Translate

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Three things wrong with this picture

Supreme Court to rule on birth control mandate (Via Ad Orientem)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.

The justices said Tuesday they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
1. Insurance is the pooling of risk of unanticipated casualties. Outside the rare event of rape, coitus is entirely voluntary. Thus, there is no way to "insure" birth control. The mandate is equivalent to requiring your homeowner's insurer to cover your gambling losses in Vegas. The only way to avoid moral hazard would be to charge you for the entire amount of your own money you're prepared to risk. So, premiums must rise to cover the cost of these purely voluntary outlays, er, expenses.

2. Sexual intercourse between two adults is not generally a public matter as would not be, likewise, a person's choice to use or not use birth control. The idea of a legislature passing laws on matters of personal choice which do not otherwise intrude on the preferences of others is absurd. Incidentally, if we're going to socialize the cost of birth control, thereby deeming sex a public good, then it's an easy argument from there that receipt of net benefits from government should be conditioned on sterilization.

Irony of ironies, we had positive fertility rates back when people had to pay the full freight for their own babymaking.

3. Related to 2, if the judiciary is having to pass constitutional muster on such narrow, arcane items, then rational public policy debate is not happening, and the people are effectively conceding their incapacity for self-governance.

4 comments:

SFG said...

I get where you're coming from on this, but don't you think there's a harm-reduction angle to not having the teeming masses make lots of kids we'll have to pay welfare for?

I know the Catholic argument against contraception, but is there any point in them having babies that'll get aborted? Seems like it would cut down on the number of abortions...

It's a liberal argument, but it struck me as compelling.

lannes said...

Sex is purely voluntary, so if these girls "volunteer" it, why should insurers slake their lust by subsidizing it?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

@SFG - the point is well-taken. But just do the fiscally correct thing and pay for it with welfare dollars.

Also, let's be honest: socializing birth control would be a bourgeois subsidy, not a proletarian one.

Visibilium said...

I'd prefer experience with fucking rather than with making a fucked up ruling.