giving strangers a blank check.
Oh right, you were the guy who claimed that when disaster money was given to a victim of hurricane Katrina, and she pissed it away because she is a compulsive spender and that wasn’t her fault, and thus she should get even more of our money…
> You're saying that Obamacare "forces you" to have questions about "the amount and appropriateness of sex among college students, to make it a matter of valid government concern".
Forces me? No, but it does make it a legitimate question. You want to establish a zone of privacy about her sex life, but you also want everyone else to subsidize it. The two sentiments are incompatible. It can either be a matter of personal choice and personal cost, or a matter of public debate.
> Except it's NOT a government concern, and we know this because the person who raised the issue of the "amount and appropriateness of colleges student sex" was not Obama, nor anyone in his administration, nor anyone in Congress, nor Fluke during her testimony. LIMBAUGH raised the issue.
Where the public is forced to spend their money against their will—indeed often directly against the dictates of their conscience—is not a matter of public concern? And the fact that a private citizen raised the issue is of no matter. He was talking about the appropriateness of a public policy, a government policy.
> No. Georgetown covered the pill for birth control purposes, AMONG OTHER PURPOSES (according to Ms. Fluke). You're not very up on this controversy.
I go by what she said. She said that if you establish a separate need you can have it. But you cannot have coverage for it purely for birth control purposes. She indeed complained of a married woman having to give up the pill because she can’t afford it.
> To the extent that you think you are entitled to more information because you are burdening a cost, the answer is no.
Lol, so we just throw money at the problem of health and hope there is no waste, fraud or abuse?
> I pay for wars, but that doesn't give me the right to know about troop movements.
The reason for secrecy in the defense budget is that if you get to know about troop movements, the enemy will know, too and the effectiveness of those movements are reduced to nil, a logic that has no effect upon birth control, unless you feel that the egg can more successfully hide from the sperm if we have secrecy... (Grin) In short, that is a terrible metaphor.
> By the same token, the fact that you might indirectly pay for other people's health care (including sexually related issue) doesn't mean you can inquire into everyone's private lives.
ReplyDeleteRight. Free money! No strings attached! No wonder our debt is exploding.
> And if the government can manage to provide healthcare while still respecting privacy, so can Limbaugh and so can you.
Except the government doesn’t. For instance any person on Medicare, social security, etc. has a standing waiver to their right to medical privacy, and it is a regular occurrence for health care providers to receive requests from Medicare, Medicaid, and so on to provide full copies of a person’s medical records so that they can ensure that that medicine you are receiving is appropriate. Those medical records contain a great deal of information beyond the immediate condition. If a guy has a heart condition, but also has AIDS, the government learns about it by those means. You cannot ask for someone else’s money and not expect scrutiny.
> ME: Well, if you don't like the idea of paying for other peoples' health care, then the only solution is to simply axe the insurance industry, and we'll treat health care like any tangible good.
ReplyDelete> YOU: In which you confuse voluntary contractual arrangements with government coerced ones...
You're dodging. Whether you voluntarily buy health insurance or are forced to buy it, it doesn't matter. You still pay for someone else's health care, because that's what pooled insurance IS. If you don't want to pay for someone else's health care, then you have to come up with an alternative to insurance (and it makes little difference if it is "coerced" or not).
> Well, whether that was a scientific assessment or exaggeration in an attempt at achieving comic effect, only Rush probably knows.
Really? Take a guess. Do you think Rush actually KNOWS how much sex Miss Fluke has? Of course he was making an attempt at humor when he said Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk". And by the way, he hasn't apologized for his comments like that -- he only apologized for the "two words".
>> You don’t believe that to be the case? Are you in the habit of giving strangers a blank check....
>> You want to establish a zone of privacy about her sex life, but you also want everyone else to subsidize it. The two sentiments are incompatible.
To both these comments....
That's crazy. I'm not handing over a blank check to anybody. I'm participating in pooled insurance. I'm taking part, along with millions of others, in the coverage of our collective health care costs. And the insurance companies administrate it and make sure there is no fraud.
But other insured people don't get to ask me about my sex habits simply because we have pooled coverage; I don't get to ask them either. That's the way it is now, and always has been. Why is this concept so difficult for you? Trying to argue that Obamacare changes privacy rights because you indirectly "pay for" other people's health care is stupid -- you ALWAYS indirectly paid for other people's health care.
>> Where the public is forced to spend their money against their will—indeed often directly against the dictates of their conscience—is not a matter of public concern?
The public can be concerned about whatever the public chooses to be concerned about. Rush Limbaugh, Kim Kardashian, the weather, whatever. But you were talking about government concern, and how Obama "forces" the public to talk about the amount and appropriateness of sex (it doesn't) and how Obama "forces" us to make it a government concern. And that's ridiculous.
>> so we just throw money at the problem of health and hope there is no waste, fraud or abuse?
You're conflating health, with health care costs. We're dealing with the problem of health care costs, which are rising because of an inefficient health care system. That's a related, but separate issue, from actual health. And it's got almost nothing to do with morality.
Or are you saying that people who have sex a lot, or eat too much, or play sports too much, etc are engaging in waste, fraud or abuse?
>> The reason for secrecy in the defense budget is that if you get to know about troop movements, the enemy will know...
That's avoiding the issue. Is there a RIGHT to know troop movements? I'm not asking if the government need for secrecy outweighs that right -- we can all agree that it does. I'm asking much more simply -- do you think you have a right to know troop movements?
>> ME: By the same token, the fact that you might indirectly pay for other people's health care (including sexually related issue) doesn't mean you can inquire into everyone's private lives.
ReplyDeleteYOU: Right. Free money! No strings attached! No wonder our debt is exploding.
What the hell are you talking about?
Health care transactions currently (and under Obamacare) are between you, the insurance company, and the health care provider (doctor, hospital, pharmaceutical company, etc.). Just who in the triad is getting "free money" with no strings attached? And what the hell does it have to do with the national debt?
>>> ...it is a regular occurrence for health care providers to receive requests from Medicare, Medicaid, and so on to provide full copies of a person’s medical records... You cannot ask for someone else’s money and not expect scrutiny.
...which is an argument against socialized, government-run health care ("Medicare for all"). But under Obamacare, the government isn't running health care. The insurance companies still are. That hasn't changed. Under Obamacare, the government is merely providing health care in the sense that it is compelling people -- ALL people -- to use private insurance companies. But privacy issues -- specifically, your medical privacy -- won't change or expand to a greater group of people. I think you know that.
Ken
ReplyDelete> You're dodging. Whether you voluntarily buy health insurance or are forced to buy it, it doesn't matter
Its not a dodge. It’s the most important thing. Right now, if you don’t want to pay for abortion, for instance, you can shop around. If you do, you also have that freedom. But if the government mandates abortion coverage, you lose that choice. It is the difference between contracting freely and being forced.
And the fact you are forced to pay for it then changes the subject to what particular treatments should be forced and consequently what human behaviors should we subsidize. And that invites scrutiny, which is the opposite of the privacy you and other liberals claim to value.
> Really? Take a guess.
My default is not to assume anyone is stupid or even uninformed, my guess is comedic exaggeration.
> That's crazy. I'm not handing over a blank check to anybody.
When you say we can’t inquire about how the money is being used and how appropriate that use is, that is exactly what you are advocating.
> But other insured people don't get to ask me about my sex habits simply because we have pooled coverage; I don't get to ask them either.
They don’t get to because it is a matter of freely chosen contract and you would never agree to that term. What happens when the contract is no longer free?
> But you were talking about government concern,
And where our money goes, under government coercion, is a valid issue of public concern. It will be the subject of laws and regulations. We will vote on people not just based on how they might use the bully pulpit, but based on what laws and regulations they will put forward on this subject.
Right now there is a crusade by feminists to insist that every insurance company that provides Viagra must also provide birth control coverage. And as long as it is based on persuasion (including coercion by boycott) I am cool with that. But when the power of government puts a thumb on the scales I have a problem.
Liberals forget that sooner or later they will lose power. And this totalitarian system they gladly vote for can be turned against them.
They also forget the inherent danger of making the government that powerful. That Ford quote is a useful reminder. That power to “take everything away” will lie in the hands of every petty bureaucrat. And there will be no escape.
> We're dealing with the problem of health care costs, which are rising because of an inefficient health care system.
ReplyDeleteYes, and nothing will increase efficiency like government bureaucracy. Because when I think “efficiency” I think of the DMV.
> Or are you saying that people who have sex a lot, or eat too much, or play sports too much, etc are engaging in waste, fraud or abuse?
See you are confusing the answer to the question, with whether there is a valid question. For instance, let’s take the less controversial example of “playing sports too much.” Well, if it is just track, I think most people would agree that on balance that is good for health care costs. I believe such athletes get a discount.
But what if the sport is, say, cliff diving? And the guy doesn’t want to pay more for the risk of misadventure? Or horse riding. Christopher Reeve broke his neck riding a horse, should we subsidize the risks of that sport. I would personally say give the guy a break (er, poor choice of words) and cover his care, but I wouldn’t deny that it is a valid question. This is exactly why people like Paul Krugman calls for “death panels,” and in exactly those words.
Because the truth is we can’t afford the full cornucopia of things people would want their insurance to cover. So we will soon find ourselves debating the propriety of every kind of coverage under every circumstance. Its like my example of the intentional nutshot video. It isn’t funny when you have to pay for the damage done to that person’s body.
I mean think back to tort 101. Surely you have been exposed to law and economic thinking on the subject. A man is injured, and he wants another person to pay. Tort law is one way we think about allocating when and if a second person is required to pay for another person’s injuries. So first we have to ask if the other person is somehow responsible for them. Then you have to ask whether the party injured is responsible, too, whether you live in a contributory or comparative negligence state. We get intuitively that if you are injured because of your own stupid fault, that at the very least you should bear some of the costs of your conduct yourself. Whenever a second person is required to pay, the worthiness of the victim is a natural concern.
> That's avoiding the issue. Is there a RIGHT to know troop movements?
There is a right in the people to know about everything the government does, and every dollar spent and should only be breached under the strongest justification.
> Health care transactions currently (and under Obamacare) are between you, the insurance company, and the health care provider (doctor, hospital, pharmaceutical company, etc.).
Um, except no, it is not that way under obamacare.
> But under Obamacare, the government isn't running health care. The insurance companies still are. That hasn't changed.
What has changed is that your relation with the insurance company is based on coercion and not common sense. And as I said before, that makes all the difference in the world.
>> But if the government mandates abortion coverage, you lose that choice. It is the difference between contracting freely and being forced.
ReplyDeleteThe government mandates health insurers cover contraception. It also mandates that you have health insurance coverage. But you still have a choice of insurers. It's a little convoluted to say that you have no choice.
I mean, if you're really seriously concerned about paying indirectly for someone else's contraception coverage, then you would investigate the businesses of every product you use. As in "Want an iPad? Don't buy it because Apple provides contraception coverage to its female employees."
>> They don’t get to because it is a matter of freely chosen contract and you would never agree to that term. What happens when the contract is no longer free?
You think under Obamacare that insurance companies are going to pass on the private medical information of their insureds to everyone participating in the same plan? Just because you are forced to buy health insurance doesn't mean insurance companies are going to change their privacy policies when more people are "forced" to join the plan.
>> But when the power of government puts a thumb on the scales I have a problem.
But the government is putting its thumb all the scales only to the extent that comprehensive health care coverage is provided to everyone. Which isn't radical since most insurance companies do that anyway, because that is what most people want.
>> They also forget the inherent danger of making the government that powerful. That Ford quote is a useful reminder.
No, it's a scare quote that conservatives love to roll out. It was rolled out in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid, too. Guess what? Very popular government programs.
>> Yes, and nothing will increase efficiency like government bureaucracy.
What government bureaucracy? Again, you seem to think that the government, not the insurance companies, will be handling medical claims. You seem to forget that so-called "Obamacare" was a Republican idea that relies on the private sector to manage health care.
>> Because the truth is we can’t afford the full cornucopia of things people would want their insurance to cover.
We already do afford the full cornucopia. I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the concepts of insurance and risk pools and shared risk. Everyone pays in, everyone takes out. Managed by private insurance companies. The only change brought on by Obamacare is that everyone is REQUIRED to pay in -- i.e., no freeloaders.
>> I think most people would agree that on balance that is good for health care costs. I believe such athletes get a discount.
Why? They have higher health care costs (injuries, etc) on average.
And that's the thing you don't understand. EVERYONE engages in behavior that requires health care, and hence, health care coverage. Particularly the most expensive kind, which tends to come late in life.
>> Tort law is one way we think about allocating when and if a second person is required to pay for another person’s injuries.
ReplyDeleteYeah, your "man is injured and wants a second person to pay" shows you DEFINITELY don't get the concept of insurance and shared risk. Because, in a sense, everyone pays for everyone else's medical costs. That's why your tort analogy is inapt. The women of Georgetown (among millions of others) pay for your Lipitor and skiing accident (or whatever). You (among millions of others) pay for their birth control and tumor removal (or whatever). That's how private insurance works NOW.
>> What has changed is that your relation with the insurance company is based on coercion and not common sense.
Can't it be both?
And what's so bad about that? Most laws are based on common sense. Do you feel oppressed that you are "forced" to drive 25 mph in a school zone by law, when common sense tells you to do that anyway?
And as a practical day-to-day matter, what difference does it make whether you got health insurance because you see the wisdom of it, or whether the government "forced" you to?
Ken
ReplyDelete> The government mandates health insurers cover contraception. It also mandates that you have health insurance coverage. But you still have a choice of insurers. It's a little convoluted to say that you have no choice.
No what is convoluted is saying that the government says that you must buy something but you still have a choice in it.
You have a choice on everything not mandated. That’s kind of implied in the word “mandate.”
> I mean, if you're really seriously concerned about paying indirectly for someone else's contraception coverage, then you would investigate the businesses of every product you use. As in "Want an iPad? Don't buy it because Apple provides contraception coverage to its female employees."
I leave it to those who would want to boycott birth control coverage to decide how far they want to take that.
> You think under Obamacare that insurance companies are going to pass on the private medical information of their insureds to everyone participating in the same plan?
Did I say that?
> But the government is putting its thumb all the scales only to the extent that comprehensive health care coverage is provided to everyone.
Which is a problem.
> No, it's a scare quote that conservatives love to roll out.
It isn’t true? It doesn’t put a ton of power into the hands of the government?
> What government bureaucracy?
Try 2,000+ pages of it in the bill alone, that apparently no one read before passing, for starters. Then a legion of regulations to interpret those laws. Then waivers for companies, where there is reasonable suspicion that they are given out to companies friendly with this administration. Even if not true, you can certainly see the danger inherent in allowing certain companies to just ignore the law…
> We already do afford the full cornucopia.
Not the full amount that would be required over time.
> I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the concepts of insurance and risk pools and shared risk
I think you don’t, since you think that birth control is part of that.
> And that's the thing you don't understand. EVERYONE engages in behavior that requires health care, and hence, health care coverage.
Yes, but there is a world of difference between needing your appendix out because for some reason it got ready to burst v. funding a person would drove a pole through his head imitating the guys on Jackass.
> Yeah, your "man is injured and wants a second person to pay" shows you DEFINITELY don't get the concept of insurance and shared risk. Because, in a sense, everyone pays for everyone else's medical costs.
Volunarily. You keep forgetting that part.
> Can't it be both?
Both freely chosen and coerced? Um, no.
> Do you feel oppressed that you are "forced" to drive 25 mph in a school zone by law, when common sense tells you to do that anyway?
A terrible analogy, as usual.
> And as a practical day-to-day matter, what difference does it make whether you got health insurance because you see the wisdom of it, or whether the government "forced" you to?’
If you are being forced to support things you otherwise would not support, all the difference in the world.
>> If you are being forced to support things you otherwise would not support, all the difference in the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Jon Stewart says, "Welcome to the club!" You pay for things you don't support all the time. So do I (certain wars, etc). If you are an employer, you pay your employees knowing full well that they might spend that money on something you find objectionable or immoral. You aren't talking about your sacred "right to boycott"; you're talking about (as right wingers want to do) controlling other peoples' behavior.
Yes, I GET the argument that the individual mandate limits one's freedom. But your point here is that the individual mandate also compels one to scrutinize the medical decisions and sex lives of other people, and that's simply not true.
On a totally unrelated note, you might enjoy this article about your favorite case, Lawrence v. Texas. Bottom line: It was a set-up; the defendants weren't even planning to have sex.
> And as Jon Stewart says, "Welcome to the club!" You pay for things you don't support all the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first time in American history that I have been forced to contract with a private entity against my will.
> If you are an employer, you pay your employees knowing full well that they might spend that money on something you find objectionable or immoral.
Actually, they can fire you for what you do with the money in most states, but don’t because 1) they are not interested in it and 2) they know the employees would never stand for it. So the “force” is private contracting and give and take.
> You aren't talking about your sacred "right to boycott"; you're talking about (as right wingers want to do) controlling other peoples' behavior.
Lol, you say this as liberals are organizing a boycott against Rush Limbaugh for calling her a slut, i.e. controlling even his speech. And indeed the paradigm of a “good boycott” the Montgomery Bus Boycott was about controlling the behavior of the bus company. About half the time the right to boycott is precisely about the right to use economic pressure to control the conduct of others.
> But your point here is that the individual mandate also compels one to scrutinize the medical decisions and sex lives of other people, and that's simply not true.
Right. Free money with no strings attached, no oversight. Make that your platform. Real popular with a $14 T deficit.
And thanks for your tip, but I actually read a radically different story. The accusation was that the police were called in on false charges, one guy opened the door clearly knowing they were coming and they come in and the two guys are going at it… and refused to stop. That’s right the cops busted it and this didn’t result in um, interruptus. So after demanding that they stop several times so they could straighten out the call to no end, they arrested them. So it was believed based on that, that it was a set up from the beginning.
Was never interested in that, though, because it had nothing to do with the merits of the issue.
>> This is the first time in American history that I have been forced to contract with a private entity against my will.
ReplyDeleteExcept your "will" is to have health insurance, so let's not pretend this is anything but a symbolic issue with you.
And I guess you don't drive? Because your state, like most states, require auto insurance. (And spare me the garbage about how you always have an option not to drive, and therefore you aren't forced to contract for auto insurance. I suppose you have the option to leave America too, and thus avoid the health care individual mandate).
>> About half the time the right to boycott is precisely about the right to use economic pressure to control the conduct of others.
To change the conduct of others. Not control. And boycotts are populist, democratic movements. That's a far cry from, say, one employer seeking to impose his will on dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of employees.
>> Right. Free money with no strings attached, no oversight. Make that your platform. Real popular with a $14 T deficit.
This is what people are laughing at: Rush's (and apparently your) notion that the government is "paying" someone to have sex. It's totally bizarre. What has ANY of this have to do with the deficit?
For example, how is Fluke (or anybody) getting "free money" under Obamacare -- either the individual mandate OR contraception coverage?
And what does "no oversight" mean? Oversee what? The insurance companies oversee the claims (to weed out fraudulent ones); they have a financial incentive to do that. Is that a problem for you? Would you prefer the government do it?
Truly a facepalm statement you keep making. Nobody's going to buy it because it doesn't even make sense.