Contradiction abounds in requirement to provide free birth control

Friday, the Obama Administration announced final regulations requiring health care plans to cover birth control without charging any co-pays or deductibles to their participants. The requirement will begin Aug. 1.

The administrative rule will require organizations like religious schools and Catholic hospitals to offer birth control - at no cost - to employees covered by their health plans, though not until 2013. Houses of worship are exempt.

I'm certain that many people are going to be writing about the infringement on religion, and the Catholic religion specifically, but I want to focus on the clear contradiction in thought: that requiring health care plans to provide contraception (or any service/treatment/drug) without a co-pay or deductible somehow 'saves money.'

First, there isn't anyone who doesn't have 'access' to contraception. Any person can purchase condoms and anti-spermicide at the drug store counter - and the effectiveness of each is increased by using them together.

Any woman can get a prescription for birth control from numerous outlets. A doctor may recommend a specific type over another based upon the woman's personal and medical history, but there are so many doctors willing to write the prescriptions that no woman is without 'access.'

This regulation isn't about 'access' - it's about a woman not having to pay for the contraception she wants to use.

From The Hill:

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

As Richards readily admits, women already have access, but they're paying "$15 to $50 per month." With this new rule, they won't be required to pay anything - at least, not up front.

But someone always pays, hence the contradiction.

The manufacturer will still need to be compensated for the product they provide. So while the individual woman won't have to fork over any money at the time she actually get her contraceptive, insurance companies will still have a cost that will need to be covered. Without the ability to charge the individual user, they'll raise their rates on everyone to cover the expense.

This means higher rates for all - including the ones who think they're now getting their contraception for free. Talk about a contradiction between hype and reality.

So of course, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming comments on the HHS rule were in favor of the requirement. All those people who supported it think they'll no longer have to pay. But that's just a bigger comment on their intelligence and reasoning skills - or perhaps our education system - than it is on the rule itself.

So what about seniors who don't need contraception? Or a single person who is celibate? What about men and women who have had a medical procedure that eliminates the need for contraception? Or individuals who are sterile?

All of these people will now be covering the costs so some can have the luxury of not having any out-of-pocket expenses for a product only they are using.

This is un-American. And it's no different than if my co-worker stole money out of my wallet in order to pay for her birth control pills.

More contradictions from Obama

I've been thinking about the various proposals President Barack Obama has for 'helping' small business - and how, again, his words and actions are contradictory.

He is proposing a tax credit for hiring new employees, paying more to existing employees or purchasing equipment.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I oppose tax credits (an after-the-fact process of returning a small portion of what the government has taken from you in the first place) when an overall reduction in tax rates is so much more effective.

But the tax credit is only for a new hire, and doesn't apply to employees brought back after being laid off - nor does it continue to exist all the years that a company keeps that employee. The decision to hire another employee is never based upon a potential tax credit. It's based upon the need for that person and the sales to support the salary on a long-term basis.

He's also proposing to use TARP funds for bank loans to small businesses. You remember TARP? It's the temporary fund that was supposed to help bail out the banks deemed too big to fail, but that was also used to bail out the auto companies???? It's the fund that Obama says won't ever recoup all its loans and needs to charge ALL banks a 'recovery fee.' It's becoming a permanent source of funding for whatever spending Obama wants to do.

The bank loans he's talking about, though, are only through 'community' banks - banks that really don't need an infusion of cash to loan out. And Obama hasn't documented that there's even a need for such loans to small businesses - but determining a need for 'help' isn't relevant to how good the program sounds to the masses.

The main issue he's trying to address with this loan package is a direct result of the tighter restrictions government has placed on lending and capitalization of banks. The issues relating to sub-prime loans and the failures of many with government-back mortgages resulted in Congress 'doing something' to solve problems resulting from the last time they 'did something.' Tighter regulatory controls on the assets banks have to keep mean they have been more restrictive with the qualifications for loans. Small community banks think that if Obama's loan program will absolve them from loss on the riskier borrowers, then they might take advantage of it and lend to people they've previously denied.

What? Yes, loaning to people who have been determined to be too much of a risk for a 'regular' loan. Isn't that what got us into this economic mess in the first place? Is there really a need to loan to people/businesses that are that risky?

But there's a problem - and a contradiction - with what the President says.

At the same time he's planning small tax credits and loans for certain behavior, he's talking about raising tax rates on 'the rich.' Many small business owners, because of the way they've structured their companies, fall into the 'rich' designation because they report their business earnings as part of their personal income tax reports. This means they're taxed at the personal, not corporate, rate. Of course, for most, they're paying taxes on paper earnings they never actually see in terms of dollars in their wallets.

I don't want this to be a post focused on the tax code - a 60,044-page/25-volume monstrosity that no one, not even the government enforcers, actually understands. But it's important to note that because of the tax code and the complicated nature of it and corporation structures, many businesses go this route and end up being designated as 'rich' as a result.

For these types of business owners, a one-time, limited, tax credit is not enough to overcome the uncertainty of future, permanent taxes.

The politicians in the federal government are constantly talking about the need to raise taxes. The Associate Press reports that Obama's budget raises taxes on businesses. Various reports indicate that increased tax rates, health care 'reform' and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 will mean more money paid to the federal government, detracting from anticipated profits businesses are earning.

On the state and local level, the discussion is much the same: government needs more money to continue its spending patterns (or to expand them in the guise of 'helping' the economy) and someone has to pay. In December, Ohio decided to 'delay' a phased-in tax cut that took effect in January of last year. In Toledo, there's discussion of raising the payroll income tax. That's more money coming OUT of the earnings and spendable income of individuals and business owners.

Unlike government and politicians, business owners have to plan for such things. When there is uncertainty about future costs, they will be cautious in their spending, choosing to save for future obligations rather than incur additional expenses while awaiting clarification.

And they're certainly not going to borrow money for anything if they think future earnings will be negatively impacted by higher taxes, limiting their ability to actually repay the loan.

They've also seen the complicated and arbitrary rules associated with such loans when the politicians get to decide the terms, many of them retroactive in enforcement. Will these small business owners be subject to earnings and pay limitations if they accept this government money?

Uncertainty is the killer.

So while Obama is proposing various programs to provide what he considers to be 'help,' he and his fellow Democrats in Congress are planning various actions that will definitely 'hurt' small business.

I'll concede that perhaps, despite how 'smart' people seem to think he is, our President might not have a clue.

Obama has never run a business. He's never been responsible for meeting a payroll, making decisions about hiring/firing or purchasing equipment for an operation. He's never had to develop a business plan and weigh various costs against potential income. He's never had to budget for today's operations while ensuring protection against tomorrow's decline or anticipating future growth.

He's never had to experience the decision-making process that all business owners have to face. So why should we expect that any policies relating to small business - or any business, for that matter - have any basis in reality?

We shouldn't ... but he's the President and if he doesn't have the personal experience, he's supposed to surround himself with people who do so he doesn't continually contradict himself by saying one thing and doing another.

Did you know? Government already coerces your health care choice

I guess I wasn't aware of this fact until reading this article in the Wall Street Journal:

"A centerpiece of the debate over ObamaCare is government coercion and the right to choose a health-care plan. So it's worth watching a lawsuit now making its way through the federal courts that seeks to let seniors keep their Social Security benefits even if they reject Medicare. This could be a big deal."

That's right. If you want to collect your Social Security, you MUST enroll in Medicare, even if you don't want it or need it. If you've got a great health plan already and decide to 'opt out' of Medicare, the government will deny you the ability to collect your Social Security.

Seems contrary to everything we know and the rhetoric we're hearing in today's health coverage debates, doesn't it? Especially since the two are completely different programs, each funded by the individual through different taxes.

But there is some logic and reason making its way through this situation:

POMS were imposed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration and set forth rules that aren't in the statute or regulations governing Medicare. The three plaintiffs—Brian Hall, John Kraus and former U.S. House Majority Leader Richard Armey—all had health-care plans they preferred to the coverage they were compelled to receive through Medicare.

In her ruling this week, the judge said that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare." Article I of the Constitution gives Congress sole power to legislate—so when agency rules conflict with federal statute, the statute takes precedence.

The Obama administration opposed the suit saying that the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted their administrative remedies for challenging these agency rules. But the judge disagreed:

Judge Collyer rejected that notion, noting that one plaintiff had sought an administrative hearing but "received no response from the SSA for approximately three years." Exhaustion of remedies was therefore "futile." A three-year wait is precisely the kind of bureaucratic hassle, or deliberate stonewalling, that government is famous for.

The article continues with what appears to be just common sense - but also points out the contradiction when it comes to the actions in this situation versus the words coming out of politicians' mouths:

Keep in mind that the plaintiffs are merely asking for the freedom to spend their own money for their own health insurance. With Medicare careening toward bankruptcy, letting seniors opt out could help save the taxpayers money. The plaintiffs argue, and reasonably so, that they have paid a lifetime of taxes into Social Security and shouldn't have those benefits denied merely because they are willing to pay for their own medical care. Social Security and Medicare are separate programs, and both are financed by separate payroll contributions.

The response of the Obama Administration to this lawsuit is revealing about its principles, as opposed to its rhetoric. President Obama says his plan for a "public option" wouldn't be coercive, saying that "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan." But here is a case where federal bureaucrats are using their power to force Medicare on seniors. Let's hope the courts restore a genuine right to choose.

We need to keep this situation in mind and remember the excesses of government when it comes to a so-called 'choice' of health coverage in the future. Despite their words, we have a present-day example that demonstrates the words cannot be trusted.

Credit card 'protections' versus bank bailouts

Maybe it's just me, but the federal government has done 'stress tests' of banks to see what kind of assets they need to have to remain viable. They've also bailed out many banks who were deemed 'too big to fail.'

Almost all banks offer credit cards on which they make a profit (if they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be offering them). That profit comes from interest and fees that they impose, charging higher fees/interest to those with riskier credit - a common practice everywhere.

The federal government (because it's such an expert at living within its budget and ensuring enough income to cover its debt) tells banks they need to have more resources, assets and income.

But they also tell the banks that they're charging too much in fees and interests on their credit cards and that they need to change/reduce those charges. This will reduce and, in some cases, eliminate certain profits that the banks rely upon for profitability.

These two actions are in direct contradiction.

How does this make any sense?

My 1,000th post

It's hard to believe that this is my 1,000th post on Thurber's Thoughts. Let me thank those of you who've been with me from the beginning!

I'm actually taking this post a bit easy...tonight's Eye on Toledo deconstructed the paper's editorial "Say 'no' to COAST," and I've put my notes up on my Eye On Toledo blog. You can read the notes and then listen to the podcast and phone calls. The podcast should be available shortly.

Contradiction in Mayor's excuse for banning Marines

There is a problem permeating the issue of our Mayor refusing to allow a company of U.S. Marine Corps reservists access to Toledo's downtown area for training.

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner has repeatedly stated that having Marines running around with guns and firing blanks in the central business district of the city on a Friday afternoon is not appropriate, considering the number of workers who would be leaving the downtown area at the same time.

Today, our local paper has quotes that include the presence of children transferring buses downtown on their way home from school as further justification of the decision.

And many individuals who have agreed with the Mayor's position have referenced the timing as their reason for supporting the decision.

But the facts about the training - when it would have begun and when the troops would have been on the streets - are missing, conveniently so from the Mayor's statements.

The Marines' advance team was notified of the Mayor's decision upon arrival in the city - at 3:20 p.m.

"Sergeant Davis, who traveled ahead of the five-bus convoy, stepped from his vehicle into downtown about 3:20 p.m. and was told by a city employee that the mayor wanted him and his soldiers packed up and out by 6 p.m."

According to numerous sources, the Marines were not scheduled to arrive until the 4-5 p.m. hour. They would have unloaded themselves and their equipment, set up their headquarters, received briefings and instructions and would not have been out on the streets until after the evening rush hour - and certainly after all the kids had finished with their school bus transfers.

Additionally, if it was the number of people during rush hour that was the problem, why were the Marines given a deadline of 6 p.m. to be out of the city? This would have put them in the position of loading up the advance equipment and supplies and traveling out of the city at the same time as the rush hour traffic - perhaps scaring workers even more. This doesn't make sense.

Tom at BizzyBlog has a great post on his perception of The Blade portraying Carty as a victim. The paper contributes to the overall problem by failing to detail the schedule of training, thus demonstrating that Carty's reasoning for his decision is faulty - or at least, not as portrayed.

And individuals who read only the paper (which is, admittedly, the only media source with the ability to devote sufficient space/time to the story to include such details), will take Carty's reasoning at face value and may, actually, agree, but only because they lack all the details.

Carty needs to explain the contradiction between the actual training schedule and his excuse for kicking the Marines out of the city.

ASIDE: Blade Columnist Roberta deBoer has an interesting column that suggests the real reason Carty made this decision is ... pride.