Obama and the “free” contraception
It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that President Obama has decided to extend the exemption for abortion coverage of employees to not just the Catholic Church, but church-affiliated companies. He probably didn’t expect the extent of the protest, and of course he doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his re-election.
It’s really not an exemption, either: just an “accommodation.” It’s a small concession that will probably put out the fire that was beginning to start. I wonder whether his allies in the Catholic Church have considered what a second-term Obama, who no longer will have to worry about re-election, would do.
Here’s the way the accommodation would work:
…[O]n Friday, the White House rolled out a new rule, where insurance companies, rather than faith-based agencies, will offer birth-control coverage directly to these employees and foot the bill.
“If a charity, hospital or another organization has an objection to the policy going forward, insurance companies will be required to reach out to directly offer contraceptive care free of charge,” one administration official explained.
This should immediately raise a red flag in any discerning reader: what can they possibly mean when they say “free of charge,” and does anyone believe such a thing possible? I’ll tackle the second question first: yes, some people either think this will be provided out of thin air—or from those supposedly exorbitant insurance company profits or other money that comes solely from someone else.
For the answer to that first question: what the Obama administration means is that the cost will be perceived by the consumer as “free of charge,” and that may be all that matters. At least, they hope that it will be perceived that way.
In fact, that perception is one of the points the entire enterprise of providing “free” contraception or “free” health care counts on. Have you ever noticed that one of the features of government-regulated health insurance is usually the number of services that receive mandatory coverage, some without even requirng co-pays? And simple catastrophic coverage—which many people want, and which certainly would drive health insurance costs down—is not allowed (by the way, an option for more minimal coverage options is one of the things Romney fought for in Massachusetts, and lost to the Massachusetts legislature. But I digress.)
It’s no accident that there is so much mandatory coverage in government-controlled health insurance, because one of the goals is to get people to obtain more preventative health care. Now, I’m not against prevention; “an ounce of prevention” and all that. The question is how to go about encouraging people to get it, and who will be paying for it when they do—with liberals, conservatives, and libertarians falling on their expected sides of the spectrum with their answers (too big an issue to get into in this post, but feel free to talk amongst yourselves in the comments section).
There isn’t much question, however, what Obamacare’s proponents think: their calculation is that, the more a service is perceived as being “free” (or at the very least, pre-paid), the more likely it is to be used. And that this will encourage people to get more preventative care, and to use things like contraception.
It’s a lot like the food on a cruise ship: hey, the meals are already paid for, so why not just chow down? The only difference is that people pay their own cruise fares, and of course one doesn’t usually come off a cruise ship healthier than at the start.
But none of it is really free; it’s factored into the price of the service, whoever foots the bill. So mandatory contraceptives are hardly free, but if they are perceived as such, and getting them incurs no extra charge to the consumer’s pocketbook that he/she can see, the argument is that contraceptives would be more likely to be purchased and used, and therefore more unwanted pregnancies would be prevented.
I’ve already dealt with how much a person would have to pay if purchasing contraceptives out-of-pocket; it actually isn’t all that much, and most working people (the ones we’re talking about here, since we’re discussing employer-offered health insurance) could well afford the cheapest forms of contraception. I also wonder about the basic premise behind the mandatory coverage: how many people actually hold back from using contraception solely because of the expense, and would use it if it were paid for (“free”)? I’ve long been under the impression that the usual reasons for skipping contraception are far more emotional and complex than that. A quick Google search doesn’t really provide the answer, either (although, for example, this list of reasons why teens forego contraceptives doesn’t even include cost as a factor).
As for the question of who would actually be paying for these contraceptives now, if not the Catholic institutions:
It’s difficult to see how insurance companies would avoid using premiums to cover the costs of contraceptives. They could, perhaps, use premiums from non-religious employers. Those businesses wouldn’t likely object on faith-based grounds, but they probably wouldn’t be keen on footing the bill for people who aren’t on their payrolls.
Well, perhaps they wouldn’t be keen on it. But how many people would understand that that’s what’s happening? Most people who might realize that this wouldn’t actually be “free” might not be able to figure out who was really bearing the cost, and the administration would be counting on that.
[NOTE: By the way, that WaPo article I’ve been linking to that explores the catch in the administration’s accommodation is by Ezra Klein. Since I’ve criticized him in the past, I’ll give him his due here; I’m surprised he wrote an article so relatively critical of Obama, but he did.]
The new rule will probably be embraced by the Bart Stupaks of this world. The Catholic left will fall in line. The secular left will still be wondering what the fuss was about.
What if the Catholic Church comes out against this compromise as being fundamentally dishonest? What then?
Unwanted pregnancies are extremely expensive to insurance companies. Contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. On net, contraception coverage is a money-making proposition for insurers.
These people have done the math:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615115/pdf/amjph00442-0032.pdf
Alex: oh, I have no doubt that the use of contraception does exactly that.
I don’t have time to wade through the piece you linked at the moment (have to go out right now), but the question I was trying to get at was whether “free” coverage for contraception is cost-effective in the amount it increases the use of contraception among working people, and therefore the lower pregnancy rate. Does that study address that particular question, or does any other study? That’s what I think would be relevant here.
The study addresses exactly that!
Alex: good. I’ll have to take a look at it later.
Actually, sorry, I misread you question. The study does not address exactly that—it just compares total costs (including failure rates) across 15 methods including no protection. However, the cost differences they find, particularly for the least-cost methods (copper IUDs) are huge, so even a small behavioral response would make free insurance cost-effective.
Neo,
You make the point that all should take away from this incident. The only reason Obama backed off is he is running for reelection. Had he been in his second term, there would have been no give.
Another reason women (especially teens) don’t use contraception (including the pack of free pills they have in their drawer) is that they think if they become pregnant, the guy will stick around. He usually encourages the belief, shows up with a baby gift, brags to his friends about his manliness, and then disappears. For others, pregnancy is an act of rebellion. A co-worker of mine had a 15 year old come into the clinic seeking infertility treatment. She and her boyfriend had been trying for a year. There is a lot of psychological stuff going on in those who “forget” to take their pills. I doubt that Pellosi or Boxer have ever talked to these types. They just assume everyone wants to be like them. As long as we put condoms on bananas and forget about relationships, all the insurance benefits in the world won’t prevent teen pregnancies.
Mr. Frank,
What you said should be shouted from the rooftops. What we could have in 2013 is Obama unfettered.
Obama will win another term if Americans in the majority vote for redistributive and retributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation). As it stands, a near majority oppose him. He cannot afford any missteps. And yet he must also confront those interests which challenge his promises of physical, material, and ego instant gratification. It’s quite the balancing act. Let’s hope the Catholics remember the founding principle of their faith.
When will the discussion no longer be whether that Catholics have to provide this level of insurance provision, but that:
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MANDATE WHAT COVERAGE AN EMPLOYER PROVIDES!
Everyone asked why Obama would do something this stupid.
All Obama had to do was enrage, then mollify the Catholics and then the real argument goes away.
That’s the Machiavellian trick he’s pulling.
When I employ someone, and pay for their insurance, my funds will pay that insurance company for coverage. If that coverage includes ANYTHING (including birth control, kervorkian treatment, sex-changes or aspirin), I am paying for it. There is no escaping that.
Either the president is too stupid to understand that, or he thinks we are too stupid to understand that.
Which do you prefer?
their calculation is that, the more a service is perceived as being “free” (or at the very least, pre-paid), the more likely it is to be used.
So … they did learn something from our experience with welfare after all.
Reporter: Why do you mean old bishops want to take away women’s contraceptives?
Bishop: Why does the Obama administration want to trample on the First Amendment?
“It’s really not an exemption, either: just an “accommodation.” It’s a small concession that will probably put out the fire that was beginning to start. ”
Dream on! It’s merely an “accounting change” which means it changes nothing and is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics. True Catholics see this “accomodation” for what it is – an illusion. They aren’t stupid. Even an LA Times writer called it “magical thinking”.
“He probably didn’t expect the extent of the protest, and of course he doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his re-election. ” I’m sure that his very tight, insulated-from-the-middle-American-masses circle thought that this was a non-issue. They just don’t get it.
And I’m not so sure he’s really worried about re-election. He’s acting pretty arrogant given his current approval ratings. What does he know?
(Sorry, I don’t know XHTML)
On FNC Special Report tonight a panel member cited a poll that showed that 61% of Americans support “free” contraceptives mandated from insurance companies. One of the panelists rightly pointed out that a majority of Americans polled would also support free ice cream. He, I believe it was the estimable Steve Hayes, said that did not make it good policy. (Rarely do they even mention the merits of policy, preferring to talk incessantly about polls. I applaud Hayes.)
We have degenerated as a society to the point that the attraction of a freebie trumps all else. We are even inclined to rationalize that those things that are decidedly not free are in indeed free, if the costs are out of sight.
Mark Levin commented that Planned Parenthood is government funded and that they hand out contraceptives like candy. So, the argument that contraceptives are good, and that giving away contraceptives is better, does not justify another government intrusion into private dealings. Most thinking observers realize that this is not about the availability of contraceptives, it is about the government getting its dirty paws on yet another aspect of life–and incidentally catering to the wild-eyed base of the Dimocrats.
Sometimes, I am actually glad that I am 76 years old. I don’t think that I will be around to see the end of this Republic. But, we had some good years together.
“On net, contraception coverage is a money-making proposition for insurers.
These people have done the math”
Assuming that is true – and I am not because you can “do math” without knowing how to count (or more to the point how to frame the question) – then why do insurers have to be “forced” to provide contraceptive coverage? You’d think it would be automatic and the Catholic Church would have to pay *extra* to get out of it.
The more basic question is why employers pay for health insurance. Roosevelt wage controls have ultimately limited workers’s rights. In today’s fast-moving world, individual policies that allow you to change jobs, self-employ, take time off for further training, or just take a year off if you have the money offer far more freedom to people. How many miserable people hang on to jobs they hate and don’t do well because they are afraid of losing their health insurance? The whole contraception issue shouldn’t even exist. That it does is proof that lefties are only interested in furthering dependency.
This isn’t about insurance or even about free. It’s about harnessing some knuckle-dragging illiberal group opposed to abortion to the yoke.
Yes, it’s about the yoke.
It’s about power.
In any left revolution, be it progressive, bolshevik, socialist, fascist, maoist, or bolivaran, it is necessary to knock down organized religion. The Catholic Church competes for the hearts and minds of people and does so effectively, as do the evangelical Protestant churches, etc. Further, the Church is organized and so can put out a message of opposition.
So at some point the revolution has to take the Church on, or lose. Socialists today understand the power the Church had in Poland in the 1970s, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Venezuela today. The current revolution will not make the mistake of allowing the Church to survive long-term.
If the revolution is strong enough to take out the Church directly, it does so. But if not, it has to take on the Church in ways that compromise the Church’s moral authority and organization. It’s rather Alinsky-like, eh?
Hence contraception today. This is no mistake on the part of the revolutionary left employed by the Obama administration. They understand that contraception is a popular issue, that most people either favor widespread availability (precisely because of the horror stories like the ones Neo put up recently about her high school acquaintances) or are libertarian enough to say that it isn’t their personal business what others do. Many Catholics use contraceptives despite Church teaching. Combine it with the health-care issue and it’s a two-fer, since it now shows the ‘popularity’ of ObamaCare.
So the contraception issue is the wedge used to loosen the grip of the Church. By forcing the Church to back down it shows the Church to be impotent and unable to defend its moral authority. That pays off when the revolution takes its next step to knock the Church back further (e.g., forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to be done at their facilities. Think that isn’t coming? Think again.)
And if the Church pushes back? How can it? Yes, it can publish and talk, but the compliant news media will dilute that voice and push back with op-eds. The Church can preach from the pulpit, but that’s a limited voice these days of low Sunday attendance. It can work levers of power, but government officials, even at the local level, are not as amenable and accessible as they used to be to Church power.
The Church could take action. But the laws are murky and court actions take forever. And what if a federal court says that yes, the government does indeed have the right to order the Church to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees? Then the Church is really in the public relations and legal soup.
What action is left? Civil disobedience, of course, but that pits one master against another (the progressive, Alinsky left). Imagine the Church saying (for example) fine, we’ll shut down our secular operations. How long would it take Obama, Holder, Sebelius, etc to push back — for example, seize a closed Catholic hospital, or get a court order, etc.
That this is being done in an election year is important to rally the hard Left base to Obama, but it’s also being done as part of a longer-term strategy to harass and eventually neuter the Church. It’s a sign that Obama and the progressives in his administration are increasingly confident that they’re going to have a second term to finish their ‘transformation’ (revolution!) of America, and so they want to make progress where they can.
This is no mistake, no misguided policy, and no one went off the reservation. It’s deliberate, careful, and far-reaching.
It’s about power.
Yes it’s about power.
Power to dictate to ANYONE, not just a church, what benefits they must provide employees.
It’s so wrong on so basic a level, and yet the argument is about religious rights?
If it takes “standing” these days to sue the government, when will Boehner file suit to protect congress’s right to make law?
The only way that the contraceptives are not paid for by the Catholic institution is if their premiums are reduced by an amount that a similar non-Catholic institution would pay for insurance that provides contraceptives.
In other words, if the Catholic institution receives a discount of $xx because they refuse to cover contraceptives, then they do not pay for it.
Somehow I doubt that this will come to pass . . .