Beyond beyond unconscionable

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fcrunchycon%2F%7E3%2F482327243%2Fbeyond-unconscionable-erin.html

I started following Crunchy Con about a month ago and have overall really enjoyed it. I disagree with lots but like hearing the family and religious values voter perspective without the usual hypocracy or whining.

This morning Erin has a post up on university health insurance. As is standard in most schools at this point USF requires all their students to have health insurance or else purchase the policy offered by the university. What she and others are up in arms about is that the school policy covers reproductive services, including abortion. This she argues is forcing those individuals who oppose abortion to subsidize the act.

First, I think this misses how insurance works. It isn't a case of some people know they are low health care users and some are high and the low are paying a high price part of which goes to another person to do as they please. Insurance is more of a betting game to help smooth out the shocks of life. You pay the insurance company a fixed amount for the rights to certain event-tied payouts (sort of like buying a bingo board except you win a broken leg or cancer). Obviously in the macro sense your helping keep the company financially strong 'supports' those who want to call in their abortion bet, but in no way are you directly supporting it.

But it is this macro perspective that illuminates the theocon objective. They fundamentally aren't about giving people choices, but are trying to use that argument as a dangerous gambit to sneak through their agenda.
Today it is that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions (ps does this mean if I think all catholics are tools of an apostate church that will bring about the rise of Satan I can refuse to fill their heart medicine prescription?). Next it will be that if you do not give them access to health care plans that do not offer family planning services you are 'forcing' them to pay for abortions. One day it will be that they can only go to hospitals which do not perform abortions, and if you do not have one near by you are robbing them of their right to choose 'moral' health facilities.

The ultimate goal of all this choice talk is to make family planning health services economically unviable (or at least extremely expensive) for the large majority of people who want access to them and rob them of their choice.

I should also point out that her post includes one of their best rhetorical tricks - picking a fight that doesn't exist. I doubt anyone at USF - and there is no evidence of it happening - is going to force someone with a plan that does not cover abortions to buy one that does under the comparability requirement, it is just a provision to prevent someone from setting up a 10 dollar plan that covers nothing as a loop hole. But THEY COULD!