Month: February 2013

Withering Morality and the Statist Reality

While Mr. Obama offers endless pontification in front of the cameras, claiming the moral superiority of his policies, the reality is that more and more citizens are the object of federal subsidies and policies that bribe their voting loyalties. What moral code is responsible for this reality? Mr. Obama is clearly and consciously in pursuit of the road to serfdom. Exactly who wishes to take that road and why?

A small but telling recent reality is that millions of people have fraudulently received cellphone subsidies. Federal spending on this subsidy suddenly increased from $846 million in 2008 to over $2.2 billion in 2012 with more than 6 million citizens receiving subsidized cellphone service. The federal agency overseeing this program is now back peddling and claiming to increase enforcement of eligibility requirements but the morality of those exploiting the subsidy is clear for all to see.

The reality is that millions of people now expend a substantial portion of their human potential looking for federal subsidies and exploiting them wherever and whenever possible. While intended to help those less well off, subsidies offer free entrance to moral failing, not the benevolent society Mr. Obama preaches. History is clear that ever increasing government benevolence, whether or not justified by moral rationalization, serves only to decrease individual responsibility and work.

The dramatic increase in food stamp recipients and dollars spent per recipient needs to be publicly discussed in this context. My analysis is based on government data.

The facts show that:

  • The number of food stamp recipients has increased from 26 million in 2007 to over 46 million in 2012.
  • Food stamp participation as a percentage of total population averaged 8.24% between 1975 and 2007 with temporary increases to 9% in the early 1980’s recession to slightly more than 10% in the early 1990’s recession, always returning to a level below 8%.
  • Food stamp participation as a percentage of total population increased dramatically after 2008, rising above 13% in 2010 and further increasing to 14.85% by 2012, an increase of 80% above the mean and 42% above highs in the early 1990’s.
  • The average monthly food stamp benefit per participant increased by over 22% in 2009.

Our citizens need to understand why our government continues to subsidize food stamps for 20 million more people in 2012 than in 2007, why the average benefit increased over 22% in 2009 when inflation actually turned to deflation, and why the current participation rate is materially greater than that in previous periods of economic difficulty and does not show any sign of receding to the historical norm.

Our citizens need to understand how people on food stamps will be moved out of the program so as to avoid creating a permanent 15% or more of our population living in food stamp dependency and expecting more of it.

America is fast becoming a nation of dependency and expected entitlement. More people are exploiting available subsidies.

Mr. Obama frequently uses the word “responsibility” in describing his policies. The press needs to hold up the results of his “responsible” policies to the light of day.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Public Comment on Female Contraception Mandate

I submitted my public comment on this issue as included below and encourage all concerned to do the same. Click here to offer your comments on these proposed regulations.

_______________________

February 8, 2013

TO: US Department of Health and Human Services

I offer the following as a public comment concerning RIN 0938-AR42: Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed regulations attempt to selectively address faith and conscience based objections to a government mandate that organizations offering health insurance plans be required to pay for free contraceptives for their female employees.

After considering the regulations and the government’s arguments in support of a mandate any reasoned citizen might ask whether those praying at the altar of government should be entitled under our Constitution to impose their will upon those who pray at a religious altar, or upon those unaffiliated with a recognized religion having conscientious objections to paying to socialize the cost of female contraception.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Deputy Director of Policy and Regulation at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services held a conference call on February 1, 2013 to announce revised proposed rules for socializing the cost of female contraceptives as those rules impact religious organizations.

Of particular note in the conference call was a question by an NPR reporter and the response of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. The reporter asks whether it isn’t really the insurance companies who will be paying the cost of free contraceptives given to employees of religious organizations who request such coverage under the proposed rules, or won’t the Federal government really be paying the cost for those employees under self-funded health insurance plans offered by religious organizations?

In response, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that since “studies have shown” overall health costs are reduced when female contraceptives are provided free, insurance companies will realize an overall cost savings by paying for those costs. If this were true, in an open and competitive market, insurance companies would voluntarily include free contraceptives within coverages as doing so will save both the companies and the employees money while improving health care, and there would be no need for us to pay Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s salary let alone have to deal with a new 80 page proposed rule or any free contraception mandate at all. If free contraceptives actually reduce overall health care costs as claimed by the government, a competitive insurance industry would be foolish not to offer such coverage in all health plans, and those women declining free contraceptives would then rationally be subject to a higher, rather than lower premium payment.

Again, in response to the question as directed to self-insured organizations, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that the user fees under the Affordable Care Act paid by health plan administrators would be credited for the cost of providing the contraceptive coverage. While Ms. Brooks-LaSure doesn’t think that means the Federal government is paying for that credit, the reality is that we would be paying, as user fees supporting the government’s over site of Obamacare are reduced through such credits, which dollars will necessarily be made up from another Federal bucket.

The emptiness of the government’s reasoning in proposing religious exceptions reveals that those same flaws exist in the reasoning underlying socialization of the cost of female reproductive health services in the first place. What we really have here are competing belief systems, the Obama administration/HHS versus personally held religious beliefs and individual conscientious objections. No religion is entitled to impose its moral views on American citizens and no government is entitled to impose its moral views on any religion or individual.

The American solution to increasing access to female contraception is to make such products available over-the-counter and to provide Federal regulation requiring state laws to assure open competition in the health insurance markets.

Regulations such as those proposed here legitimately incite the resentment of millions of Americans who cherish their personal freedoms. Such regulations are completely unnecessary to the end of increasing access to female contraception and constitute an unacceptable intrusion into our private lives and pocketbooks, and an unacceptable challenge to our right to act in ways consistent with our individual moral beliefs.

________________________

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Free Contraception for the Federal Register

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Deputy Director of Policy and Regulation at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (that title is 156 characters long) held a conference call on February 1, 2013 to announce revised proposed rules for socializing the cost of female contraceptives as those rules impact religious organizations. Per the Associated Press, the recording of this call is available through February 8, 2013 by calling 800-677-1613. (Go for it!)

If you don’t want to listen to the whole recording (ahem), here is a recording of Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s announcement and a recording of one of the questions from an NPR reporter and the response of Ms. Brooks-LaSure. Click here for the 80 page document detailing the actual proposed rules. Let’s see, we have a 156 character long title for a government employee announcing an 80 page proposed set of rules selectively addressing religiously based conscience objections to a government mandate that such organizations pay for free contraceptives for their employees. The only reason for any of this is that those praying at the alter of government believe it is their duty to impose their will and beliefs upon those who pray at a different alter.

The best part of the whole show is Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s response to the question in the above linked recording. The reporter asks whether it isn’t really the insurance companies who will be paying the cost of free contraceptives given to employees of religious organizations who request such coverage under the proposed rules, or won’t the Federal government really be paying the cost for those employees under self funded health insurance plans offered by religious organizations?

In response, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that since “studies have shown” overall health costs are reduced when contraceptives are provided free, insurance companies will realize an overall cost savings by paying for those costs. But wait a minute! If that were true the insurance companies would voluntarily include free contraceptives within coverages as doing so will save both the companies and the employees money while improving health care, and there would be no need for us to pay Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s salary let alone have to deal with a new 80 page proposed rule or any free contraceptive mandate at all.

Again, in response to the question as directed to self insured organizations, Ms. Brooks-LaSure notes that the user fees paid by health plan administrators would be credited for the cost of providing the contraceptive coverage. While Ms. Brooks-LaSure doesn’t think that means the Federal government is paying for that credit, the reality is that we would be paying, as user fees supporting the government’s over site of Obamacare are reduced through such credits, which dollars will necessarily be made up from another Federal bucket. It seems Ms. Brooks-LaSure’s belief system is highly selective.

If someone wants to start a charitable organization that collects donations to be used to subsidize the cost of contraceptives and other female reproductive health services that is fine with me as both those funding such an organization and those using such a service would be doing so voluntarily, freely exercising their rights and assuming personal responsibility for their behavior.

If there were real evidence free contraceptives save overall health insurance costs as claimed the insurance industry would be foolish not to offer such coverage in all health plans, and in fact, those women declining free contraceptives would then rationally be subject to a higher, rather than lower premium payment.

The emptiness of the government’s reasoning in proposing religious exceptions reveals that those same flaws exist in the reasoning underlying socialization of female reproductive health services in the first place.

The reality is that our government is full of Brooks-LaSures, people who believe in and whose income depends on the religion of government at the expense of our individual freedoms and responsibilities. We need to push back until the entire female preventative health services mandate is repealed, not simply seek a religious exception, in order to limit the scope of Federal power, to reel it to boundaries consistent with our traditions of moral and religious tolerance, and mutual respect. We need to do this to prove we live in America.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org