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

Obamacare Future

Excerpt, Associated Press article January 31, 2013:

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek doctors, port workers and public transport staff in the country’s capital walked off the job Thursday in strikes against deeply unpopular austerity measures that have seen incomes slashed as the country struggles to emerge from a deep financial crisis.

The country’s main unions also announced a nationwide general strike for Feb. 20, the latest in a series of such walkouts over the past two years that disrupt services across the country and are accompanied by sometimes violent demonstrations… Read the entire article.

The Doctor’s Office as Union Shop: As new health-care laws turn physicians into service workers, why wouldn’t they organize? by David Leffell in the January 30, 2013 Wall Street Journal, concludes:

Americans don’t expect the quality of their care or access to it to decline as health-care costs drop. But quality of care and access will require significant attention in a reformed medical system. As has happened in other countries that have charted the course we are now on, a new reason for lack of access may at times be: “Office closed, doctors on strike…” Read the entire article.

Hmmm……………

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Note: The Wall Street Journal Web site is a pay site but seems to permit public access to its opinion pieces.

The Education of James Taylor

Prior to performing a verse of America the Beautiful at Mr. Obama’s recent 2nd inaugural, singer/song writer James Taylor appeared on the Charlie Rose show and offered some interesting commentary on “corporate” America. Watch and listen here (his political commentary begins at about 28:35).

As a former singer /song writer I greatly admire James Taylor’s music and his career. What struck me as odd, however, was his complete misunderstanding of the realities of “corporate” America and the counter productive thinking and policy that comes from such misunderstanding. In the political world, James Taylor’s misinformed views are an example of “liberal think” that destroys opportunity in the name of “humanity.”

Here is a portion of James Taylor’s comments:

America is such a noble experiment. It’s really the light of the world. A lot of people are angry at us but mainly because of our, sort of, corporate colonialism that we practice. That’s not the American people. Those are individuals who are acting badly. That’s Standard Oil and Union Carbide in Bhopal, BP in the gulf. That’s a real problem for the future. Aside from carbon in the atmosphere, what we do with corporate organization and corporate power and how we make it serve human beings and the largest number of human beings at that, and not just enslave human beings and, you know, march backwards, that’s a big, hmmm, Gordian knot for human beings to deal with, this question…. because corporations don’t have the same human priorities… The Supreme Court and the Citizen’s United decision not withstanding, corporations are not human. They have a very selective and a very limited and not very humane priority (Charlie Rose interjects, and a very different mission)… and a very different mission. A robber Barron will at least put his name on a hospital, I know you will see a lot of football stadiums with “Enron” on them or whatever, … but the point is these things (corporations) use portions, little slices of people and there are three people waiting to take your job and do that little, you know, dedicate that little part of yourself to that number being as large as it can be, and that’s not… its just incomplete is what it is, its not whole and its not human. I think other countries have done a better job asking corporate power to serve human beings better than we have.

Mr. Taylor’s references are dated.

Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 and it can be credibly argued that its broad influence over petroleum production and distribution made possible the economic transition from group transportation (trains) to personal transportation (automobiles), adding significantly to individual freedom. No longer are individuals restricted to a small geographic area to find work and exercise a desire to travel, thanks to the personal automobile.

The “Bhopal” event occurred under Union Carbide’s ownership of a chemical plant in India in 1984. Union Carbide has been owned by Dow Chemical Company since 2001.

The “BP” Deepwater Horizon gulf oil leak occurred in the spring 0f 2010.

It can only be Mr. Taylor’s imagination that leads him to believe the “corporate” nature of these companies resulted in “bad behavior” that did not and does not serve human needs. Note that the consequences of these industrial accidents were paid for dearly by both the management and owners of the effected corporations, setting examples that promote responsible behavior. Also note that there is no evidence that government ownership or regulatory control of the means of production would avoid the occasional industrial tragedy (see Chernobyl, Three mile island, and Fukushima Daiichi). Finally, there is evidence that government regulation and favoritism interfere with the operation of markets in ways that negatively impact humanity through increasing prices and limiting choice (see as examples ethanol mandates, Obama Care, and the Dodd/Frank legislation).

Mr. Taylor then moves from stereotyping bad “corporate” behavior to stereotyping “corporate” priorities. Let’s accept that those priorities as seen by Mr. Taylor are limited to financial greed. Now it is time to understand what a “corporation” is and why it exits.

Like money, corporations, are man made structures designed to serve a purpose. In the case of money that purpose is to provide a trusted means of exchange between people that simplifies trading. In the case of corporations that purpose is to simplify the organization of resources so as to provide humanity with goods and services in an efficient manner. Note that the customers of corporations voluntarily enter into purchase transactions to meet their needs. Note that government imposes such things as an ethanol mandate through the force of law, not voluntary exchange. Which approach truly serves humanity? Which approach takes risks to invest in technology and production so that new products come into being to serve humanity? OK, the “Furby” may not serve humanity in any sense other than providing a curious entertainment but certainly laparoscopic surgery and wireless networks and smart phones do, as do supermarkets and materials and chemicals and fuels and restaurants and accountants and lawyers and doctors and hospitals, and …..

The next presumption that corporations “use portions, little slices of people and there are three people waiting to take your job” is false. Corporations offer job opportunities resulting from voluntary demand for goods and services they produce. Remember that no one is compelled to buy a Big Mac, or a designer dress, or a new home, or car, or smartphone, or six pack of beer. Yet, the corporations that meet these human needs take the risk that the customers will be there tomorrow and in doing do employ millions of people who have personal ambition and a desire to learn and apply their knowledge in meeting society’s needs (that is, they are willing to work). The last time I checked no one was being compelled to work for IBM, or Exxon, or Johnson and Johnson. However, the government is now compelling all citizens with health insurance to subsidize the cost of female (not male) reproductive health services, some in violation of their religious faith. Lastly, many US corporations live by credos that list the shareholder’s interest last in line exactly because they understand that their long term profitable survival is what, in the end, creates value for both humanity and for those who take the financial risk to make it all happen. Here is a corporate credo Mr. Taylor should read.

No one I know has ever proposed that a corporate interest represents the interests of all of humanity. This may well be why democratic governments over the years have sought to use tax revenues to supplement those human needs not directly served by a job. It is also why we have many other forms of organization including union, religious, social, charitable, and political organizations. In fact, in America the Beautiful you are free to start any organization you want and prove there is a market for your ideas by getting others to give you money to support your cause, whether it be corporate or otherwise. That is what Citizen’s United is all about; more speech, not less.

Regarding this last offering from Mr. Taylor, “I think other countries have done a better job asking corporate power to serve human beings better than we have.” It is not a given that “countries” (he means governments) have some moral authority to “ask” (he means impose) rules on corporations to “serve human beings better,” whatever that means. Morality is not the purview of government. Government actions only reflect the morality of the citizens. Mr. Taylor would do well to update his perspective for contemporary reality. It is the power of centralized government that imposes regulatory mandates founded in righteous misconception, that accrues $80,000,000,000,000 in unfunded entitlement liabilities with no plan to reduce those liabilities to manageable size, that is more than $16,000,000,000,000 in debt with no effort to reduce that burden, and that spends more than a $1,000,000,000,000 more per year than it takes in revenue. This runaway abuse of power by the government exceeds any negative impacts of corporate power by orders of magnitude. Who is going to pay for this? Corporations, at least, are accountable to the realities of the markets. Government is accountable to the voters, a majority of whom have accepted government bribes, accepted money and favors to satisfy their short term desires while they burden their children and grand children with unsupportable debt and lost opportunity. So much for the morality of government and its role in serving humanity.

James Taylor is a brilliant man and I encourage him to read and understand more about our national government and our modern welfare state, and where they are headed. When he is done understanding, he just might want to form a corporation whose mission is to fix it.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

Our Shadow Boxing President

Mr. Obama’s second inaugural address has been characterized as “testifying to the power of government” and “a bold defense of his liberal agenda.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama should have more honestly noted that the power wielded by government compels some people to redistribute the product of their work to others. These others then have a vested financial interest in electing politicians who write more laws compelling more redistribution.

Well, that model has been outdone by Mr. Obama’s demands for more taxes after he was just given a tax increase, and continued trillions of dollars of deficits and debt our children will have to repay.

This is not leadership. It is financial and moral corruption.

Most disturbing is Mr. Obama’s now obvious motivation as affirmed by his second inaugural address. He is driven by contempt for those who do not agree with his world view. As Woody Allen has pointed out, “When you are sure you are right you will have a moral obligation to impose your will on those who disagree with you.” Alas, our President proves he is a self righteous ideologue.

Also concerning is that Mr. Obama’s address proves he is shadow boxing with a made up enemy. Does he really think the public will allow his imagined right wing conspiracy to eliminate social security and medicare? Apparently so.

I have written before about Mr. Obama’s dismal politics. Now it is clear that he will prove a great historical disappointment as a President.

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

The Fiscal Farce: Intermission

When discussing Mr. Obama with a friend I found myself summarizing his Progressive agenda in what I now realize is the essential reality, “He diminishes us all.”

Private individuals and businesses are now making investment decisions based on the reality of government control of education, banking, health care, power generation, energy, and transportation. You can argue about the relative extent of control by industry but the reality is that investors require a risk premium based on the regulatory and tax regime that burdens each industry, and these risk premiums continue to rise given political and policy reality. The important conclusion is that we should all now expect lower growth, lower economic returns for risk taking, and bigger government for the long term. All of this means less value in both an economic and social sense.

Today’s “agreement” on the “fiscal farce” simply confirms that we are now permanently burdened with a political class, regardless of party, that is lost in centralized power and self-aggrandizement at the expense of individual liberty, economic freedom, opportunity, and prosperity.

Mr. Obama has achieved his life’s ambition of diminishing us all and we will shortly get an answer to the question, as I believe Peggy Lee sang, “Is that all there is?” I’m betting the answer is, “yes.”

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org