As the presidential election heats up, each candidate is using whatever means possible to successfully attack their opponent. Religion inevitably becomes the basis for some of these attacks through the candidates' need to appeal to the Christian majority. Both parties understand the need to court the Christian constituents in this country, but it's far more important for republicans than democrats. Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists make up a significant portion of the republican base, and as such the republican politicians have found that religious-based attacks on their democratic opponents often work to their advantage.
One such attack came from a recent campaign ad endorsing Mitt Romney called €Be Not Afraid,€ in which the President is accused of €declar[ing] war on religion.€ This remark is a jab at the preventive services mandate which requires employers to provide contraception as part of the employee's health coverage. The idea behind this mandate concerns non-church religious organizations like Catholic universities, charities, and hospitals. Unlike churches, it is common for these organizations to employ many individuals with different or no religious beliefs. It was considered unfair that these organizations could deny those particular employees contraception by forcing their religious beliefs onto them. Under pressure from several religious organizations, especially prominent figures within the Catholic Church, the mandate was revised so that contraception would be provided by the insurers allowing religious organizations to avoid direct involvement.
The first counter-argument that comes to mind relates to the individuals for whom the mandate was intended (according to President Obama). Those individuals working for these non-church religious organizations while having different views on contraception deserve the same protection as the organizations. Religious organizations, especially those of Catholic faith, are trying to frame the issue to be that their beliefs are being trampled on by the government. What about those previously mentioned individuals? Do they not have beliefs of equal importance? More importantly, is their health not important? The irony that these religious organizations are complaining about religious freedoms being taken away while at the same time trying to take away the religious (or non-religious) freedoms of their employees is, for some reason, not at the forefront of this debate. Neither are the preventive health benefits that contraceptives provide. Consider the Catholic churches' actions in Africa. For years, the Vatican expressly forbade giving condoms to Africans based on their beliefs. As a result, countless Africans died from HIV/AIDS. While this is an extreme example, I use it to show that the Catholic Church is more concerned with strictly adhering to their beliefs than the well-being of others. Only recently has the Vatican changed its stance on the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS as a result of increasing pressure from outside groups.
Now, let's take a closer look at the argument republicans (and religious organizations) are making and try to break it down further. The argument is that it would be against certain religious beliefs to support the use of contraception. Therefore, religious organizations don't want to directly support the use of contraceptives by their employees. There are two points to be made here.
First of all, in cases where the religious organization buys commercial insurance, the preventive services mandate would provide the contraception through the insurer (instead of the organization) free of charge. Another proposal is in the works that would have the same outcome for those religious organizations that are self-insured. While the proposal hasn't been finalized and issued yet, they plan to do so sometime between November 2012 and August 2013. What the President has done is quite brilliant. He has found a way for both the organization and its employees to retain their respective religious freedom regarding contraception. You can't please everybody, though. Even with this compromise, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops continues to oppose the mandate on the grounds that it still infringes on the religious freedom of Catholics in the insurance industry. We have a President who is taking unprecedented measures to make sure that both parties in this issue are being treated fairly, yet he is vilified for it.
The second point I'd like to make deals with the definition of compensation. It's very convenient for a religious organization to claim that they would be supporting the use of contraceptives simply by paying for a portion of the employee's insurance. The problem with this claim stems from the definition of compensation. You could try to argue for the very narrow definition of compensation being the employee's salary/wage, but you wouldn't get very far. The truth is that compensation takes far more into account. Most conservative definitions of compensation include salary/wage, benefits, and even taxes (among other things). More inclusive definitions start to encompass all costs related to the employee. These could include costs ranging from the advertisement of the position, to the training provided (initial and continuing), to administrative overhead.
The reasoning behind these more inclusive definitions is quite simple. Let's say that all of the costs incurred by an organization related to a particular employee are equal to $100,000. Let's also assume that every cost other than that employee's salary is free of charge. It costs absolutely nothing for that organization to hire, train, or do anything else regarding that employee with the exception of paying them a salary. Because of this, we can say that the employee's salary was $100,000. Now, let's change the facts and assume that the organization has $20,000 in benefits costs and $5,000 in taxes. With these extra costs factored in, the employee's salary must be $75,000. What happened there? Well, the compensation never changed, only the composition of the compensation. It's also worth mentioning that the benefits and taxes would only be those paid by the employer.
The reason these things are considered part of the employee's compensation is because they are paid on behalf of the employee by the employer and because the costs always trickle down. In the labor market, taxes are one of the easiest costs to use as an example. If the government raised payroll taxes tomorrow for employers but not employees, the costs would still trickle down to the employees in the form of lower salaries/wages, benefits being cut, or simply not hiring the extra labor needed (with the current employees picking up the slack). The organization calculates how much they can spend on their employees while still maintaining a certain profit margin. When new costs come into the picture, the organization often shifts the costs onto the employees (sometimes indirectly). Organizations take into account all the costs associated with each employee (the employee's total compensation) when making labor related decisions. Therefore, they can't then turn around and claim that the employer portion of benefits costs are provided without changing the employee's compensation. Compensation to the employee (even in the conservative sense) includes more than just their salary. Would you be happy if your company told you that you could only spend your paycheck on certain things that were in line with the company's policies? I know I wouldn't accept that. So why is it ok for them to do it with benefits? We have earned those benefits the same way we have earned our salary/wage, regardless of who pays for the benefits. In the economic sense, benefits should be treated in the same manner as salaries/wages and, therefore, not have their uses limited or dictated by the employer.
One final interesting aspect of this debate revolves around the timing of the attack. An Equ
One such attack came from a recent campaign ad endorsing Mitt Romney called €Be Not Afraid,€ in which the President is accused of €declar[ing] war on religion.€ This remark is a jab at the preventive services mandate which requires employers to provide contraception as part of the employee's health coverage. The idea behind this mandate concerns non-church religious organizations like Catholic universities, charities, and hospitals. Unlike churches, it is common for these organizations to employ many individuals with different or no religious beliefs. It was considered unfair that these organizations could deny those particular employees contraception by forcing their religious beliefs onto them. Under pressure from several religious organizations, especially prominent figures within the Catholic Church, the mandate was revised so that contraception would be provided by the insurers allowing religious organizations to avoid direct involvement.
The first counter-argument that comes to mind relates to the individuals for whom the mandate was intended (according to President Obama). Those individuals working for these non-church religious organizations while having different views on contraception deserve the same protection as the organizations. Religious organizations, especially those of Catholic faith, are trying to frame the issue to be that their beliefs are being trampled on by the government. What about those previously mentioned individuals? Do they not have beliefs of equal importance? More importantly, is their health not important? The irony that these religious organizations are complaining about religious freedoms being taken away while at the same time trying to take away the religious (or non-religious) freedoms of their employees is, for some reason, not at the forefront of this debate. Neither are the preventive health benefits that contraceptives provide. Consider the Catholic churches' actions in Africa. For years, the Vatican expressly forbade giving condoms to Africans based on their beliefs. As a result, countless Africans died from HIV/AIDS. While this is an extreme example, I use it to show that the Catholic Church is more concerned with strictly adhering to their beliefs than the well-being of others. Only recently has the Vatican changed its stance on the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS as a result of increasing pressure from outside groups.
Now, let's take a closer look at the argument republicans (and religious organizations) are making and try to break it down further. The argument is that it would be against certain religious beliefs to support the use of contraception. Therefore, religious organizations don't want to directly support the use of contraceptives by their employees. There are two points to be made here.
First of all, in cases where the religious organization buys commercial insurance, the preventive services mandate would provide the contraception through the insurer (instead of the organization) free of charge. Another proposal is in the works that would have the same outcome for those religious organizations that are self-insured. While the proposal hasn't been finalized and issued yet, they plan to do so sometime between November 2012 and August 2013. What the President has done is quite brilliant. He has found a way for both the organization and its employees to retain their respective religious freedom regarding contraception. You can't please everybody, though. Even with this compromise, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops continues to oppose the mandate on the grounds that it still infringes on the religious freedom of Catholics in the insurance industry. We have a President who is taking unprecedented measures to make sure that both parties in this issue are being treated fairly, yet he is vilified for it.
The second point I'd like to make deals with the definition of compensation. It's very convenient for a religious organization to claim that they would be supporting the use of contraceptives simply by paying for a portion of the employee's insurance. The problem with this claim stems from the definition of compensation. You could try to argue for the very narrow definition of compensation being the employee's salary/wage, but you wouldn't get very far. The truth is that compensation takes far more into account. Most conservative definitions of compensation include salary/wage, benefits, and even taxes (among other things). More inclusive definitions start to encompass all costs related to the employee. These could include costs ranging from the advertisement of the position, to the training provided (initial and continuing), to administrative overhead.
The reasoning behind these more inclusive definitions is quite simple. Let's say that all of the costs incurred by an organization related to a particular employee are equal to $100,000. Let's also assume that every cost other than that employee's salary is free of charge. It costs absolutely nothing for that organization to hire, train, or do anything else regarding that employee with the exception of paying them a salary. Because of this, we can say that the employee's salary was $100,000. Now, let's change the facts and assume that the organization has $20,000 in benefits costs and $5,000 in taxes. With these extra costs factored in, the employee's salary must be $75,000. What happened there? Well, the compensation never changed, only the composition of the compensation. It's also worth mentioning that the benefits and taxes would only be those paid by the employer.
The reason these things are considered part of the employee's compensation is because they are paid on behalf of the employee by the employer and because the costs always trickle down. In the labor market, taxes are one of the easiest costs to use as an example. If the government raised payroll taxes tomorrow for employers but not employees, the costs would still trickle down to the employees in the form of lower salaries/wages, benefits being cut, or simply not hiring the extra labor needed (with the current employees picking up the slack). The organization calculates how much they can spend on their employees while still maintaining a certain profit margin. When new costs come into the picture, the organization often shifts the costs onto the employees (sometimes indirectly). Organizations take into account all the costs associated with each employee (the employee's total compensation) when making labor related decisions. Therefore, they can't then turn around and claim that the employer portion of benefits costs are provided without changing the employee's compensation. Compensation to the employee (even in the conservative sense) includes more than just their salary. Would you be happy if your company told you that you could only spend your paycheck on certain things that were in line with the company's policies? I know I wouldn't accept that. So why is it ok for them to do it with benefits? We have earned those benefits the same way we have earned our salary/wage, regardless of who pays for the benefits. In the economic sense, benefits should be treated in the same manner as salaries/wages and, therefore, not have their uses limited or dictated by the employer.
One final interesting aspect of this debate revolves around the timing of the attack. An Equ
SHARE
