On the big issues of the day, Charles Krauthammer lays it out the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to make sense of the subject. And so it is today with his column on the contraception mandate.
Unlike others who have weighed in on the contraception kerfuffle, Krauthammer underscores what is truly at stake, not just the mandate itself, but also choice, yes, choice, the ability of insurance companies to craft a variety of plans and the freedom of the consumer to choose the one that’s best for him (or her).
It’s not just freedom of religion:
Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.
Now, to be sure, Krauthammer also gets at the subterfuge of the compromise the president announced last week. As he puts it, “The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.”
Simply put, Obamacare empowers the government to determine what kind of plans insurance companies may offer and to define how these companies may factor risk ratios into a particular policy’s price.
Read the whole thing. It’s Krauthammer.
In the current battle between Obama and the Catholic bishops over whether the State has the right to require Catholic organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and sterilization, free of charge: If you change this to abortion, then you can see the issue. It does not matter if the Catholic organization pays through its direct premiums or the insurance company –mandated by the Feds– pays for it (and the organizations indirectly through premium adjustments).
What even more deeply galls me is that the State decides that wymyn are a special class who deserve free services.
And even more than that, what the hell gives the Feds the idea that it is their right to tell individuals or groups what services they must provide “free” to anyone at all!? All that means is that they mandate someone else to pay for it.
This is an issue where feminism, redistributionism and secularism combine.
As Jonah Goldberg recently pointed out, liberalism is a form of totalism and reads any attempt to create islands of separateness (churches, for example) as resistance to its unassailabely noble concept of the common good.
I found the solution to their self inflicted problem to be worse than the self inflicted problem. Church run hospitals would have, one way or another, found a way around the onerous regulations. It’s what well run businesses typically do. But for the Government to turn around and demand that insurance companies provide something for free that will cost them money and resources?
Um…. No.
PS. On the Govt ordering a company to give a medicine or product for free…. There is perhaps one caveat – an urgently needed treatment or vaccine for a very deadly epidemic, or something urgently needed in time of war. There were cases where some companies contributed time or materials free of charge during the mobilization for WWII. I can’t recall the example off the top of my head. There was generally some quid-pro-quo involved, or the company was compensated for later down the line..
He gets to the point why ObamaCare is unconstitutional on so many levels; I really think Obama miscalculated by trying to turn the anti-religion ObamaCare mandate as a contraception issue. Most people–outside of the MSM bubble–are talking about the abortion mandate’s unconstitutionality.
What about requiring all employers to provide hunger insurance coverage that includes Friday night pork chop dinners?
What about requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes conversion therapy for homosexuals?
The real rub of this is contraceptives aren’t that expensive. I mean, unless you are a massive slut, contraceptives cost less per month than a pair of shoes. So, why is the Government inserting its big ugly fist into this?
Sluttiness doesn’t even enter into it if you’re talking about the Pill, of course, which must be taken on the same strict schedule whether you’re having sex twice a month or twice a night.
But I agree with your basic point — not only are contraceptives fairly affordable even if you’re paying out-of-pocket, but existing services (including Planned Parenthood) already provide the Pill and other contraceptives at deep-discount rates for uninsured women with limited incomes.
“This is nationalization in all but name.”
In investigating just how socialist National Socialism was, since it did not sieze ownership of the means of production, I discovered that there is an equally effective way of nationalizing, by regulation. You let someone keep ownership, but you determine how they may or must use what they own. De facto, you own what they think they do. Even better, they keep paying taxes to you. Nationalization by regulation. It’s how capitalist countries do socialism.
Didn’t the Germans do that about 60 years ago?