Friday, July 11, 2014

Birth Control Fervor

FLG is completely astonished by these types of statements:
“The women of America . . . are saying it: It is not our boss’s business, it is our business what kind of health care we need"

FLG always tries to see the logic on the other side of any argument, but this strikes FLG as almost self-evidently ridiculous.  It's not that anybody's boss is saying their employees can't go buy birth control.   The actual fact is that there are a few very religious bosses who are saying they don't want to buy certain types birth control for their employees.  That seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.  Employer doesn't buy it.  Employee can.  Problem solved.

The other side, which seems to be, I have a right to health care...The health care choices I make are between my doctor and me...That anybody would interfere in any way is a violation of my rights...misses that having a right to health care necessitates that somebody else pay for that health care.  Once that happens, isn't it just common sense that the somebody else doing the paying (your uncle, your employer, the government) then does have an interest in the health care choices you make?

Heck, let's set aside employers and instead go to the government paying for the service.  Remember when conservatives were concerned about death panels coming out of Obamacare?   There the interest is cost, not religious objection, but the point still stands.   Once somebody else starts paying for your health care, they have an interest in what they are paying for.   For the government, the controversial bits will be related to expensive end-of-life care. (In fact, at that time, FLG remembers liberal commentators saying that if individuals were unhappy with the amount of care provided by the government, then nothing would prevent individuals from buying additional care on their own.  He'll have to find the old posts.) For closely-held, religious companies, it's certain types of birth control.  FLG has a hard time seeing how this is some gross violation of individual rights.

Although, to be completely clear, FLG would be more sympathetic if this were about extremely costly procedures or medicines, but it's not.   He has a hard time believing that the aggrieved, who are in jobs with pretty good health care coverage to even worry about this issue in the first place, would be bankrupted by paying for this out of pocket.

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.