Placing this in GD, 'cause the elements (politics, birthcontrol, fiscal ??s etc.) usually end here, but am hoping to get a straight up answer first.
According to this, in the budget that Mr. Bush has sent to congress, he seems to be proposing to eliminate a provision in federal employee’s health plans that would cover prescription costs for birth control.
the White House Spokesperson says
Now, my WH Spokesperson translators on the fritz, so I’m not certain what they’re attempting to say. Are they claiming that the provisions for coverage was already in ‘many’ of the employee’s health plans already, so specific legislation mandating it is unnecessary? (and parenthetically, why would only ‘many’ be covered - isn’t federal health insurance a universal policy or does it matter which branch or type of gov. job etc.?) Or are they saying that the Clinton era law was symbolic and therefore unnecessary? or something else? and, for (fill in appropriate diety’s name here) sake, does this mean that the fed. employees will be/are or ** willl not be/are not** covered???
As for the debate:
a good health insurance plan is a crucial aspect of recruiting and keeping good employees. However, since we’re talking federal employees, the health care costs are actually spending tax dollars. where should we draw the line between: being an attractive employer (ie getting and keeping good employees) and the utilization of tax dollars on things that certain tax payers may find morally objectionable?
My position - As a person, I may have a boat load of moral issues re: wide variety of things . I may think that smoking is incidious and anyone who choses to do such a stupid thing should pay up the wazoo for the health complications for themselves and their loved ones (parenthetically, I don’t feel this way, but…) Or I may object on moral grounds to abortion and not wish my tax dollars spent on that activity. Or plastic surgury or treatment of substance abuse etc.
However, as a taxpayer I am interested in providing the approximate level of health care benefits that other large companies provide in order to maintain and attract quality employees. And, as such, my personal abhorance over the utilization of tax dollars for things I think are (fill in appropriate word here), is moot.
My rational for this position: Abortion and birth control are merely two aspects of health care that people feel strongly about. They are not the only ones. They aren’t even the only ones that one could say are ‘self inflicted’ -health care coverage can, for example allow for treatment of suicide attempts, obesity (which may or may not have a 'self inflicted aspect to it), pregnancy/childbirth, substance abuse, nicotine patches, treatment for sports related injuries (after all you chose to participate in the sport) etc. For us to attempt to start to make decisions on coverage based on the moral stance of some tax payers or the ‘personal choice = personal responssability’, would quickly become a quagmire of gigantic proportions.
Cost is another, legitimate factor, however, one can ‘cost’ oneself out of the running for competitent employees. It’s certainly cheaper for the employer to offer rock bottom health benefits, however, such an employer will probably ‘pay more’ in the long run by loosing their employees to other places with better coverage.
As the ‘employer’ of these federal employees, I am most interested in maintaining a good quality of them available, and the provision of comperable health care covereage (comperable to that which would be offered for other comperable positions in the private sector) is an important part of that.
]