Under his new plan, in the case of religious institutions the onus on providing birth control will be shifted from employers to health insurers, who would be prohibited from charging co-payments or otherwise restricting the supply. This “shouldn’t be a wedge issue,” the President went on. “I certainly never saw it that way.” That is clear. If the White House’s political antennae had been sharper, it could have got together with the Department of Health and Human Services a month ago, before the announcement of the new rule. Quite possibly, this silly row might never have erupted. Still, I doubt the President will suffer much lasting political damage from it. Indeed, it could well rebound in his favor. Women are a much bigger voting group than Catholics. And even among ordinary Catholics, as opposed to the gilded church hierarchy, contraception just isn’t a very big deal.
To be sure, the Administration goofed in its handling of this issue. If it had tabled what looks like an eminently reasonable way to balance women’s rights with religious freedom, it would have passed the issue back to Roman Catholic bishops, a group whose moral and political authority has never been weaker, forcing them to oppose it. In issuing the new rules without adequate prep work, the Administration presented the bishops, led by New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, with an opportunity to pose as the victims of an all-encroaching government. Then, as dawn follows night, the Republicans piled on, creating alarm in the White House political shop.
Hence today’s compromise plan, which draws from a system in Hawaii, where employees at religious institutions with health-care plans that don’t provide contraception can pay a small supplement to receive it on a regular basis. Under the federal plan, women wouldn’t pay anything, raising the question of who will shoulder the additional cost. Obama said it wouldn’t be the employers or the policy-users. That leaves it to the insurance companies, who will surely try to shift the cost onto someone.
The plan’s vagueness reflects how hastily it was put together. If insurers balk at going along with it, the issue could remain in the headlines for a while longer, providing more ammo for Republican culture warriors. (Rick Santorum, apparently a keen if not very reliable student of the French Revolution, has already remarked upon this subject that President Obama is leading us to “the guillotine.”)
The politicos in the White House appear to be worried about alienating Catholics in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. I think these concerns are overblown. A number of moderate Catholic groups immediately endorsed today’s compromise, including the Catholic Health Organization, whose head Sister Carol Keehan said it “has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.” Doubtless, some conservative clerics will keep up their attacks. So what?
Ordinary Catholics shouldn’t be lumped in with their prelates. Having been raised in a Catholic family and taught by nuns, I would suggest that while Catholics get exercised about certain social issues—abortion, for example—contraception isn’t one of them. Among the churchgoers I know, the prevailing practice on those occasional and unfortunate Sunday mornings when the parish priest takes it upon himself to outline the Vatican’s opinion—an opinion largely unsupported by the scriptures—that sex should be confined to procreation, and that contraception is an evil, is to sit quietly with a dutiful expression, letting the words go in one ear and out the other.
Surveys cited by the Administration show ninety-eight per cent of Catholic women have used contraception at some point. (I would bet that among men the percentage is similar—maybe even higher.) Polls also show that a majority of Catholics believe insurers should be obliged to provide contraception along with other health services. In short, ordinary Catholics are a lot closer to the White House’s position than they are to the obdurate stance of Cardinal Dolan and his colleagues.
And, of course, this issue is about more than Catholics. In the 2008 Presidential election, according to exit polls, Obama got fifty-six per cent of the female vote, beating John McCain by a hefty thirteen per cent. (Among males, Obama’s margin of victory was just one per cent.) Preserving and, if possible, enlarging this gender gap will be key to the President’s chances this fall.
Now, there are many policies that could conceivably make women apt to vote for Obama. To suggest that women care only about a subset of issues, such as education and health care, is demeaning. However, for many women the knowledge that the President has made access to contraception a right rather than something to be haggled over with health insurers will surely be a significant mark in his favor.
Having been searching for ways to demonstrate that health-care reform is providing tangible benefits to many Americans, the White House may have happened across one that previously had gone largely unremarked upon. Under Obamacare, contraception won’t be “free”—in economic terms, virtually nothing is—but it will be much more readily available, and the costs will be allocated broadly. In group plans, all of the enrolled employees and employers will shoulder the burden via their monthly premiums. (In the case of religious employers, as I said above, it is a bit unclear who will ultimately bear the cost.)
In this instance, as with all health-care services financed through insurance, we can argue about whether it makes economic sense, and whether it leads to overuse and price inflation. But there is no argument about the politics. Once people get insurance coverage for a certain condition—in this case, fertility—they tend to like it and want to keep it.
Hence today’s compromise plan, which draws from a system in Hawaii, where employees at religious institutions with health-care plans that don’t provide contraception can pay a small supplement to receive it on a regular basis. Under the federal plan, women wouldn’t pay anything, raising the question of who will shoulder the additional cost. Obama said it wouldn’t be the employers or the policy-users. That leaves it to the insurance companies, who will surely try to shift the cost onto someone.
The plan’s vagueness reflects how hastily it was put together. If insurers balk at going along with it, the issue could remain in the headlines for a while longer, providing more ammo for Republican culture warriors. (Rick Santorum, apparently a keen if not very reliable student of the French Revolution, has already remarked upon this subject that President Obama is leading us to “the guillotine.”)
The politicos in the White House appear to be worried about alienating Catholics in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. I think these concerns are overblown. A number of moderate Catholic groups immediately endorsed today’s compromise, including the Catholic Health Organization, whose head Sister Carol Keehan said it “has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.” Doubtless, some conservative clerics will keep up their attacks. So what?
Ordinary Catholics shouldn’t be lumped in with their prelates. Having been raised in a Catholic family and taught by nuns, I would suggest that while Catholics get exercised about certain social issues—abortion, for example—contraception isn’t one of them. Among the churchgoers I know, the prevailing practice on those occasional and unfortunate Sunday mornings when the parish priest takes it upon himself to outline the Vatican’s opinion—an opinion largely unsupported by the scriptures—that sex should be confined to procreation, and that contraception is an evil, is to sit quietly with a dutiful expression, letting the words go in one ear and out the other.
Surveys cited by the Administration show ninety-eight per cent of Catholic women have used contraception at some point. (I would bet that among men the percentage is similar—maybe even higher.) Polls also show that a majority of Catholics believe insurers should be obliged to provide contraception along with other health services. In short, ordinary Catholics are a lot closer to the White House’s position than they are to the obdurate stance of Cardinal Dolan and his colleagues.
And, of course, this issue is about more than Catholics. In the 2008 Presidential election, according to exit polls, Obama got fifty-six per cent of the female vote, beating John McCain by a hefty thirteen per cent. (Among males, Obama’s margin of victory was just one per cent.) Preserving and, if possible, enlarging this gender gap will be key to the President’s chances this fall.
Now, there are many policies that could conceivably make women apt to vote for Obama. To suggest that women care only about a subset of issues, such as education and health care, is demeaning. However, for many women the knowledge that the President has made access to contraception a right rather than something to be haggled over with health insurers will surely be a significant mark in his favor.
Having been searching for ways to demonstrate that health-care reform is providing tangible benefits to many Americans, the White House may have happened across one that previously had gone largely unremarked upon. Under Obamacare, contraception won’t be “free”—in economic terms, virtually nothing is—but it will be much more readily available, and the costs will be allocated broadly. In group plans, all of the enrolled employees and employers will shoulder the burden via their monthly premiums. (In the case of religious employers, as I said above, it is a bit unclear who will ultimately bear the cost.)
In this instance, as with all health-care services financed through insurance, we can argue about whether it makes economic sense, and whether it leads to overuse and price inflation. But there is no argument about the politics. Once people get insurance coverage for a certain condition—in this case, fertility—they tend to like it and want to keep it.
Original Article
Source: new yorker
Author: John Cassidy
No comments:
Post a Comment