Saturday, February 11, 2012

Did Obama really answer objections on his birth control mandate?

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw gets down to the core of Obama's so-called "compromise" on religious freedom in response to the rebellion he has on his hands over trying to force Catholic agencies to provide contraceptives in their health care programs:
Consider these two policies: 
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control. 
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control. 
I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it. 
Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.
HT: Carpe Diem

20 comments:

KyCobb said...

Maybe you should ask the Catholic Health Association, who seemed to be happy with it. The thing is that its perfectly reasonable to require insurance companies to cover contraception for free. Contraception saves the insurance companies money because its less expensive than either abortions or pregnancy. Thus the Catholic institutions are not paying for contraception.

Lee said...

> The thing is that its perfectly reasonable to require insurance companies to cover contraception for free.

It is perfectly reasonable, if it is already perfectly reasonable for the government to order a free people to buy and sell commodities based on the government's mandates, dictates, and whims.

Somebody who values freedom might have a different take.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't expect tax money to help them. They can deny the birth control coverage if they are willing to refuse government subsidies at their hospitals.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Its our government, Lee. We elect it to pass laws and enact appropriate regulations. Being free doesn't mean living in a state of anarchy. The people want assurance that they can get insurance if they need it without regard for preexisting conditions. In order to achieve that within the context of private health insurance, the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea of an individual mandate, it was endorsed by House GOP leadership such as Newt Gingrich, and it was enacted by GOP Governor Mitt Romney. It didn't become a socialist plot to enslave us until the Democrats adopted this Republican plan. If you have an idea about how people with preexisting conditions can get insurance without a mechanism such as an individual mandate, I'd like to hear it.

Lee said...

> Its our government, Lee. We elect it to pass laws and enact appropriate regulations.

So you see government as a production mill? We give them money, they make laws? Good ones, bad ones, it doesn't matter as long as production is up?

> Being free doesn't mean living in a state of anarchy.

So you are saying the Catholic hospitals must pay for contraception or else we live in a state of anarchy?

> the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea of an individual mandate

So they screwed up. I bet there aren't many other things about which you agree with Heritage.

> it was endorsed by House GOP leadership such as Newt Gingrich

Can Newt count on your vote this fall?

> and it was enacted by GOP Governor Mitt Romney

Or Mitt?

You have a flair for the colorful distraction.

> It didn't become a socialist plot to enslave us until the Democrats adopted this Republican plan.

As a conservative, I'm quite used to being sold down the river by Republicans. And of course, they are all Conservatives! (Salute when you say that.)

> If you have an idea about how people with preexisting conditions can get insurance without a mechanism such as an individual mandate, I'd like to hear it.

Yeah, I do. Get a job and pay for it.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So you see government as a production mill? We give them money, they make laws? Good ones, bad ones, it doesn't matter as long as production is up?"

Nice strawman. If the people don't like the laws that are passed, they can vote out the people who passed them. That's what elections are for, like the one this coming November.

"So you are saying the Catholic hospitals must pay for contraception or else we live in a state of anarchy?"

Another strawman. I made the point pretty clearly that Catholic hospitals don't have to pay for contraception because the Administration is ordering the insurance companies to provide it for free, since providing contraceptives saves the insurance companies money.

"Yeah, I do. Get a job and pay for it."

Apparently you don't understand about preexisting conditions, Lee. If you have one, you presently can't get insurance to cover it. The affordable care act requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, but they would go bankrupt if people are allowed to wait until after they are sick to get coverage. Hence the individual mandate.

Art said...

I think I heard Lee shout out at one of the early Republican debates.

"Let them die!"

Remember?

Lee said...

> Nice strawman.

You started it. Nobody was arguing for anarchy.

> If the people don't like the laws that are passed, they can vote out the people who passed them. That's what elections are for, like the one this coming November.

Irrelevant to the issue of whether the Executive Branch telling the Catholic hospitals they must supply contraception is a increase or a decrease (my position) in personal freedom.

> Another strawman. I made the point pretty clearly that Catholic hospitals don't have to pay for contraception because the Administration is ordering the insurance companies to provide it for free, since providing contraceptives saves the insurance companies money.

Then why does the government have to make them do it?

> The affordable care act requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, but they would go bankrupt if people are allowed to wait until after they are sick to get coverage.

Is there anything that the government cannot do? Does the commerce clause mean that Congress can do anything it wants? Does the word "regulation", as in "the power to regulated interstate commerce," mean complete and total power over everyone's economic choices?

If so, why have a Constitution at all?

You are fine, on other topics, with the idea that government is limited. But not on this one.

Lee said...

Art, is that more of that famous liberal tolerance of opposing views that I'm hearing from you?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Is there anything that the government cannot do? Does the commerce clause mean that Congress can do anything it wants?"

The Commerce Clause power is very extensive, but the Court has ruled that there are local matters which are beyond its reach. Not having health insurance certainly has a significant impact on commerce, since the expense of providing health care to people who can't pay ends up being paid by other people. The fine for not buying coverage is effectively the same as if Congress had raised everyone's tax rate then provided a deduction for purchasing coverage. You wouldn't say that there is a "mandate" to get a house mortgage because people can deduct their mortgage interest payments.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Then why does the government have to make them do it?"

The health insurance industry isn't very competative so there isn't a lot of cost competition.

Lee said...

> The Commerce Clause power is very extensive, but the Court has ruled that there are local matters which are beyond its reach.

Well, here's a local matter: I get to choose my health care options, and I get to not fund someone else's free contraception if I don't want to. Now, you tell me what part of the Constitution gives government the right to interfere with either one of them.

And if you tell me it's the interstate commerce clause, I will respond that, in effect, your interpretation means there are virtually no limits on federal power. Practically everything we do can be construed as having an effect on interstate commerce.

> The fine for not buying coverage is effectively the same as if Congress had raised everyone's tax rate then provided a deduction for purchasing coverage.

The homosexual lifestyle is risky, and therefore it affects interstate commerce too. Why don't we regulate that?

Lee said...

>> "Then why does the government have to make them do it?"

> The health insurance industry isn't very competative so there isn't a lot of cost competition.

But you just said they'd gladly give contraceptive products away for free? How much more competitive can you get than free?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"And if you tell me it's the interstate commerce clause, I will respond that, in effect, your interpretation means there are virtually no limits on federal power. Practically everything we do can be construed as having an effect on interstate commerce."

As I said, the Court has identified some local matters which can not be regulated by Congress via the Commerce Clause. But anything which involves producing, buying or selling goods or services is Commerce, so unless some other constitutional right bars Congressional action, Congress can regulate it. Your remedy is to convince enough other people that the law should be repealed, and elect politicians who will repeal it. You will have your opportunity to do so in November.

" The homosexual lifestyle is risky, and therefore it affects interstate commerce too. Why don't we regulate that?"

As the Supreme Court has stated, our private sexual activity with consenting adults is protected by the right to privacy. So that is an example of a limit on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

"But you just said they'd gladly give contraceptive products away for free? How much more competitive can you get than free?"

No, I said that contraceptives save insurance companies money. If the insurance company can make you pay for contraceptives as well, that's a win-win for them. They will charge you for anything they can get away with since most people don't have a choice in health insurance.

Lee said...

> But anything which involves producing, buying or selling goods or services is Commerce, so unless some other constitutional right bars Congressional action, Congress can regulate it.

An interesting summation, given that the penalty for not enrolling in a health insurance plan under Obama care is based on NOT buying a service. So they can regulate you when you purchase, and they can regulate you when you *don't* purchase. I think that covers all the possibilities, don't you?

> Your remedy is to convince enough other people that the law should be repealed, and elect politicians who will repeal it.

Or the Supreme Court decides that it's a blatant Congressional overreach. But I'm not holding my breath.

> As the Supreme Court has stated, our private sexual activity with consenting adults is protected by the right to privacy. So that is an example of a limit on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

But it would be okay if, say, the federal government regulates my intake of bacon, being that I'm an over-the-hill, overweight American. Effects on the interstate commerce and all that -- I'm sure that bacon crossed a state line somewhere. Correct?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"But it would be okay if, say, the federal government regulates my intake of bacon, being that I'm an over-the-hill, overweight American. Effects on the interstate commerce and all that -- I'm sure that bacon crossed a state line somewhere. Correct?"

Well, the federal government can regulate your intake of marijuana, so I'd have to say yes.

Lee said...

Explain why the "constitutional right to privacy" protects from scrutiny who someone has sex with, but doesn't from scrutiny what someone eats.

It sounds arbitrary to me.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Explain why the "constitutional right to privacy" protects from scrutiny who someone has sex with, but doesn't from scrutiny what someone eats.

It sounds arbitrary to me."

I dare you to tell your wife that if it came down to it, you aren't sure if you'd choose between her or bacon.

Lee said...

> I dare you to tell your wife that if it came down to it, you aren't sure if you'd choose between her or bacon.

It must sound arbitrary to you too, or else you would have provided something better than a flip answer.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I think I fairly illustrated my point. If I need to spell it out for you, who you choose to have your most intimate relationships with is more important to most people than what they eat. Now last year I attended a presentation in which Gatewood made a good argument that what he chooses to ingest in the privacy of his own home is none of the government's business, and if the courts eventually expand the right to privacy to that extent, I wouldn't have a problem with that.