I would say that voters have a much more direct responsibility for how their country is run (or at least, a much more direct responsibility to try to influence how their country is run) than shareholders do in regards to how a company is run.

This is because I think the relationship between citizen and state is much different than the relationship between stockholder and corporation.

Wouldn’t you agree that rather than saying that with the health care bill “all voters are essentially in the employer position” it would be better phrased “all voters are essentially in the shareholder position?”

By the way, thanks for reading this stuff. I appreciate it.

I think BA probably answered your question pretty solidly, though from a conservative/libertarian point of view (so maybe it didn’t register as a clear answer from your POV.)

To expand slightly: First off, I think you’re off that conservatives are saying that they don’t want to belong to a government health care plan per se as a matter of choice. Rather, they’re arguing that the plan on the table for regulating private health insurance, subsidizing it, and developing a “public option” is simply not a good plan for one of several reasons (depending on the conservative talking):
- Too expensive
- Won’t work well
- Gives the government too much power
- Not the government’s job

As for whether pro-lifers who currently have private health insurance which provides for abortions would be morally required to switch to a “government option” (in fact, these would mostly be private insurance options which were available through the exchange and potentially with government subsidy if you don’t make enough money to afford the whole premium — according to congress’s ideas of what you can afford) which didn’t provide for abortion, I think you’re confusing issues here.

About 80% of Americans currently get their health insurance through their employers. The bill out there right now would mostly only affect those who curently don’t have health insurance at all, or who buy individual health insurance. For those of us with employer-based health insurance, we really don’t have a whole lot of say on whether our plans cover abortion — our moral obligation is simply not to get one.

If one is an employer, I think one could make a pretty clear case that it’s one’s duty (if possible) to choose a health care plan which doesn’t cover abortion, IVF, etc.

The issue with the health care bill is that now all voters are essentially in the employer position. Congress is already setting all sorts of rules for what the private insurance policies available on the exchange would cover, what their deductibles would be, maximum out of pocket per year, etc. Those on the right wing are simply saying: If I as a voter and tax payer am being put in the position of spec-ing out and helping to subsidize health care plans, then by golly they better not cover abortion.

That strikes me as entirely fair, and pretty well divorced from the question of whether people would choose to take advantege of the policies on the exchange — should it ever materialize.

By a sort of analogy: I would say that if you own a convenience store it is your moral duty not to sell porn. However, I’m not at all clear we have a moral duty not to buy coffee at a convenience store without first making sure that it doesn’t sell porn.

I am not sure if this addresses your thesis and have a difficult time due the fact that choices are black and white. This issue is too complicated to address in simple terms. Also, you might be looking for someone more aligned with your thoughts on this issue.

However, I would say ‘no’ due to the reason you include the term ‘require’. I may not agree with the government’s definition of ‘moral’. Also, government is not a static body and is subject to change over time. We may agree with the moral code of today’s leaders but may disagree with them tomorrow.

Can someone answer your question based on prudential considerations? Let me try to answer your question this way:

The ideal type of government is a monarchy, a government with a dictator who is all-good, all-knowing, who is entirely just and moral. However, in our imperfect world, it is not prudent to set up a government like this because there is a high likelihood that this monarchy will devolve into an immoral totalitarian dictatorship. It is better to have a government of the many.

One could say that a problem with government healthcare is that even if a moral system is first set up, there is a possibility that immoral elements will creep into it, and once that happens, (1) there is no altenative option to take; and (2) it is hard to reverse or remove this immoral element. This is not to say that immoral elements won’t creep into private insurance health care – but in a private insurance health care system, (1) generally there are other alternatives that you change to, and (2) it is easier to reverse or remove this immoral element.

So is it possible to answer your question by saying that if there is a choice between a government, non-abortion plan and a private, abortion plan, one should choose the government plan — but that if there is a choice between having mediocre private plans or having a good government plan, one should choose mediocre plans for the sake of being prudent? (ie, choosing a mediocre, imperfect democracy over a benevolent monarch).

Blackadder,

Your answer addresses the matter of the “public option” (if we get one) selling insurance that covers abortion. But those trying to impose abortion restrictions are not limiting them to the public option. The Stupak Amendment would prevent anyone who gets any government subsidies at all from buying a private policy on the insurance exchange that covers abortion. You, as a taxpayer, wouldn’t be the provider. The provider would be the private insurance company that offers abortion coverage. Under the Capps Amendment, no taxpayer money would go toward abortion coverage.

Except there are no mandates on small business (i.e those with payrolls under a half a million dollars) and the mandates on medium and large businesses will make it less difficult for workers and their families to have needed health care.

They will also discourage people from starting their own businesses.

I think people should be discouraged from starting a small business if they can’t see it as able to help pay for their workers health insurance once the business grows to a half million dollar payroll.

The owners should be free to choose.

If business was in the forefront of supporting single payer or some other plan for universal coverage that de-linked insurance from employment, I would have more sympathy. But they have used their lobbying power the other way, opposing anything but modest changes. That in large part is why we have no option but to build on the current system of employer provided insurance.

These mandates will also hurt workers by encouraging lower wages.

Workers are hurt by being denied health care.

You misunderstood my comment. If an employer offers health insurance, an employee can refuse it if he/she is covered under a spouse’s plan. The employee can negotiate a higher wage as part of the hiring process. Don’t tell me that I am giving illegal advice.

Well, you are. It’s illegal. I don’t see how under the table secret deals are a virtue. And again, what is the virtue in shifting costs from one employer to another?

Your comment on HSA’s proves another point for me. Congress is mandating a ‘one size fits all’ package. Something that works well for one person may be detrimental to another. Let people choose!

The plan passed by Congress will expand the choices workers have. An HSA is not a choice, it is a tax avoidance scheme for high income people.

Finally, your comments to me prove that you unaware of the risks and hardships owners have with running a small business. Refrain from your judgments until you walk in their shoes.

I am on the board of directors of a small (<$500,000 payroll) business and chair the personnel committee. Our workforce is of a low wage industry but we exceed industry standards by providing full benefits (no premium) to our employees for their health insurance.

Yes, it is difficult, particularly two years ago when our insurance company cancelled our policy for no legitimate reason. It was degrading shopping for new insurance during which our employees had to disclose their medical history. The current system stinks to high heaven. The House plan would make things much better for responsible employers like us.

But the bottom line is that I am going to allow any workers I am responsible for to go without health insurance. I could not live with myself.

Those are the shoes I walk in.

“If there is a less morally-objectionable government option available [than corporate healthcare options] at a reasonable cost, then, are we not required to enroll in it over the more objectionable, morally speaking, corporate options?”

First, I did not appreciate your sarcastic comments.

My point is that small businesses know how to run their operations better than Congress. The mandates will make it more difficult to run a business. They will also discourage people from starting their own businesses. The number Congress lists for exemptions may work for some businesses but will not work for others (payroll size/number of employees). The owners should be free to choose. These mandates will also hurt workers by encouraging lower wages.

You misunderstood my comment. If an employer offers health insurance, an employee can refuse it if he/she is covered under a spouse’s plan. The employee can negotiate a higher wage as part of the hiring process. Don’t tell me that I am giving illegal advice.) Which brings up a good point not addressed by the healthcare bill – why should health insurance remain attached to employment? Maybe portability with individual coverage would reduce some of the issues our country faces today.

Your comment on HSA’s proves another point for me. Congress is mandating a ‘one size fits all’ package. Something that works well for one person may be detrimental to another. Let people choose!

Finally, your comments to me prove that you unaware of the risks and hardships owners have with running a small business. Refrain from your judgements until you walk in their shoes.