I remember vividly (as it was not all that long ago) the "War on Women" contraception debate. Forever will be branded in my mind the oft-repeated accusation, "Republicans want to get rid of birth control and turn back the clock on women's rights!"
No, not really.
You may be surprised that I'm addressing this, since I usually talk about general, vast, philosophical concepts when I talk politics, not specific tidbits and issues. However, I find this a worthy specimen for one reason. This reason can be expressed in one word--and it's one of my favorite words: "premise."
I find the premise behind that argument FASCINATING--and, honestly, quite deadly.
During the entire contraceptive debate, there was never one single prominent or otherwise Republican who advocated the banning or even stringent regulation of birth control. The Republicans were against forcing private insurance companies to pay for birth control.
(A quick aside before I get back to my main point--insurance companies make money off having people pay them relatively small fees against the slim odds that something catastrophic and expensive might happen. For most people, that doesn't happen, but they keep on paying their fees, which gives the insurance companies their revenue. There are a few odd ducks that do have catastrophic events befall them, who require large payouts, and the company can dip into its pool of revenue for that. Whatever is left over constitutes its profits. Insurance companies, in other words, were designed to cover highly-expensive rare events. How could such a business model make a profit if, in addition to the already-present burden of worthy payouts, it was supposed for omnipresent expenses in addition? And a follow-up question, what other common non-catastrophical expenses might they be forced to pay (as they already are)? Insurance companies were never meant to be blank medical checks for a monthly fee. Perhaps the reason insurance can be so expensive, and doctor visits too, is because of the unrealistic expectation placed on the insurance business model.)
Let me write the next clause in caps here for the sake of emphasis: NOT WANTING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE A GOOD OR SERVICE DOES NOT EQUATE WITH OUTRIGHT, UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO THAT GOOD OR SERVICE. I am NOT against birth control. I am against paying for somebody else's birth control--AND somebody else paying for mine. Never forget that the government has no source of revenue in and of itself--every penny it takes in it takes from somebody else. What gives you the moral right and prerogative to take money out of somebody else's pocket to pay for your wants or needs? Nothing. You don't have it. It violates the sanctity of private property, which is one of the great pillars of free societies. (In fact, the phrase "the pursuit of happiness," in the Declation of Independence was actually a euphemism for "estate," or property. John Locke was the one that talked about life, liberty, and estate, and greatly influenced the Founders' philosophy. The reason "estate" didn't make it into the final cut was that the founders didn't want it used as a rationalization for slavery.)
This post goes back to one of my very first posts, the one on why conservatives are conservative. Greater wealth and prosperity will come to people through freedom and libertarian policy than through the redistribution of perforce misallocated resources.
I'm not against government FORCING private individuals and entities to supply birth control because I'm misogynist, sexist, or whatever the case may be--I'm against it because it is simply bad policy. So please, if you want to have a rational discussion and truly understand the conservative point of view, let go of the misunderstanding and allow your viewpoint to be reconciled with what is true.
No, not really.
You may be surprised that I'm addressing this, since I usually talk about general, vast, philosophical concepts when I talk politics, not specific tidbits and issues. However, I find this a worthy specimen for one reason. This reason can be expressed in one word--and it's one of my favorite words: "premise."
I find the premise behind that argument FASCINATING--and, honestly, quite deadly.
During the entire contraceptive debate, there was never one single prominent or otherwise Republican who advocated the banning or even stringent regulation of birth control. The Republicans were against forcing private insurance companies to pay for birth control.
(A quick aside before I get back to my main point--insurance companies make money off having people pay them relatively small fees against the slim odds that something catastrophic and expensive might happen. For most people, that doesn't happen, but they keep on paying their fees, which gives the insurance companies their revenue. There are a few odd ducks that do have catastrophic events befall them, who require large payouts, and the company can dip into its pool of revenue for that. Whatever is left over constitutes its profits. Insurance companies, in other words, were designed to cover highly-expensive rare events. How could such a business model make a profit if, in addition to the already-present burden of worthy payouts, it was supposed for omnipresent expenses in addition? And a follow-up question, what other common non-catastrophical expenses might they be forced to pay (as they already are)? Insurance companies were never meant to be blank medical checks for a monthly fee. Perhaps the reason insurance can be so expensive, and doctor visits too, is because of the unrealistic expectation placed on the insurance business model.)
Let me write the next clause in caps here for the sake of emphasis: NOT WANTING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE A GOOD OR SERVICE DOES NOT EQUATE WITH OUTRIGHT, UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO THAT GOOD OR SERVICE. I am NOT against birth control. I am against paying for somebody else's birth control--AND somebody else paying for mine. Never forget that the government has no source of revenue in and of itself--every penny it takes in it takes from somebody else. What gives you the moral right and prerogative to take money out of somebody else's pocket to pay for your wants or needs? Nothing. You don't have it. It violates the sanctity of private property, which is one of the great pillars of free societies. (In fact, the phrase "the pursuit of happiness," in the Declation of Independence was actually a euphemism for "estate," or property. John Locke was the one that talked about life, liberty, and estate, and greatly influenced the Founders' philosophy. The reason "estate" didn't make it into the final cut was that the founders didn't want it used as a rationalization for slavery.)
This post goes back to one of my very first posts, the one on why conservatives are conservative. Greater wealth and prosperity will come to people through freedom and libertarian policy than through the redistribution of perforce misallocated resources.
I'm not against government FORCING private individuals and entities to supply birth control because I'm misogynist, sexist, or whatever the case may be--I'm against it because it is simply bad policy. So please, if you want to have a rational discussion and truly understand the conservative point of view, let go of the misunderstanding and allow your viewpoint to be reconciled with what is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment