Free Health Care? That's Rich

· Wednesday, February 15, 2012

"It's not about contraception," thundered GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum. "It's about economic liberty. It's about freedom of speech. It's about freedom of religion. It's about government control of your lives. And it's got to stop!"

He was talking, of course, about the Obama administration's recent decisions first to force large religious employers to pay for birth control and "preventive services" (including sterilization and abortifacient drugs), and its subsequent decision to demand that the relevant insurance companies provide it for "free" instead.

The "accommodation" -- the White House rightly refuses to call it a compromise -- is a farce. If you're paying for health insurance -- or if you self-insure, as many institutions do -- shifting responsibilities to the insurance companies doesn't shift the costs, just the paperwork. A Catholic hospital would still pay for the services; there just wouldn't be a line item for it in the monthly insurance bill.

That's not accommodation; that's laundering.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claims that the move will save money -- an ounce of prevention saves a pound of "cure" -- so religious institutions will incur no additional costs. If that's true, why haven't those greedy insurance companies been doing it all along?

If anything, President Obama has made the situation worse. The White House fact sheet seems to offer no exemption at all for religious institutions -- or for anyone else: "Under the new policy ... women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she [sic] works." That sounds like a complete win for the "Get Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries" crowd to me.

Of course, if religious institutions don't want to violate their consciences, they can simply stop offering health insurance altogether (providing yet another example of how Obama misled voters when he promised that the Affordable Care Act wouldn't cause anyone to lose their current coverage). That would at least allow religious organizations to uphold their principles. The result, however, would be to force taxpayers to subsidize practices many find morally abhorrent. In other words, Obama's solution is to make paying taxes a moral dilemma for many pro-lifers.

I think Santorum's argument is entirely right: This is about freedom, full stop. When we empower bureaucrats and politicians to make such huge personal decisions for us, it becomes impossible to avoid trampling on liberty. The Roman Catholic Church was simply the first in the leviathan's path.

If you look at the genetic and neuroscience revolutions waiting just offstage, the future holds enormous promise for personalized health care, including individualized genetic therapies. And yet the government is marching faster and faster toward wholesale approaches that prioritize the health of the system over the health of patients. It is impossible to imagine the myriad arbitrary abuses and petty tyrannies that could result.

It's amazing that liberals and libertarians can see eye to eye on ending federal bullying on the sale of raw milk, but liberals see no threats from a federal takeover of health care and the transformation of insurers into de facto branches of the government.

The freedom argument is old hat now. "Obamacare" supporters shrug off horror stories from Canada and Britain about concerns such as waiting periods and denied services -- and hypothetical scenarios of "death panels."

Well, here's something to ponder: If Rick Santorum's warning doesn't scare you, maybe Rick Santorum should? Personally, I think his detractors are determined to turn him into right-wing caricature (a cause he has aided more than once). He's been prodded about gay marriage, contraception, radical feminists and his religious faith in the hopes that he will say something embarrassingly juicy for the MSNBC crowd.

But let's imagine the caricature is fair and he really is the boogeyman Rachel Maddow and Co. say he is. Worse, all his talk about "freedom" is just code for the right-wing version of progressive social engineering, i.e., he wants to turn women into breeders a la "The Handmaid's Tale."

Is that who you want in charge of your health care? If not him, what about some other conservative president down the road?

It's really this simple: A government empowered to steamroll the people with the rosaries has the same power to trample the citizens with the ovaries. If you're afraid of Rick Santorum, you should be afraid of Obamacare.

(C) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

mmccrindle

It's not about healthcare it's about a fundamental change in the roll of the federal government where they dispense everything from rubbers to rights.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 8:14:47 AM


wjmccrindle

I have no fear of Santorum, but of government tyranny. What part of "freedom" that Santorum talks about don't you understand. Freedom and Obamacare are not synonomous. One is to be championed, the other feared. Come on Goldgberg, you can't seriously not be able to tell the difference.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 10:30:22 AM


Jeremy

Obama seems to forget that every President sets precedents. The precedents that Obama has set will result in far less freedom down the road, regardless of any temporary reprieve we might get by electing a conservative/libertarian. In other words, the die has been cast.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 11:03:34 AM


JAC

Jeremy: Obozo hasn't forgotten anything. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he knows the consequences of his precedents. That's why he is setting them.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 1:23:21 PM


Garry G

wjmccrindle: I think Mr. Goldberg's point is that government tyranny goes both ways. Now we have a Marxist in the White House, who uses ObamaCare to shove abortion drugs and birth control down our throats. However, even the liberals among us should fear ObamaCare, because in a few years there may be a conservative in the White House, and the same ObamaCare law can be used to push something they don't like down their throats.

The point is: Get rid of ObamaCare, and nobody gets anything pushed down their throats. It's called freedom!

Posted February 15, 2012 at 3:32:40 PM


RudyT

The precedent that Obama has set is that the executive branch can do pretty much whatever it likes...Constitution be damned. It imposes regulations and standards without any guidance or authority from Congress.

Jonah brings up a good point that I'll be sure to use with my liberal "friends". For those who wholly approve Obama's unprecidented power grab, picture a republican doing it.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 4:11:14 PM


mmccrindle

Rudy T-

That's a problem.

I can't see any Republican president doing what Obama so cavalierly is doing.

A republican president would hold the office of the presidency as something sacred.

The only thing Obama holds sacred is his marxist agenda.

He loathes America for being the cause of all the worlds woes. That's been his whole world view since being raised and influenced by vile socialist scum of the earth.

Posted February 15, 2012 at 4:55:11 PM


India

"It's amazing that liberals and libertarians can see eye to eye on ending federal bullying on the sale of raw milk, but liberals see no threats from a federal takeover of health care and the transformation of insurers into de facto branches of the government."

GREAT POINT!

Posted February 15, 2012 at 10:50:57 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund