While I personally believe the desire to chop your dick off is a personal choice, if not a bit unusual, it’s hard to challenge a private company for doing something that it believes will ultimately help it’s bottom line. Goldman had the foresight to avoid the current mortgage crisis and we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to navigating a little foreskin. But there are a couple of things about this that bother me.
First, while most employees at Goldman can afford expensive coverage that includes less-than-mainstream health options, the $40K-a-year secretary who’s a divorced mother of three still has to pay into the plan. This means that she is subsidizing Richie Rich’s deep-seated need to have breasts. Why should the janitor, or the kid in the data-entry department have to pay more for his asthma inhaler because someone else needs the company to pay for her testosterone? Let those who are deeply confused get some therapy and pay for a shiny new vagina with their seven-figure bonus.
More importantly, this sets a horrible health care precedent. In a 2009 world in which the Democrats may hold the White House and Congress, a Clinton or Obama universal health care will be at the top of the agenda. If it ever passes, you can bet that it will be loaded with non-medical mandated coverage that hikes up the price. Check out this quote from an article on Heritage.org (a conservative think tank):
According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage by as much as 60 percent or more in mandate-crazy jurisdictions such as in Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia. Even in states with relatively few mandates, the nanny-state premium adds 20 percent to the cost of coverage.
Do you think that Gay and Lesbian special interest groups will not eventually push to add sex change operations to the list of mandated coverage? By the way, this isn’t an anti-gay rant: my libertarian side believes that government shouldn’t legislate who can and cannot get married, but it shouldn’t make tax payers cough up money for Jack to become Jill any more than it should pay for every guy in the country to get penis enlargement surgery. People in this country are free to do what they choose, but citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize whacked-out desires.
a few points:
ReplyDelete1. a real market conservative would argue:
a) you can't provide your employees healthcare without generating profits
b) you can't generate the most profits without the best talent
c) you can't attract the best talent without the best benefit package (heh)
d) ergo, the $40k secretary better thank her $750k estrogen-hopped-up boss -- not only for her job to begin with -- but for her healthcare in the first place. most companies only partially subsidize these costs for their employees, paying for the remainder using a progressive scale that ties contribution rates to salary (similar to payroll taxes). therefore, she's getting a better deal than he is.
2. nice anti hilary/obama-care straw man. very similar logic to the santorum-school of political rhetoric: no same-sex marriages or the bestiality people will want to marry their dogs next...
3. finally, "mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage"? duh. that's the basic definition of health coverage: mandated benefits. i get sick, the insurer must pay for my meds. i break an arm, they must pay for my cast. but since universal healthcare is a political idea who's time has come, you're right that the next battle will most definitely be over mandatory vs. elective benefit definition.
...and keep on blogging, yo. given any more thought those "imaginary" obama republicans?