Two Questions for Advocates of Obama’s Flukenomics


“Because a product is useful and properly legal, the government should fund it or force others to fund it.” That is the essence of the doctrine I’ll dub Flukenomics, named after Sandra Fluke, famous for endorsing ObamCare’s requirement that health insurance companies fund birth control for their clients. President Obama openly embraces Fluke and her position, and, on Wednesday, Fluke introduced Obama at a Denver event.

Flukenomics is, of course, utterly incompatible with liberty and individual rights. When the government forces insurance companies to finance their clients’ birth control, this violates the rights of insurance companies and their clients to freely negotiate the terms of their contracts. It forces people who do not need birth control—or who prefer to purchase it on their own—to pay for other people’s birth control through higher insurance premiums. Because ObamaCare also entails tax-subsidized insurance, it directly confiscates the wealth of some to pay for the birth control (and various medical expenses) of others.

Caleb Bonham of Revealing Politics cleverly asked supporters of ObamaCare two questions (see the video below). First, he asked whether they think government should be involved in what happens in the bedroom. Sensibly, they answered no. Then he asked why they believe the government should pay for what goes on inside the bedroom.

One woman replied, “That’s a very good question.” Indeed, it is. Advocates of liberty should ask it (and similar questions) often.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

Image: Oversight Democrats (see Wikimedia use note)

,


Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Anonymous posts are not permitted; commenters must use their real names. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, on topic, and no longer than 400 words. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, off-topic comments, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article will be deleted. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.