Going Political

OK, so this is not a blog about politics; it's my diary. But as such, its function is to record not only things I'm doing, but also things I'm thinking and talking about. And I'm recording all the above to help me remember what I was thinking and talking about--and to see what's happening with those items a year or two hence when I look back on these posts.

So this week I, along with much of the rest of the nation, am thinking about the health care plan Congress passed last year and the Administration's mandate that church-run institutions pay for birth control, even when it is against that church's religious faith to do so.

This weekend, I shared one editorial that pointed out why the Administration's compromise on this decision is inadequate. By forcing insurance companies to provide the birth control free of charge, the policy will ultimately result in higher rates for the organizations refusing to cover the birth control in their health care benefit. The insurance companies will simply raise the rates. The result will be that the institution WILL be paying for the birth control, just in a more round-about fashion.

But a column in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal deals with an even more basic problem, related to the problem of the health care legislation in general. Why should health-care policies be required to provide birth control? They aren't required to provide toothpaste for tooth health. Auto insurance policies don't provide for oil changes or new wiper blades. I'll do the column a disservice by trying to summarize it, but it really helped me think more clearly about this issue.

Maybe you'll be interested in reading what it has to say. And I'll be interested a year from now to see if the health-care legislation passed last year will still be on the books then.