Posted on 07/09/2014 7:08:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Courts decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby has pushed all the buttons that could be expected when sex and religion intersect. Many on the right are celebrating because they value religious expression and feel rather less excited about sex, especially of the non-procreative variety. And much of the Left is outraged because religion is generally considered of far less import while sexual freedom has a high priority. But both sides are missing the point.
It is true that your boss shouldnt be deciding whether or not your insurance plan includes contraceptives. It is also true that your boss shouldnt have to pay for your contraceptives if it violates his or her religious beliefs. But why is this debate limited to employers with certain clearly defined religious beliefs, or for that matter to contraception?
The bigger question should be: Why is some woman arguing with her boss about what benefits are included in her insurance plan in the first place?
Theres no good answer. The entire concept that our boss should provide our insurance is an anomaly that grew out of unique historical circumstances during World War II. At the time of a significant labor shortage, President Roosevelt imposed wage (and price) controls, preventing employers from competing for available workers by raising salaries. In an effort to circumvent the regulations and attract workers, employers began to offer non-wage benefits, among them health insurance.
In 1953, the IRS compounded the problem by holding that employer-provided health insurance was not part of wage compensation for tax purposes. This means that if a worker is paid $40,000 and their employer also provides an insurance policy worth $16,000, the worker pays taxes on just the $40,000 in wages. If, however, instead of providing insurance, the employer gave the worker a $16,000 raise allowing the worker to purchase his or her own insurance the worker would have to pay taxes on $66,000 in income, a tax hike of as much as $2,400. This puts workers who buy their own insurance at a significant disadvantage compared to those who receive insurance through work.
As a result, Americans were driven to get health insurance through their job: In 1960, just a third of non-elderly Americans received health insurance at work, roughly. Today, 58.4 percent do. (Thats actually down from the peak of 71.4 percent in 1980).
Employer-provided insurance is problematic for several reasons. Most significantly, it hides much of the true cost of health care from consumers, encouraging over consumption. Basing insurance on employment also means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured. And once youve lost insurance, it can be hard to get new coverage, especially if you have a pre-existing condition.
But, in the context of Hobby Lobby, employer-provided insurance is even more insidious: It gives your boss the power to determine what is and is not included in your insurance plan. The governments answer, of course, is simply to mandate that certain benefits, in this case contraceptives, be included. But that merely substitutes the governments judgment for your bosss. Thus we infringe on your employers desires and your own, leaving both of you at the mercy of politicians.
Instead of fighting over religious liberty vs. contraceptive coverage, both sides should agree to start transitioning away from employer-provided insurance and into a system where each of us owns personal and portable insurance, independent of our job.
Getting there requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance so that employer-provided insurance is treated the same as other compensation for tax purposes: that is, as taxable income. At the same time, to offset the increased tax, workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), regardless of whether they receive insurance through their job or purchase it on their own.
As a result of this shift in tax policy, employers would gradually substitute higher wages for insurance, allowing workers to shop for the insurance policy that most closely match their needs. That insurance would be more likely to be true insurance protecting the worker against catastrophic risk, while requiring out-of-pocket payment for routine, low-dollar costs. And it would belong to the worker, not the employer, meaning that workers would be able to take it from job to job and would not lose it if they became unemployed.
But it would also mean that workers, not their bosses, would decide what benefits they want to pay for. People could have contraceptive coverage or any other kind of coverage if we wanted it and were willing to pay for it.
In a less politically polarized world, that would be a reform that both left and right could embrace. In this one, I wouldnt hold my breath.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
So Tanner agrees with the RATs that the bossiest boss of all, our Federal Government, should decide what is covered by our insurance. By the way, how can anything covered by you insurance be called a benefit when your being forced by people carrying guns to pay through the nose for it?
yeah. we need to stip business of this recruitment tool, and leave the field open for more government involvement.
that oughta fix everything
Getting rid of health insurance altogether would be the best solution, but too many pigs at the trough prevent this.
But without employers participating, 0bamacare won't work .... oh wait, nevermind.
I thought the author wanted the fedgov to determine insurance instead of the employer, until I read this in the article...
“But, in the context of Hobby Lobby, employer-provided insurance is even more insidious: It gives your boss the power to determine what is and is not included in your insurance plan. The governments answer, of course, is simply to mandate that certain benefits, in this case contraceptives, be included. But that merely substitutes the governments judgment for your bosss. Thus we infringe on your employers desires and your own, leaving both of you at the mercy of politicians.”
If that’s the case, he should change the title to, “Get Bosses AND THE FEDGOV Out of Health Insurance Altogether”
Obama did his own executive order similar to the Hyde Amendment after Obamacare was signed, but it expired after one year. He did this because on 9/9/2009 in his joint session of congress he said the Feds would not pay for Abortions. How come it was not a war on women when he did it? Can someone in the press call shenanigans on him already!!!
BINGO! What started out as a voluntary benefit is now required benefit.
“Theres no good answer. The entire concept that our boss should provide our insurance is an anomaly that grew out of unique historical circumstances during World War II. At the time of a significant labor shortage, President Roosevelt imposed wage (and price) controls, preventing employers from competing for available workers by raising salaries. In an effort to circumvent the regulations and attract workers, employers began to offer non-wage benefits, among them health insurance.”
Or whether to buy it at all. The individual mandate/robert's tax needs to go.
That would mean repealing Obamacare with it fascist list of mandates.
Because health problems can result in catastrophic costs, insurance makes sense. You can't realistically set aside millions in case you accidentally kill someone, so you insure liability on your car. It makes sense to spread the risk across many people and your lifetime. Similarly, you couldn't save hundreds of thousands of dollars on the off chance that you would require a heart transplant or an extended stay in the hospital. So catastrophic insurance makes sense. "Insuring" prescription drugs and birth control do not. Why run those costs through an insurance company, driving the cost and price up? Same with yearly checkups. They're not a risk; they're a certainty. They should be paid for out of packet, not buried in an insurance premium.
The real reason why company sponsored health care is so popular is that large corporations are natural groupings of people with a variety of healthiness. Insurance companies can calculate their average expenses per employee and charge each employee (through their corporations) a reasonable rate.
So along with the other recommendations such as allowing more money to be put into HSA's, the government has to allow for the creation of non-employment based groups.
I understand that such groups exist, but if employment-based groups go away then there will be increased demand for membership in these other groups. What types of groups will be allowed? Will healthy people be able to group together to assure themselves low rates and deny entry to others based solely on their health? Will the government allow groups based solely on religious beliefs? If someone claims to be a "good Christian", but really isn't, will they be able to sue to join a Christian health group? If they are allowed in, will they be able to sue to force the group to cover contraception and abortion?
There are many more questions that are brought up by this essay than answered.
I’m vested in my former employer’s group retiree health insurance plan and my deductibles and premiums are low, or at least reasonable. I put in over 36 years to have reasonably priced insurance. Personally, I would rather my plan be run by my former employer than the Federal government. All of Obamacare needs to just go away for good.
The government should not be telling employers what that they MUST provide health insurance ... or anything else.
This is the root of the problem.
However, since they are, Congress has further compounded their error by infringing on the First Amendment rights of individuals who happen to also be employers. This is direct contradition to the Constitution, and if we have to fight on that hill I am more than happy to fight there. Without 1A we have no rights at all.
The First Amendment starts out “Congress shall make no law ...” They contradicted the Constitutuion the moment they made PPACA the law ... whether they read it or not. I have no doubt there are other Constitutional errors in the law and I hope they are all brought forth and litigated up to the Supreme Court.
This law in particular is poorly written and deeply flawed.
But the root of the problem is Congress passing so many laws to begin with. I would favor all laws automatically have a sunset clause at 7 years and further that all laws passed by stand-alone, not attached to other bills or passedin Omnibus fashion. This would at the very least slow them down and would give citizens a chance to keep track of what they are doing.
Yes. It morphed into an extremely insidious MONSTER as a tool for the Left.
AMEN
Business could still offer health insurnce VOLUNTARILY.
The problem is the government mandating that businesses must offer heath insurance.
“So Tanner agrees with the RATs that the bossiest boss of all, our Federal Government, should decide what is covered by our insurance. “
Pre-Obamacare, I had a talk with my benchmark lib. The inherent assumption was that government could be trusted with controlling what healthcare we received, but insurance companies and employers could not be trusted.
It’s just part of their worldview. It’s an assumption, a given from which they conclude all the goofy things they conclude. They never think to question it.
The corporate class is running this country. They are the paymasters for both parties. Amnesty and open borders are the current objectives.
The author’s proposal has some merit but overlooks the proverbial 800# gorilla that’s been in the room for 50 years now, FEDGOV in the form of Medicare. They now control costs and allowable charges for a certain segment yet that info is now transferred to the insurance companies, thus bollixing up what should be a direct doctor-patient relationship. Each layer of non-productive bureaucracy requires ever more overhead for the doctor and adds little or nothing to the health outcome for the patient.
Get government out of healthcare, period. What the heck is the matter with NR? Wrong argument here when we all know the problem. Let the free market reign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.