Politics and Money

[conix]

Contraception and the English Language

By Sheldon Richman Thursday, October 25, 2012

The English language, George Orwell wrote in 1946, "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

Orwell called his classic essay "Politics and the English Language," having recognized politics as a cesspool of foolish thoughts and slovenly language. I submit that things have only gotten worse since his time.

Take the debate over contraception coverage under Obamacare. Has there ever been an issue so absurdly framed? The fierce determination to call things by inappropriate names is simply breathtaking! It may well be that the abuse of language is entirely intentional, a calculated attempt to confuse people, most of whom are too busy making a living (or looking for a job) and raising their kids to pay close attention. But perhaps what looks like demagoguery is merely the result of mental fog.

The two abused words I have in mind are access and insurance.

Writing on The Huffington Post blog, Cristina Page says, "This election year is the first in which American's [sic] access to contraception will be dramatically increased or dramatically scaled back depending on who wins the Oval Office" (emphasis added).

My intention here is not to tout any candidate (I have no desire to do that), but to protest this abuse of language. Page is saying that women's access to contraception rides on what happens to the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to include free coverage for contraceptives in their workers' health insurance policies. Other pundits go further and say that if that mandate were rescinded, women would be denied access to birth control.
Is that so? It doesn't seem to be. Rather, women whose employers don't provide such coverage would have to pay out of pocket (or find someone else to pay) for their contraceptives. That is hardly a denial of access. Employers don't include groceries in their health plans—though without food you'll surely become unhealthy—but no one regards that as denial of access to food—and for good reason:

Abstaining from paying for something is not a denial of access.

From the public discussion, you'd think someone has advocated outlawing contraception. (Perhaps Rick Santorum did at one point, but he's not running for anything.) No one running for president has.

The advocates of the Obamacare mandate occasionally acknowledge the point when they lament that women without free employer coverage would have to shoulder the burden of paying for their own contraception. Obviously, if they are free to buy contraceptives (whatever the financial burden), their access is not denied.

So we're talking not about access, but about who should pay. That's quite a different conversation

Let's dispose of one thing at the outset: There is no such thing as free contraception. Contraceptive drugs and devices are not found in nature. They are produced by a mixture of labor and raw materials. Producers of those things quite understandably want to be paid for their trouble. So will the drug store personnel want to be paid. So when people demand free contraceptives (or anything else), they mean that the products should be free to them and that someone else—anyone—should pick up the tab

Demanding that someone else pay for what one wants is not the most attractive pose to strike. Why should someone else pay? Here's an even better question: Why should someone else be forced to pay? (Government is force, after all.)

Those who try to answer this question, say in effect: Because if I have to pay for it myself, I will have to make tradeoffs and do without something else? That's a lousy answer. Most of us face such tradeoffs all the time. That's how it is in a world of scarcity. (It would be nice if government policies wouldn't create scarcities, but that's an issue for another day.)

I have to laugh when I'm told that polls show that over 90 percent of women favor the mandate. That's a surprise? Who doesn't want free stuff? But it's hardly relevant to public policy, which—let us not forget—is about using the government's power to threaten violence against peaceful people.


"Free" contraception may not really be free even to the beneficiaries. Employer-provided medical insurance is part of the employee's compensation package provided tax-free in lieu of cash wages. (It's the product of World War II wage and price controls.)

It stands to reason that if employers are required to pay for this "free" coverage, employees will probably receive lower cash wages or do without other job benefits. The money has to come from somewhere, and employers are not into charity. Politicians treat us like children when they promise us free things. Somebody pays, and that somebody may well be the person who thinks she's getting a freebie. Better the price be open than hidden.

A word about religious freedom: It is certainly true that someone with moral objections to contraception should not be forced to pay for other people's contraception—but that is only because no one should be forced to do so. The religious aspect has gotten too much attention. All people have the right to liberty.
Those who equate access with coverage engage in a bit of demagoguery when they exaggerate the financial burden of contraception. Sandra Fluke, the now-famous Georgetown University law student, said, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." But Cathy Cleaver Ruse quickly countered that one can buy generic oral contraceptives for $9 without insurance at Target and Walmart.
Nevertheless, even if Fluke were right, that would not justify coercing employers to pay for their female employees' contraceptives. Civilized folks don't force other people to do things they don't want to do—or ask the government to do the dirty work instead.
For women who would find even $9 a month a burden, there are sources of assistance, such as Planned Parenthood and other voluntary organizations. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also pays for birth control pills. The "burden" argue has no merit.
The upshot is that the lack of insurance does not equate to lack of access.

Finally, there's that word insurance. In any other context people understand that insurance is a way to deal with risk—that is, the small chance that something very costly will happen to you, like an auto accident or a house fire. Typically you can't get insurance for an intentional act. If you call Travelers and ask how much fire insurance costs after mentioning that you're planning to burn down your house, the agent will probably hang up on you.

Look at it this way: No woman would buy contraceptive coverage with her own money. Why not? Because the premium would include the cost of the contraceptives plus the company's administrative overhead. No woman would think the coverage worth that price. Better to self-insure—pay out of earnings or savings—and save the administrative costs.

The government of course can force employers or the taxpayers to pay for women's contraceptives, but that doesn't make it insurance. Out of respect for clear thought and clear language—if nothing else, then out of respect for George Orwell—we should call such "coverage" what it is: welfare.