 |
| From Dominicana blog |
It is a mistake to presume that the motive of the Obama administration for the contraceptive mandate is merely about providing affordable contraception. It has nothing at all to do with that.
Contraception is dirt cheap and available everywhere. The government (i.e. you and I) already pays Planned Parenthood several hundred million dollars each year to dispense the stuff. Rubbers and little pills are available at innumerable agencies, clinics and pharmacies for chump change. I'm sure you can get 'em in Pez dispensers.
The contraceptive brouhaha is government agitprop. It is a stage-managed crisis-- a brilliant stage-managed crisis, I might add-- with four goals:
1) Rally political support for Obama from the demographics (e.g. single women) who were losing enthusiasm for the president.
2) Split pro-contraception Catholics from the Church
3) Divert attention from the unconstitutional encroachment on Catholics' right of conscience (free exercise of religion).
4) Drive the Catholic Church out of civic life. This is the primary goal. The Church has already been driven out of adoption services by requiring that they give children to gay couples. The contraception mandate will drive them out of healthcare and most activities in which the Church employs people.
Pure Alinski. Obamacare is a power grab by the left. It's not about health care. It's about crushing independence from government. Free enterprise and the Catholic Church have long been impediments to the left's acquisition of government power. The creed of the left is simple:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteGolly, your craziness knows no bounds. Quoting Benito Mussolini as expressing a tenet of the 'left'. Your irrationality is staggering.
Of course oral contraceptives should be treated in exactly the same way as every other medication. If insurance companies cover statins for mild hypercholesterolaemia, largely due to lifestyle choices such as poor diet, lack of exercise and obesity, and for which there is no demonstrated benefit, then they should also cover oral contraceptives.
If you object to 'paying' for OCs, then to be consistent you ought to object to statins too.
In Australia, OCs are treated in exactly the same way as every other medication that the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme covers. But they aren't free. Patients are required to make a copayment of up to $32 ($6 for low income groups). The average cost of OCs is around $22, so most patients pay the full cost and only low income groups get their OCs subsidized.
The PBS is there to cover very expensive medications which can cost hundreds of dollars a month.
Objecting to OCs is just a dog whistle to appeal to conservatives. One that seems to have failed, despite your indignation.
I see it like this:
ReplyDeleteIf the 'liberal' side of this debate was serious about making these hormones and drugs available for people who NEED them, the issue would have been framed as such.
The 'dog whistle' was blown by those seeking to categorize these treatments as 'contraceptive'. If a woman NEEDS this stuff, the contraceptive nature is simply a side effect.
By framing this as 'rights' issue focused on contraception they have goaded the 'conservative' movement into a defensive posture. The sane approach to this, in my view is to create an insurable clause for people who NEED this stuff.
If they don't and simply WANT it, then either opt for a private insurer that will provide such benefits, perhaps at a slight additional cost. But to FORCE the industry to comply or to FORCE employers to only use those companies that do comply is definitely driven by an ideology that is hostile to common sense and contemptuous of any opposition.
All economics aside, I think Doctor Egnor is correct in assuming there is an agenda at work here. I find it more than coincidence this should occur during the most radical administration since Carter.
As for the Mussolini quote, it is quite appropriate. The Italian Fascist movement was a synergy of let-wing and right-wing policy. Mussolini himself described it as ' syncretic movement ', much like National Socialism. It was supposed to combine the 'best' of left and right.
The Fascists were big fans of Eugenics, ant-democratic in sentiment, and had a LOT of collectivist ideas.
They were utterly totalitarian. That degree of totalitarianism- forgive me if I am wrong, Doctor - is the whole point of the quote.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteMedical insurance in America is generally paid by the employer as a highly valued benefit for the employee. Medical care in America is expensive and medical benefits are a significant part of employee remuneration.
The employee doesn't get to pick the insurance company or policies offered. The employer does. This provides opportunities for economy of scale, so the medical insurance is cheaper than could otherwise be obtained if the employee went out and bought the insurance directly. If the employee had to pay for the insurance directly, then there would have to be an increase in cash in hand pay.
Australia has a different system. There's a compulsory medical cover funded by a levy and also out of general revenue. There's also a private insurance scheme too, covering treatment in private hospitals. A previous conservative government made private insurance compulsory for high income earners by basically doubling the levy if the person doesn't have private insurance. I naturally went out and bought the cheapest most restricted insurance possible to avoid the increased levy.
I'm not certain that you could describe Mussolini's Italy as being totalitarian. It was still a kingdom, and when the war went badly for Italy, the king removed Mussolini from power.
Italy just managed not to do anything particularly well. It didn't manage to set up an effective totalitarian system (nor did Hitler, fortunately). It didn't prepare for war effectively. And then when it foolishly entered the war, it did so halfheartedly, with surrender being a favored military tactic.
Fascism was 'right wing'. Personally, I don't like 'left wing' and 'right wing'. Both refer to a French assembly in which the representatives of inherited privilege (the aristocracy) sat on the right and the representatives of everyone else sat on the left.
But then again. Michael uses right/left terminology. If he's going to criticize the left (which I take to mean liberals), then he should have picked a quote from the left, not the right.
Bach,
DeleteHaving worked in the States, I am aware of the insurance 'benefits' packages offered by employers. I am also aware that I was free to decline said inclusion (and deduction) and pick your own - provided you DO pick your own. I did just that. If what you suggest is the case with some companies, then maybe THAT is the issue that should be addressed.
Re Fascism: I am the type of person who puts great merit in the claims of our enemies. I don't agree with them, or 'buy' them - but I know THEY do. Fascism claimed to be a synthesis of the two. That is what drove them and empowered them. Current (re)definitions by one partisan group or another means little to nothing, in my view.
You either understand them from their perspective, or you don't (or refuse to). Understanding an enemy is the first step on the path to victory over them. Refusal to is at best a bluff, and at worst a path to defeat.
To understand the Italian Fascists, you have to understand they saw themselves as centralists who sought to incorporate the 'best' of both wings.
You may note the negatives from the right, I may cite the negatives from the left - but they saw BOTH and they saw them as positives.
I also tend to view the 'left / right' language of revolutionary mindsets as too abstract to be realistic. I see liberal and conservative as extensions of those terms.
Consider Hitler and Stalin for example. Such abstractions/distinctions obviously did not deter those men while they were dividing Poland and the Baltic states.
That said, the left/right distinction is the lingua franca of the discussion.
It is merely practical to use that terminology when discussing these issues with folks who reason within that mindset/understanding.
Re the National Assembly: The aristocracy was on the FAR right, the bourgeois (new money, 'upper middle') classes sat centre-right to centre-left (modern 'progressive'?), and the Jacobins and their allies sat on the left to FAR left.
Madame Guillotine presided the assembly, adjudicated by the 'leftist' bourgeois Robespierre - known as le dictateur sanguinaire.
Robespierre's little experiment of imposed 'reason' was 'the terror' which only began it's bloody decline when he himself met up with the Madame in 1794.
Re the quote: If the shoe fits....
Modern progressivism shares many tactics with Fascism. It seeks to appeal to the centre in order to replace what it sees as 'L'Ancien Régime'. The biggest difference is that 'Il Duce' was often candid in his speech, once power was within his grasp.
In that light, I see Benito Mussolini as a perfect fit.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteIf you say that in America, employees have the right to opt in or out of certain items on their employer provided medical insurance, then I'll accept it. Although, it may be a meaningless concession. In Australia, employees have the right to choose which superannuation fund their retirement funds are paid into. If they don't make a decision, then it goes into the default fund chosen by the employer, which often is the one with the higher fees, so opting to make a choice pays off. Many people don't bother.
The quote doesn't seem to describe liberal economics. It sounds more like totalitarian Marxism or capitalism.
That said, I think that there are some things that the state does very well. Basic medical care, basic transport, basic education for example. And private providers should be an optional extra.
I think America should adopt a system similar to that of Australia. Having a compulsory national health care system actually increases freedom. With the American system, having employer provided health benefits actually inhibits people from changing jobs if they're dissatisfied with their current employer or job. The fear of being without health insurance persuades many to remain tied to the same employer.
Bach,
DeleteRe the insurance: I was able to opt out in California in the '90's. I cannot say what the current law is state to state. I assume that folks can opt out. But it may be more like you have described in some areas.
I'll have to ask my friends in Ohio, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, New York, and Maine... if I think on.
Re the Australian system: I am a fan of socialized medical care too. It has it's drawbacks, but I think the pros heavily outweigh the cons.
My family having played the role of care-giver (especially my adult son and I) for elderly grandparents during their final years - I found the assistance provided by the Province to be absolutely excellent.
Of course the service and quality of service varies from area to area. While we lived in Toronto, for example (a 'liberal' strong hold) the system was abused, slow, and messy. Here, however, outside planet-Toronto in a smaller city, it is excellent. No complaints. Ditto for a friend of mine who was badly injured in an accident in Quebec City (he fell off the city walls and broke his back). He got some fantastic care in QC (a smaller city), and when transferred home found the service lacking in Toronto's biggest hospital 'Sunnybrook'.
The biggest problem we face is getting a 'family doctor' when you move into a new area. Many of our (non native) physicians come to Canada for an education and certification, then move to the states to make MUCH more money in the private / insurance based system (the so called brain drain). This leaves some folks going to 'walk in clinics' to see a doctor while waiting on a list - sometimes for several years in the bigger towns and cities.
There is currently legislation under way in several provinces that will strip the credentials of anyone who does this, and provide incentive to those who wish to stay and practice in the more remote and Northern areas. Also there is growing incentive for native & indigenous Canadians to study medicine, rather than import folks while removing the support for recertification of foreign doctors.
That said, we had no problem here in South Western Ontario, and even have a 'nurse practitioner' that will do house calls for our baby, should we think him too ill or the weather too inclement to take him to the doctor's. We also have a first rate hospital just 5 minutes away.
Re: Liberalism and the quote.
Like left and right, this term is long obsolete in North America. The correct/modern term is/should be 'progressive', not the hijacked 'liberalism'.
I would also note it bears a striking resemblance to the Fascist 'syncretic movement'. It is very optimistic in it's propaganda and cynical in it's practice.
The new liberalism encompasses ideas that are alien to true/old liberalism, both economic and political. Eugenics, racialism etc. The same ideology has certainly infected the 'conservative' movement as well and actually brought on a schism in that group in this country. It has since been largely purged and the conservatives now call themselves conservatives again; rather than 'progressive conservatives', they are once again more or less good old corrupt Tories. They are, at least, a predictable beast.
Re: America.
I think they should do what they want - state to state. Government medicare funds should be distributed to the states and the local and state level governments should set the mandate. That way it is tailored to the needs of each region, instead of a massive monolithic (EXPENSIVE) system regulated by some remote location with no real connect to the folks who use it. The sheer population size of the USA seems to make this the most sane approach, IMO.
“The contraception mandate will drive them out of healthcare and most activities in which the Church employs people.”
ReplyDeleteReally? It’s been almost a month since the Obama compromise that shifted the cost of contraception coverage to the insurance companies and I haven’t heard a peep about any Catholic affiliated institutions closing their doors.
The mandate is on the insurance companies, not the Catholic institutions, and it’s driving the Catholics CRAZY. They should have said “Thank you”, but instead they turned the issue into a politically devastating misogynistic nightmare.
” The Church has already been driven out of adoption services by requiring that they give children to gay couples.”
Ha! They weren’t driven out; they walked away because they value maintaining their bigotry more than serving the community. Good riddance.
-KW
Bach
ReplyDeleteAustralia has a different system. There's a compulsory medical cover funded by a levy and also out of general revenue. There's also a private insurance scheme too, covering treatment in private hospitals. A previous conservative government made private insurance compulsory for high income earners by basically doubling the levy if the person doesn't have private insurance. I naturally went out and bought the cheapest most restricted insurance possible to avoid the increased levy.
It's been a few years now since we left private health insurance fund, and now just with Medicare. I do NOT remember that private health funds like Medibank or NIB pay for Oral contraceptives, except for certain medical conditions.
Sure for those entitled (pensioners, unemployed) to the gov't Pharmaceutical Health Benefit Scheme, they get to buy OC (for contraceptive) at a reduced rate.
Anonymous,
DeleteYou need to read my comment again. All Australian residents are covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. But the patient copayment is so high that almost everyone pays full price for their OCs unless they have a health benefits card because of a low income in which case their OCs are subsidized. But they still have to pay something.
Certain private medical insurance policies will pay for non-PBS medications though.
The point I was making was that OCs should be treated by American medical insurance companies in exactly the same manner as they treat all other prescription drugs.
Liberal women (tacitly) admit that abstinence works, and that they've had access to free contraception from time immemorial:
ReplyDeleteWithhold sex, ladies, from April 28 to May 5 — that’s the dictate coming from the Austin, Texas-based women’s group Liberal Ladies who Lunch.
“Our reproductive rights are being denied, so are yours” is their slogan. The group is promoting its movement online with a website fittingly titled SexStrike.org.
“In light of the recent war on women, we are calling for a nationwide sex strike from April 28th to May 5th. All women should withhold from having sex with their partners,” the website explains. “This will help people understand that contraception is for women and men, because men enjoy the benefit of women making their own choices about when and if they want to get pregnant.”
The story is here. Seems to me Michael is right. The so-called crisis is manufactured, and the federal government is attempting to grab power, with support from a wilfully ignorant and strident segment of our citizenry.
" All women should withhold from having sex with their partners"
DeleteFantasy land. These people are nuts. They obviously don't really like the sex and think they are doing men some sort of favour by laying with them.
Maybe their 'partners' will opt for a corporate approach during that week? More likely they wont notice the difference.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteLOL. You certainly aren't very consistent are you? You insist that abstinence is a good way of avoiding pregnancy, and that sex isn't the only way couples can demonstrate love within a relationship, and then when some women propose a campaign of abstinence, you call them 'nuts'.
'They obviously don't like the sex and think they are doing men some sort of favor by laying with them' makes you sound like some sort of misogynist nut job.
Bach,
Delete"You certainly aren't very consistent are you? "
That depends on what issue we speak of. I tend to be quite consistent when it comes to sex. Durable too.
"You insist that abstinence is a good way of avoiding pregnancy, and that sex isn't the only way couples can demonstrate love within a relationship, "
Forsooth. I do insist this is true.
"...and then when some women propose a campaign of abstinence, you call them 'nuts'."
It is the approach that is nuts. Not the act of abstaining. Their position is the inconsistent one.
"'They obviously don't like the sex and think they are doing men some sort of favor by laying with them' makes you sound like some sort of misogynist nut job."
LOL!
Only to a conditioned mind like yours, Bach.
I would describe that comment as 'smart assed'. Maybe even 'racy' or 'snide'.
I am not saying they SHOULD not enjoy sex, I am saying they see it as a tool by which they can control the men in their lives political stance. They enjoy the POWER of the act over the intimacy.
Perhaps the comment was a little over the top, I will concede.
It was a reactionary statement. Polemic in nature. Tit for tat. A calling of a bluff.
And just to clarify I did not state or mean ALL women, but THESE women who promote the use of birth control and thus threaten an alternative THEY fear more than the men in their lives: Abstinence.
The reality is that their 'partners' (note the term husband is not used) can just as easily find another more willing 'partner' if all the sex they engage in is merely a favour granted by the female 'partner'.
If it is for LOVE and need not be full blown intercourse their entire stance is futile. Abstinence is not some horrific threat to those who freely practice it.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteThe only thing I'd agree with in your reply is 'Perhaps the comment is a little over the top, I will concede'. I regarded the comment as being pure hyperbole.
It's societal decay in service of political power.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that the same people (generally) who have very strong opinions (against!) eating foods with high levels of artificial hormones also have very strong opinions (in favor!) of women ingesting artificial hormones (b/c)?
ReplyDeleteI stand against both, David.
DeleteBut then I am one of those 'crazy' 'right winger' types who lives with the illusion of free will as if it were reality.
We generally don't fit into political boxes or teams, but rather foolishly go about forming our own opinions based on our obviously illusory sensory experiences.
We even DISAGREE on things!
The madness of it all.