Quote of the Day
This is my simple religion.
There is no need for temples;
no need for complicated philosophy.
Our own brain, our own heart is our temple;
the philosophy is kindness.
Dalai Lama
The Virginia Abortion Ultrasound Procedure Law:
Thumbs DOWN!
This opinion is perhaps unexpected from a pro-life conservative. Let me clear: I oppose elective abortion; I believe in a preborn child's unalienable right to live. I do believe that society has a vested interest in the welfare of its future members.
Right or wrong, the courts have provided pregnant women the legal right to abort their preborn children. I understand the desire to implement "speed bump" legislation, particularly when it comes to an irrevocable decision like abortion: an ultrasound may help the pregnant woman understand that her preborn child is not an abstraction, but a flesh-and-blood reality. As a libertarian, I'm wary of Big Nanny telling me what I should do or think about in exercising my liberty or unduly intervening in the due professional care of a patient. I'm reluctant to have the state micromanage the medical treatment of pregnant woman, prescribing medically unnecessary tests and procedures. I support giving pregnant women the option of an ultrasound, but I consider its mandate an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty.
I hope and pray that all pregnant women will accept God's greatest gift: a child.
Ira Stoll/Reason,
"Rush Limbaugh's "Slut" Comment Is a Red Herring"
Thumbs UP!
A little housekeeping first. I believe that this is the first podcast I've embedded from Reason (note the full text of the editorial is at the above link). Easier said than done: the Cato Institute does a much better job of integrating its multimedia files in context. I knew the spoken version of the article was accessible online because I subscribe to the Reason podcast. (This podcast may briefly pause at the beginning but it should start playing almost immediately.)
I know what you're thinking: red herrings are what Obama serves up at New York area fundraisers. (Well, he expects the Gentiles to buy them, too.)
I have written several commentaries on this topic, but there are a few things I think are particularly notable about the birth control kerfuffle: (1) the progressives tacitly assume that all health-related expenses they arbitrarily decide fall under the concept of insurance; (2) they reveal themselves utterly unwilling or incapable of making any good faith compromise.
First, fertility is not an exceptional risk condition we normally consider the province of insurance, like a catastrophic event (say, an act of God affecting our home property) or unexpected death of a young husband and father. Insurance helps us spread the cost of catastrophic events more feasibly across a larger population.
Regular reproduction health expenses are ordinary: 80-90% of American women at or above the age of 40 have given birth to at least one child. Procreation is a fact of life: it's how society sustains itself over time. Food and water are indispensable to one's health, but no one is arguing that they should be included under the concept of health insurance.
Sexual intercourse moreover is volitional activity: why should someone like Sandra Fluke be allowed to socialize her personal birth control expenses? If she led a chaste lifestyle (like many of the people she wants to share the costs of her preferred birth control), she would incur no such expenses. Besides, money is fungible: she spends money on food and drink, clothes, rent, car, utilities, etc. It sounds to me like she's finding an arbitrary, politically expedient rationalization for offloading her personal expenses on other people. Surveys show that at least since the sexually-liberated 1960's, millions of women and/or their partners have used artificial birth control--without government subsidies or health insurance company mandates. But, Ms. Fluke insists, things are different now: she's finding it hard to stick to a budget.
Welcome to the real world, lady! Families have to learn to live within budgets--but they've been doing that throughout recorded history. With high gasoline prices today, families have to adjust--maybe cut down on discretionary driving, car pool, make use of available public transit, consolidate errands, etc. If I was Ms. Fluke spending $1000/year on birth control, I might consider options like using less expensive generic birth control, shopping reliable vendors on the Internet, having "my" significant other put the purchase on his credit card every other month, keeping a spare box of condoms in my bedroom or checking with Planned Parenthood for free or discounted supplies.
You see all sorts of dogmatic nonsense being argued--Viagra vs. birth control, equal cost for insurance across gender, etc. I don't want to start a rant here over feminist ideology. It may well be that, say, women's garments cost more to clean than men's garments, and women may gripe over what they see as as discriminatory pricing. If men and women wore the same type clothes, this might seem plausible. But it's an apples-and-oranges comparison: for example, some garments may require special treatment involving more labor or without economies of scale. It makes no sense for a dry cleaner to charge artificially high prices to women; high prices attract competitors, more than willing to arbitrage the spread, and high prices also limit the number of female garments being cleaned.
As for gender-based pricing in health care, it may very well be doctors spend more time with women. For instance, women are disproportionately impacted by the fact of pregnancy; they require more medical attention than fathers do. Doctors need to price their services commensurate with their time and effort. There is no "conspiracy" against women. Artificially high prices attract competitors, high prices discourage use of medical services, and substitute services are considered.
Ideology makes for bad economics. Obama and Pelosi may echo progressive ideological nonsense about equality of pricing outcomes, but they lack a basic understanding of economics. All that regulatory meddling does is create dysfunctional unintended consequences. For instance, if progressive pricing policies undercut the true costs of treating women, doctors may prefer to focus on the more profitable male segment.
Of course, analytically-challenged New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, whose related column is cited in this commentary, venomously goes through one personal attack after another--we are reminded of Rush's multiple marriages, his admitted past issues with prescription drugs, and Bob Dole's Viagra commercials; Dowd then goes on to pass judgment on Mitt Romney (whom reacted by criticizing Rush for his choice of words) for not going far enough (as if somehow a Presidential candidate is responsible for anything media conservatives have to say (even though they haven't generally been his biggest fans), and throws a shot at Virginia Governor McDonnell (involved in a kerfuffle over procedural prerequisites for legalized abortion).
It's not really clear how all of this garbage fits together (the New York Times doesn't do a decent job reviewing its columnists' substandard work efforts, but we've come to expect that from the Gray Lady), except Maureen Dowd seems to be suggesting that it fits in some vast right-wing conspiracy against women. (How convenient she ignored the ethically-challenged men on her side of the ledger, like Al "Sex Crazed Poodle" Gore, Eliot "Can I Call You?" Spitzer, Bill "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Clinton, John "Billie Jean is Not My Lover" Edwards, and Anthony "You Should See the Size of My" Weiner. I don't like to write about petty scandals, but I'm getting annoyed by the blatantly one-sided, hypocritical attacks from progressives. Let us stick with the issues; I don't like predictable progressive ad hominem attacks.
Ira Stoll here makes a good case of demolishing Fluke's grandstanding appearance, pointing out that Fluke's sexual partners bear equal responsibility for her projected $3000 of birth control expenses, and effective condoms are much cheaper. I summarize some of those statistics below.
Of course, he's pointing out the preposterous case of the President and his cronies have made about "no cost" contraception (never mind Obama's ludicrous assertion that birth control "pays for itself" and so insurance companies who don't cover what costs money in the drugstore must be required by law to engage in cost-saving measures, in spite of themselves, not the market!) It makes no economic sense, of course: the government is effectively nationalizing the distribution of birth control, now requiring the unnecessary markup of the middleman (the insurance company).
This fiction that companies and insurance companies, not women or government, will pay for "free" birth control is utter rubbish. First, what the worker makes is compensation--including benefits, and compensation is based on market factors. The government may influence the structure of compensation. Second, the tax-free basis of health insurance already provides an implicit subsidy by the government. Maureen Dowd's distinction between a mandate and an entitlement is arbitrary from the standpoint of the business: a mandate is effectively a tax because money is fungible.
Finally, the unwillingness of the progressives to yield even on waiving church-affiliated institutions from this mandate, which is a common sense exception that would affect only a modest proportion of the population, once again demonstrates the rigidity of progressives, whom shoved ObamaCare down the nation's throat with no serious attempt at bipartisan compromise. They see this as a slippery slope exception ... The failure of the progressives to compromise will result in this mandate implementation being thrown out in court, probably unanimously, as a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Ira Stoll presents some key statistics (but before proceeding, let me point out that Ms. Fluke always has the option of telling her partner that she had a headache--and aspirin is very cheap. Wait a minute: I've just given her the idea for a new mandate...):
- "They could have men pay half." [My note: if guys share the cost of dinner, why should they expect ladies to pick up the check for dessert?]
- "The law students could buy condoms online at $40.25 for a package of 100. At about 40 cents a condom, the Georgetown students could have sex twice a day, 365 days a year, for all three years of law school, for just $881 dollars."
- "Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply. Total cost, assuming continuous use for three full years (including the summer after graduating law school or before starting): about $150."
Political Humor
Remy Returns With a Fluke Hit! I'm pleased to see my clueless Congressman (the guy whom knows what Remy's talking about) made a guest appearance... (Warning: I was drinking something when I first heard Remy's ad lib about Fluke's sheepskin (condom) receipt; keep paper towels near your PC.)
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Arrow Through Me"
