Mandates, Morals and Money

If there were any doubts about what Obamacare was all about it should now be clear.  The actions of the Obama Administration in mandating that religious organizations, in violation of their moral beliefs, must provide contraceptives at no cost to their employees speaks volumes.   Not only does it yet again call into question the constitutionality of Obamacare but it provides a glimpse of the significant governmental intrusion this law will have on every health decision going forward.

Since many of the provisions of the law are being phased in, the full effects of the law are not fully known.  However, federal mandates are at the core of almost everything involved with Obamacare.  Individuals are mandated to purchase insurance coverage.  Employers are mandated to provide health coverage.  Specific health coverage is mandated under health plans.  Federally mandated health insurance exchanges are required in each state.  It does not take much imagination to see where this is headed.

If the federal government believes they can violate the First Amendment of the Constitution to require a religious organization to provide coverage for something that runs counter to their moral principles what will stop the federal government from mandating who gets care and who does not?   Who is born and not born?  Who lives and who dies?

After the howls of outrage over President Obama's mandate that religious organizations violate their moral principles, he has backtracked.  However, now he wants to mandate that health insurance companies provide free contraceptives to the employees of those organizations and do it for free.  I know President Obama thinks that money grows on trees.  You only have to look at his budget proposals to see evidence of that.  We all know that it does not.  We also know that money is fungible and it is unlikely that the costs of this mandate will not end up being paid by the religious organization in increased costs.  Therefore, the reality is that this entire "compromise" is a fraud.

It is further disconcerting that many of the large religious institutions, such as hospitals and universities, do not buy health insurance.  Their employees, like 60% of all Americans,  get their health coverage through self-insured plans run by their employers.  Therefore, there is no health insurance company involved other than as an administrator of the plan.  All of the claims costs are paid by the employer.  How does the Obama compromise propose to solve the problem for these religious employers?

Underlying all of these arguments is the false premise that women need this provision to have access to contraceptive services.  It is portrayed as a case of basic women's rights.  However, no one is denied access to these services right now.  Any woman can get what she needs at a Planned Parenthood Clinic or  the local drugstore.  Of course, that does require money, but most contraceptives are relatively inexpensive compared to most medical costs.

My suggestion to President Obama is that if he really thinks that this is fundamental right that he should ask Congress to pass a bill to have these services paid by the federal government for every woman that wants it.  He should also propose a way to pay for it rather than to mandate that employers and insurance companies do it.  This is the way this country is supposed to work.  It is not supposed to be about mandates that are dreamed up in back rooms by bureaucrats with social agendas.  Put the issue right out there before our elected representatives, have a full and open debate, and vote on it.

I even have a suggestion for him.  Fund contraceptive services with a tax on abortions.  It is said that if you want less of something you should tax it.  I can't think of a better resolution where two objectives are better aligned together.  It is a balanced and logical solution which means it will never be considered.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 1.2 million abortions in 2008 (the most recent data I could find).   A $250 tax on each abortion would raise $300 million per year.  Not enough money?  Increase the tax even more.  President Obama knows how that works.

Postscript:

One of the more interesting statistics I come across is related to the subject above.  Before 1960, there was no birth control pill (the most prevalent form of contraception) and abortion was illegal.  The percentage of children born to unwed mothers in this country was approximately 5%.  It is about 41% today.

In 1960, I am certain people were saying that if we had a birth control pill and if abortion was legal we could reduce the level of children born to unwed mothers.  The federal government also thought that it could help these unwed mothers by providing additional financial assistance in the mid-1960's.

All of this seems to support this general principle of economics that Steven Landsburg of the University of Rochester has articulated so well.

Things tend to work out best when people have to live with consequences of their own behavior.

Or stated another way.

Things tend to work out poorly when the consequences of our actions spill over onto other people.

Before the pill, before abortions and before the federal government started providing more generous benefits to unwed mothers, there was a large price to pay for an unwed pregnancy.  The cost was just not financial.  It affected the entire family of the unwed mother in bearing the responsibility to raise the child as well as their standing and reputation in the community.  These were powerful incentives because it was well known what the consequences were and the effects it would have on other family members.   The moral dimension and personal responsibility far outweighed any other factor in getting to the best result for society.  Perhaps there are lessons here that we should keep in mind as we look at this and other issues.