Apparently, the Obama administration just can’t get their fill of healthcare controversy:
The Obama administration is examining whether the new health care law can be used to require insurance plans to offer contraceptives and other family planning services to women free of charge.
Such a requirement could remove cost as a barrier to birth control, a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health. But it is likely to reignite debate over the federal role in health care, especially reproductive health, at a time when Republicans in Congress have vowed to repeal the law or dismantle it piece by piece. It is also raising objections from the Roman Catholic Church and is expected to generate a robust debate about privacy.
The law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. The administration has asked a panel of outside experts to help identify the specific preventive services that must be covered for women.
Administration officials said they expected the list to include contraception and family planning because a large body of scientific evidence showed the effectiveness of those services. But the officials said they preferred to have the panel of independent experts make the initial recommendations so the public would see them as based on science, not politics.
Ah, the appeal to science. Well, if our scientific overlords say that contraception should be paid by taxpayers, then who are we to object?
(Via: The Volokh Conspiracy)
February 4th, 2011 | 1:41 pm
What does “and family planning” mean?
February 4th, 2011 | 5:07 pm
Isn’t it lucky for Obama that it’s simply not possible for anyone left of center to ever be guilty of “pushing their beliefs on others” (ha ha)
February 4th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
“preventative” health services…
For – unfortunately not – the last time:
pregnancy (nascent human life) is not a disease!
February 4th, 2011 | 5:21 pm
[...] Carter notes that the Obama Administration is considering whether to require health insurers to pay for [...]
February 6th, 2011 | 12:59 am
What large body of scientific evidence? STD epidemic, porn epidemic, divorce epidemic, male abandoment of women, sex trafficking? Those large bodies?
February 7th, 2011 | 10:35 am
[...] and condom vouchers? Apparently the left things those things are really really [...]
February 7th, 2011 | 10:45 am
[...] and condom vouchers? Apparently the left things those things are really really [...]
February 7th, 2011 | 11:24 am
This raises an interesting question about insurance….to what degree do people who pay for insurance are approving of the things insurance pays for?
To use a simple example, suppose I hate gay nightclubs. I call up my auto insurance company and tell them that I will never go to a gay nightclub and would like a policy that does not cover me for any accident that I might cause pulling in or out of such a club. Since I’m opting for less coverage than I current have, I’ll be expecting some type of discount.
No doubt the response is going to be no you’re covered and for both legal and economic reasons we can’t and won’t craft a specialized policy for you that doesn’t cover you when driving by gay nightclubs….if you don’t want to go to such clubs then simply don’t. My response, being that I’ve been trained to be annoying like Joe, is that I’m being forced to subsidize those who do go to gay night clubs.
Am I wrong? I mean is it not a fact that auto insurance covers people who drive to gay night clubs and if they get into accidents they will pay out? Since I never go there I will never benefit from that tiny slice of ‘coverage’ so my money must be going to subsidize those who hang out at gay night clubs?
But this game works in all directions. It can be claimed just as easily that ‘my money’ is subsidizing those who are attending Tea Party rallies, Sarah Palin speeches, or Fundamentalist Churches….
However this is where a bit of sanity is needed. When you buy an insurance policy, it isn’t ‘your money’, it’s ‘your insurance policy’. That you may be covered for doing things you aren’t going to do (driving to the club) and things you are (Tea Party rally?). Likewise whatever is done with the money that used to be yours ceases to be your business.
If you don’t adopt this POV, not only does the health plan but all of economic life becomes impossibly incoherent. Want to go to McDonalds with the kids? How do you know those min. wage workers aren’t taking their pay and having abortions? Donating to churches you consider immoral? Doing bad things you wouldn’t want done with your money?
February 8th, 2011 | 3:04 pm
Boonton,
Your argument is fair enough in a world where the insurance market is relatively free. Anyone should be free to elect which risk-pool they choose to associate themselves with through their choice of an insurance policy. I remember from my childhood songbooks at church that advertised a policy tailored to tee-totalers. Likewise, if you could find enough people who avoided Sarah Palin rallies and wanted to assume a shared risk-burden, then, yes, I don’t think anyone here would have any problem with a company establishing a policy suited to you and your friends. The reality is that your purchase of a policy is subsidizing the risk assumed by all others with that same policy. So far, so good.
The problem arises when the market choice is removed and you are told “You may choose any insurance policy you want, but it must without exception cover the risk of attending Palin rallies.” Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? But that is what the Obama administration is proposing. And that is what many of us are objecting to.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact