Rush Limbaugh: Rudeness aside, did he have a point?

Well, yes and no. In the case Rush Limbaugh raised, taxpayers would not have to pay for a college student's contraception. But in the future, Obama reforms mean taxpayer money could go subsidize insurance plans that include contraception.

|
Ron Edmonds/AP/File
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, shown here in a file photo, has been denounced for calling a law student a 'slut' after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health-care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control.

Is Rush Limbaugh right that Sandra Fluke is in favor of taxpayers funding her personal intimate activities?

Most of the uproar over the talk show/provocateur’s Fluke-related comments has focused on his language. He said the Georgetown University law student was a “slut” and a “prostitute,” among other things. But he’s taken that rhetoric back – today he said he wanted to “sincerely apologize” to Fluke for “using those two words to describe her.”

We’re talking about something else here: the substance behind Mr. Limbaugh’s policy critique. 

Limbaugh has consistently implied that the underlying controversy here involves taxpayers being forced to ante up to cover contraception for women.

On March 3, for instance, he posted on his website a statement that said in part: “I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.... Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?”

Narrowly speaking, this is incorrect. The issue at hand involves the Obama administration’s attempt to require that employer-provided health insurance provide contraception for women. Asked about Limbaugh on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul framed the disagreement more precisely.

“I, as an OB doctor, certainly endorse the whole idea of birth control,” said Congressman Paul. “But this is something different. This is philosophically and politically important because, does the government have a mandate to tell insurance what to give?”

Under the administration’s original contraception proposal, taxpayers in general would not have paid directly for any woman’s insurance-provided contraception. The cost would have been borne by the other people in the insurance pool in question, in the form of slightly higher premiums for their policies, and by the employer providing the insurance.

In general, this would be a popular move, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll. The survey found that 60 percent of Americans support the administration’s attempt to get health plans to provide women with free contraceptives.

However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the White House has now proposed a compromise in which insurance companies will be required provide free contraception, but employers who provide health-care coverage for their workers won’t be required to pay for it.

To the White House, this means that employers with moral objections to contraception won’t have to pay for it themselves. Health-care economists note that the move would simply change contraception from a direct to an indirect insurance cost.

“Insurers will likely just shut up and go along with it. They have no intention of getting into the middle of this political mess – but they will quietly pass the costs along” to others in the insurance pool, writes health-industry consultant Bob Laszewski on his Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review blog.

But is the White House laying the groundwork for taxpayer-funded contraception? That is another question, and the answer to that is almost certainly “yes.”

President Obama’s health-care reforms have greatly increased the government’s power to mandate what’s in many health-insurance packages. Under current law, beginning in 2014, the US will subsidize the purchase of individual insurance for those who can’t afford it on their own. That insurance will have to meet certain standards, set by the government.

That is one reason why those opposed to Mr. Obama’s health reforms in general have reacted so strongly to the contraceptive mandate in particular.

“It’s the first concrete detail we’ve seen about the essential benefits package that is what insurance will have to cover as part of ObamaCare,” said Jennifer Marshall, director for domestic policy studies for the Heritage Foundation, in a video.

So in a larger sense – one that is unrelated to Ms. Fluke – tax dollars may indeed fund contraceptives for women. Whether that constitutes a subsidy for sexual activity, as Limbaugh implies, is another question. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Rush Limbaugh: Rudeness aside, did he have a point?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0305/Rush-Limbaugh-Rudeness-aside-did-he-have-a-point
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe