I have previously written about Rush Limbaugh's vicious defamation against Sandra Fluke.
But, apart from the slander, there is an underlying (false) premise in the Limbaugh attack that should not be ignored because it insinuates itself into the public consciousness.
I am going to "sanitize" Limbaugh's comments so we do not focus on its cowardly and scandalous attacks on Ms. Fluke, but rather its basic (false) premise.
Limbaugh attacked the idea of "paying" for the consequences of someone else's pleasures.
Although Limbaugh stated it was taxpayers doing the paying, and seemed to believe that the more sex the more contraceptive pills or devices are used, we will let him off the hook on those for these purposes, and just correct him without comment, that it is private insurers that would be doing the paying, not taxpayers, and that contraceptive use is unrelated to frequency of sex.
Let us even indulge the fiction that premiums are higher when birth control is included -- actually, birth control saves the insurer money because it reduces unwanted pregnancies -- but, to make the point, let us say they are higher, and thus I, as a premium payer, am "forced" to pay for your pleasures. As Limbaugh said, there are alternatives to contraception such as celibacy.
Or (sanitized), why, says Limbaugh, should other insurance premium payers pay for women's pleasures?
But, what about skiing? That is a pleasure. (Indeed, I am told there are actually a few people who enjoy both skiing AND sex, hard as that may be to believe.) Suppose you go skiing and fracture your ankle, requiring surgery, casting, and rehabilitation. Any insurance company will know statistically that there will be a fraction of their enrollees who will need that treatment, and thus take account of that possibility in their premium calculations.
So, here I am again, as a premium payer, paying for your pleasure, this time skiing. You had alternatives. You could not have gone skiing at all. You could have been less aggressive on the slopes. You could have confined yourself to the nursery slopes. But, for your own pleasure, you came hurtling down the black diamond slopes and destroyed your ankle, and I am paying for it.
Is there a difference between skiing and sex?
Of course there is. Skiing = good. Sex = bad.
And that, really, is what this is all about, isn't it?
It has nothing to do with others in the insurance pool paying for someone's pleasure.
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
No benefits, no "collective" democracy to help anyone but the rich.
Just what our Locke Liberal founders were fighting against: Burke conservative Big money multinational empires.
This got me laughing, and that's because I'm one of those people... he...he
Oh, and by the way, I refuse to go on Facebook too. So you're not the last.
Without the 40% or so, of people on socialized medicine (govt. employees, medicare, medicaid, CHIP and others), we would rank in the third world. Our medical infrastructure is some of the best in the world (that is what John Boehner is talking about) but our system of distribution and access is dreadful and Big Money is keeping it that way. Heaven help the small business owner or self-insured person with the dreaded Pre-Existing Conditions in their family.
Of course, members of Congress are completely immune from these concerns. If I could get their plan, I would shut up about the whole thing.
Capitalism = good
Socialism = bad
Socialism for the wealthy = good
Socialism for all the rest of us = bad.
1st. Given all the hyperbole from the right over not wanting to pay for other people's pleasurable, but "risky" behaviour, it's surprising that we haven't seen the right make a greater push to criminalize smoking and booze, given the health costs to both the government and private businesses. Maybe someone should ask them about that? I guess not, there' s no "moral objection" to that one . . .
2nd. For most Republican's your analogy isn't going to work. They [say they] don't consider the actual sex bad, just them paying for one's contraception. So using your comparison, I think they'd consider the contraception the lift ticket . . . and maybe the broken ankle is a baby?
That being said, there is a difference between insurance for the unforeseen injury or disease, and things that are just consumed. Insuring your car (body) against the possibility of an accident spreads the risk over many drivers (people) who are unlikely to all have one. Including an annual oil change (viagra or contraception supplies or a dental cleaning) will simply increase everyone's cost by the cost of the oil change (etc.) . It also means that the actual consumer will not bother to seek out the most cost effective alternatives. Without some individual responsibility the cost of health care will continue to rise. Witness Ms. Fluke's $1,000 per year cost vs. the same at Walmart for $120.
Borrowing your analogy, contraception is more like, say, traffic control devices (stop lights, pavement markings, etc.). No single driver needs them (as anyone who has waited for a green light at 2 in the morning without a car in sight will attest), but which are to the benefit of all drivers when many cars are having to share the road.
Women are not the only beneficiaries of birth control. Indeed, by their very nature, two people directly benefit from it in every single case.
As for the cost of birth control, insurance companies can and do leverage their market muscle to keep costs lower. Allowing them to cover only generics (are there such for this medication?) or even setting up specific brands that they cover (as long as there are multiple brands of the same formula) could make this less expensive.
Finally, the $1000 VS Walmart at $120 per year doesn't match up. The $1000 if for the prescription without any insurance. The $120 per year is the co-pay, not the "full boat" price.