In this case, from the always-interesting economics blogger Megan McArdle :
The original compromise, segregating the funds so that the federal subsidy wouldn’t pay for the abortion part, was a transparently ineffective gimmick.How transparently ineffective? If it really was just her money buying the coverage, the rider/segregated funds distinction wouldn’t matter. Obviously, the reason it does matter is that funds from some other party—possibly a pro-life party—would be helping to pay for the abortions, either through the fungibility of tax transfers, or premium pooling.
I don’t see how anyone ever thought this was going to fly; there are (as we just saw) more pro-life members of the House than pro-choice, and they’re not actually total idiots.
While I have you, can I ask you something? I’ll be quick.
Twenty-five thousand people subscribe to First Things. Why can’t that be fifty thousand? Three million people read First Things online like you are right now. Why can’t that be four million?
Let’s stop saying “can’t.” Because it can. And your year-end gift of just $50, $100, or even $250 or more will make it possible.
How much would you give to introduce just one new person to First Things? What about ten people, or even a hundred? That’s the power of your charitable support.
Make your year-end gift now using this secure link or the button below.
