The Sebelius Savings Plan; When Fewer Human Beings Are Better

Article excerpt


There's something perverse about a government $15.5 trillion in the red espousing a strategy to save money by discouraging the birth of human beings. That's what Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is advocating through the implementation of President Obama's contraception mandate.

Earlier this month, Mrs. Sebelius told a House panel probing the president's fiscal 2013 budget that the mandate won't impose a financial burden on employers and insurance companies because the cost of contraceptives and sterilizations will be balanced by lower medical costs from fewer births: The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception, she told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care? asked an incredulous Rep. Tim Murphy, Pennsylvania Republican. Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children, replied Mrs. Sebelius, retreating behind policy boilerplate. Not having babies born is a critical benefit? asked Mr. Murphy. This is absolutely amazing to me.

The secretary's testimony reveals a diabolical view of the mission of Health and Human Services. For the agency, a human being now represents little more than a debit entry on a balance sheet. In other words, the fewer, the better. Accordingly, Uncle Sam recommends insurers achieve savings by preventing babies from being born and winding up in the expense column.

The Obama administration has a plan to save money at the end of life as well: Obamacare, the president's venture into socialized medicine, has established an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is empowered to ration expenses paid by Medicare for the health care costs of elderly Americans. …