Money quote:
[T]hese "voluntary communities" aren't the Rotary Club - they're employers that wield a significant amount of financial clout. The market, though we refer to it as the "private sector," is in a certain sense very public: we all have to participate in it. Because in capitalist economies no one has much of a choice about getting a job, all but the most extreme libertarians accept that the government has to set some standards about how employers treat the employed. Allowing "conscience" exemptions whenever an employer doesn't feel morally clean when complying with regulations in principle neuters all regulation. The argument for allowing Catholic hospitals a pass on covering birth control has to rest or fall on the specifics of the case rather than a general commitment to protecting "voluntary communities."
I had hitherto taken the stance of understanding where the legislation is coming from, but hoping they make the exemptions a little more general, just to put the issue aside and move on. No more. I'm doubling down.
The whole point of universal health care is that there is consistent participation from all consumers (individual mandate, with everyone paying into the system up front), and consistent standards of coverage from all providers (government regulation of coverage, to provide a guarantee of bare minimum coverage to qualify as medical insurance). Allowing people to protest their way out of whichever points of coverage they wish basically removes any accountability from the provider side.
Like Mr. Beauchamp mentions, the Health Care market is - just like the job market - something that we all have to participate in. It's not like the electronics market. One can decide to do without an iPhone. One cannot decide to do without health care. If the consumer side of the equation is constrained, so must the provider side.
How many times have I heard the whining about how, if religious affiliated hospitals can't follow their conscience, then well, maybe they'll just take their toys and go home? See how you do without their charity and hard work!
Good. Go then.
Believe it or not, religious organizations are not required to run a health-care system. "Catholic" hospitals are still run as businesses, because they are. Patients with insurance pay; Those without pay later, or not at all. It's the same everywhere. If the Catholic - or any other - Church wants to give up it's share of the market, I welcome it. I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to buy your unused real estate, and hire the medical staff you're forced to lay off. And I'm sure that whoever buys in will be willing to play ball.
You are not providing a public service. You are meeting a consumer demand. And you are replicable.
I will respond but first please clarify.
ReplyDeleteMy assessment is that you are saying:
A) That because everyone has to have health care, the government gets to determine what health options employers will cover.
B) Catholic and other religious organizations are providing a smaller than particularly relevant chunk of the healthcare and other social service services that their ceasing to exist would be irrelevant.
Is this so?
A) Yes. Because we all MUST consumer health care, we MUST buy insurance. If we MUST buy insurance, the product must be regulated to make sure we're getting something decent. So that someone can't just sell an insurance policy that say "Volcano Insurance" over and over, followed by "He's signing it, he's signing it, I can't believe it".
ReplyDeleteB) No. Absolutely not. I know religious affiliated hospitals make up a very significant chunk (I looked up the catholic ones once, but forgot the figures).
If they spontaneously decided to close their doors and shut down, that wouldn't diminish demand for health care. People would still need it. Insurance companies would have money to pay for it. Doctors would still want to work. You get me? Investors would take over operations to meet the demand.
Analogy: Imagine if Netflix sponaneously decided they were sick of taking shit, and they just shut down. Streaming and DVD-through-mail content would take a hit. Then someone else would rush in to meet that demand (like blockbuster).
Churches are using their muscle as healthcare providers to have their way. And their rhetoric suggests that their doing the country a favor, and are being shit on for it. If they really feel that way - LEAVE. See how fast they can be replaced by secular alternatives.
It's like the smoking ban to me in some ways. It wasn't needed down to the local bar level.
ReplyDeleteYou're a bartender and don't want to work in smoke, go work at a bar that doesn't allow it. Many people were in favor of an exception for bars with that argument right?
Well if you need birth control, if that's the lifestyle choice you're making, then don't work for a Catholic institution, unless you can pay for it out of pocket.
Also, condoms are given out so freely these days it's a wonder anyone buys them. As for the pill, I'm guessing that's a little more expensive, but at that point aren't we just playing semantics? You could wear a free condom everytime, you don't need the pill.
In fact, you don't need birth control. It's not a needed medical element for life as we know it. It's something you need if you're making a choice to live a certain life. Which you've got every right to do, but it's an elective medical service if you ask me, not something everyone needs and more importantly, not something everyone should be required to have their employer pay for.
Especially when such is considered to be immoral by the employer.
------
As to the take your ball and go home mentality...
I waver on this. I understand the Church position. If it's immoral to use birth control, it's immoral to provide birth control. If the Church provides birth control, the Church is acting immorally. This is wrong.
It's the same thing with federal dollars to Catholic Adoption agencies. If it's immoral to put a kid with gay parents (which I find debatable, but they seem sure on), then they can't or same thing.
But on the other hand, they've got important services to provide that still need providing...and taking their ball and going home seems against Charity.
Nevertheless it is what it is for now.
But I read somewhere that 1 in 9 hospital admissions in 2009 was into Catholic hospitals. On top of that, Catholic adoption agencies do a pretty solid job of finding homes for kids and caring for them in the meantime, taking a burden off secular government and ya know, finding kids a home.
Catholic hospitals, though less and less these days, are likely to provide more than just emergency care for the underprivileged.
(Interesting side note, the decline in this is linked to the decline in clergy acting as hospital CEOs)
The government SHOULD realize that while it's not a favor, the Catholic infrastructure is still a big part of this country and is still doing good for our society.
Your analogy about the bartender is an interesting one. But one could make the argument that working in a cloud of smoke several nights a week is a workplace hazard. I wouldn't go so far as to say that people have a right to work in a perfectly safe place (no such place exists), but also don't think that saying "Hey, if you don't like lung cancer, go work someplace else". Especially in this job market. If that precedent were adopted 100 years ago, we might still be running across pieces of Lithuanians in our Dinty Moore.
DeleteI can't remember the link, but I recently saw a figure that the average out of pocket cost without insurance is $81 dollars. That's not peanuts.
Whether you consider birth control absolutely necessary or not, insurance companies see it as effective to provide it, since pregancy is a lot more costly than prevention.
But all the debates about the merits of birth control are a side issue. The point is: Is it O.K. to neuter any/all regulation because one party (be it large or small) has an ethical issue with it. Should acts of government be sabotaged over what someone considers sin?
We have written a blog
ReplyDeleteAs always, We love the spirit that animates your thoughts but as sometimes happens We must disagree with your particular conclusion
ReplyDeleteAs you, Our dear brother Mashiek, points out, healthcare is needed, and companies can not ignore the common good just because they do not want to
my argument is that contraception and abortion are not in the interest of the individual or the society, these are gross preversions that attack the dignity of the human person and the marital act.
Our argument is not if a group should act in accord with its conscience, because then I would have to argue for many many evils I do not want to see.
We argue that contraception is a preversion and that the State has no right to dictate to the Church on this matter
the Church acts as a safe guard against the state, to realign the State when it wanders off the path of justice, and the State should act to protect the Church and enforce Her moral and teachings