Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I've been following the debate over health care mandates, freedom of conscience, and religious exemptions pretty closely. It's really very interesting and (for me at least) very personal.

For those of you who aren't American or, you know, have lives to live that don't involve watching the news, the new health care bill basically requires everyone to carry insurance. If you can't afford it, you get a tax-paid subsidy to help out; if you refuse, you pay a penalty to cover the cost of health care if you get sick. The problem is that many companies only offer very minimal coverage – either really high deductibles (the amount you have to pay before insurance kicks in) or low caps (after which you're responsible for the bills). So to help with that problem, Congress said that each eligible plan – meaning, the plans that will let you avoid the penalty – have to provide a certain level of coverage in several defined areas.

And one of those areas was reproductive health for women. Anyone familiar with American politics and the *erm* heightened interest anything to do with sex seems to draw.

Even before the law passed, it was on record that no taxpayer money could go to fund abortions. I wasn't crazy about that decision, but at the time I accepted as the price of doing business. Personally the thought of people with money deciding what medically-necessary health procedures I should have access to (yes, even if they're footing the bill) really bothers me. This is basically because I recognize that yes, capitalism is great at encouraging innovation and hard work and all that, but it really and truly sucks at distributing resources in a fair way. I think that middle- and upper-class people are generally overpaid, meaning that we should give up our money to fill the actual needs of the poor. I see this as a moral duty, and I don't think I should get to say how that money is actually used. So I don't think I should be able to tell a poor woman she can't have an abortion or buy a soda out of their food stamp money (another personal bugabear, brought to you courtesy of Mayor Bloomberg) or whatever, any more than I should be able to tell a rich or middle-class person. But whatever. As I said, with the abortion provision, I do think the ends justified the means there, even if I wasn't totally comfortable with it.

Now the government is trying to work out just what insurances should have to cover. One of those areas, as I mentioned above, is reproductive health. Basically, the government wants to force all health insurance plans to cover health insurance – including plans paid for in part by employers who have traditionally opposed birth control, like the Roman Catholic Church. There are conscience clause exceptions, which basically let people whose jobs are suitably religious in nature (think pastors and priests) buy insurance plans that don't cover birth control. Sometimes the groups oppose birth control on principle, like the Catholics whose natural law ethics condemn any ejaculation that doesn't have the goal of procreation. Other times there's a concern that the some of the birth controls can act as abortifacients, opening up a back door to taxpayer-funded abortions. Still others, usually conservative Protestants, point to the connection between birth control and extramarital sex and don't want to subsidize promiscuity.

But whatever the reason, these groups don't want to limit the conscience clause to clergy and church employees. The conscience exception wouldn't apply to people whose work wasn't devoted to religious ends. Like social workers and nurses employed by Catholic charities, for instance. And plans for students at religious universities would have to cover birth control.

This is where it gets personal for me, because I am a graduate student on stipend at attend a Jesuit (Catholic) university, and I was very much surprised to discover that my health insurance (purchased through my school) doesn't cover birth control or really anything reproduction-related besides OB-GYN exams. I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I think I accepted a "Catholic" ethic because I decided to study and teach here. Jesuits just happen to produce the best scholars in my corner of philosophy. As it happens, I don't need birth control because I'm not sexually active, and I actually think most premarital sex is immoral for various reason. But that's my decision, based on my moral choice. And for the majority of the culture that disagrees with me, that's there moral choice, too. To be perfectly honest, I really resent the idea that some group I never joined up with should decide what kind of health choices I'm able to access.

(To be clear: this "joined up" idea can be hard to nail down. If you were born into a church and your whole family belonged, staying on the church rosters could just be inertia at work. Or maybe you joined because you agreed with most of the beliefs but not this one. Or maybe you took a job at a Catholic hospital or teaching Spanish at an evangelical high school because it was the only or best opening in your area. None of these should take away your access to medical procedures. But this is doubly so for college students, given how little emphasis students put on the school's ideology when choosing to go there.)

This, right here, is why the whole idea of relying on charity for basic needs doesn't work. The Catholic Church (and the other groups taking similar stances) are saying it's an affront to their freedom of conscience if they have to pay for my birth control (if I decided I wanted it). I would maybe be okay with that (maybe) if not for the refrain I keep hearing in politics. We're told that government is inefficient, that it's wrong to make people give up their money to support people who didn't earn it. That Americans are the most generous nation and to just let people hold on to their money so they can donate it willingly. But many, many charities have religious ideologies. Those that don't tend to have their own ideologies, and many attach requirements to people using their money. That doesn't sit right with me.

Think about an analogy. Say someone proposes we slash the budget for Section 8 housing. [for Non-Americans: government $$$ paid to private landlords, to provide lower-income housing for the poor] This is in exchange for a taxcut, with the assumption people will turn around and donate that money to private charities working in their local area. Only those charities have their own ideology, as most do. Say a certain charity has a strong ideological position against smoking. (Perhaps it's Mormon-backed, whose church considers tobacco use a sin; perhaps the group's founder just lost a favorite uncle to emphysema and hates smoking.) What would we say if that charity only took people who pledged not to smoke in their apartments? I can't help thinking low-income people would be less free under this system than the current one.

I guess it all comes down to this for me: you can only use those rights you have the power to exercise. I'm all for personal responsibility and saying that if you have enough money to meet your needs if you were smart about it and you squander it, that you're responsible for. Maybe those people need to suffer, or maybe there's room for honest-to-goodness charity there. But if someone isn't making enough to have a basic standard of living, if they're trying to find a job and can't or if the jobs available pay too little, that's not what charity's for. They need public funds – yes, taken from my tax $$$ – and it's really not up to me how they spend it. That's justice.

Your thoughts?


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 1st, 2012 11:38 pm (UTC)
I think that middle- and upper-class people are generally overpaid, meaning that we should give up our money to fill the actual needs of the poor. I see this as a moral duty, and I don't think I should get to say how that money is actually used.

I agree with you in principle (i.e. that public assistance should not have provisos attached to it), but I'm hankering for a debate, so I'll throw this out there just for argument's sake.

I'm going to ignore your point about the upper class here, because (a) I have no personal interest/stake in that segment of society, and (b) the class distinctions ported over from British society don't really operate the same way in the US.

Why do you think the middle class are overpaid? And since overpaid is a relative term, what are you comparing their pay with? What's the appropriate standard for determining how much a member of the middle class should be paid? Their level of education? Their level of personal accomplishment? Their family's socioeconomic background? Their relative contribution to society and/or the public good?

Also, who gets to set the standard?

Edited at 2012-02-01 11:38 pm (UTC)
Feb. 2nd, 2012 01:52 am (UTC)
Excellent question, Roh. (And thanks for reading!) You're right about the upper/middle/lower class distinctions, btw; I mainly used them to try to get across the fact that I wasn't going after just the "one percent" here.

I guess my starting point is the idea that no one is entitled to satisfy their wants until everyone's needs are met. That of course raises the question of wants vs. needs. I'd say that needs would include the kind of things that people cannot survive without (physically), along with the security of knowing you could depend on them into the future. For starters, that would include basic housing, basic food, enough heat and coolness to prevent health problems, basic clothing suitable to prevent injury, access to basic mental and physical health care, and enough left over so you don't have to worry about not being able to provide those things in the future (e.g. in the event of injury or old age). I'd also include reliable but basic transportation in some locations (though not if public transportation is available), because I think people have a legitimate need for human contact.

We could argue over just what "basic" means here. I can see room for legitimate disagreement over how good of food needs to be included. (Do you need meat at every meal? Fresh veggies, or will frozen/canned do? etc.) But I think we can all agree on the situations where the basic level isn't met. THis is basically any case where someone is homeless or isn't sure of where there next meal is coming from, either because there are no jobs available (or available to them, as in the case of disability) or they don't pay enough to provide the things that need paying.

I'd say that if there are a substantial number of people who can't meet the basic threshold, then the rest of us are probably getting too much of society's resources. That makes me think that whatever society decided I was worth, it overpaid me because it didn't take into account some obligation it had. I'm sure some people were overpaid more than others, and I suspect it's more or less in proportion to how much "want" a person with that income can afford if they manage their money more. This doesn't mean people aren't entitled to their wants or that everyone's wants have to be met at the same rate. But I think if society or the market or whatever gave me more money than it takes to meet my needs but at the same time there are other people whose needs aren't met, then at least some of the difference is really owed to the starving, homeless, etc.

As for how much and who decides, I'd say it's best to start with the experts - economists mainly, but also all varieties of social scientists who have expertise that bears on this issue. I can see some legitimate disagreement over who needs to pay and how you tax people (or otherwise collect the money if taxes aren't the best way). I have no problem with people having that debate. I'm mainly going against the basic idea I encounter a lot, that we should just let private charity provide for the poor. As I tried to explain above, that gives people who have money power over the choices of those that don't have the money, which I don't think is fair (or particularly liberty-oriented, come to it).

Edited at 2012-02-02 01:53 am (UTC)
Feb. 2nd, 2012 05:14 am (UTC)
I definitely agree with you on this.

Strangely enough, there are a lot of vocal people in the highest strata of financial status who also agree. Warren Buffet comes to mind (though he's not the only one), when he flat out states that he is not taxed enough-- he is WILLING to pay more in taxes.

And there are those who say "Well, fine for him, but *I* don't want to pay more, let him donate to charity!"

He does, a lot. But as you say, charities almost always have strings, and they don't have the same obligations as the gov't does. And they do not have the same scope, either.

The inequities are staggering, really. And yet certain groups can't see the writing on the wall. Heaven help us if we get a conservative president next fall.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

October 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow