Out of the contraception controversy comes a gusher of Democratic Double Speak. No surprise there. At issue is whether or not a religious organization, such as the Catholic Church, can be forced to provide services, such as insurance coverage for contraceptives, which are at odds with its religious beliefs. Predictably enough, here is how the Democrats frame the argument:
“It’s time to tell Republicans ‘mind your own business,’” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. ”Ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives.
“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”
Quite obviously, women would not be blocked from getting contraceptives even if insurance won't cover them. Just go online and you can order a supply of birth control pills at around $60 for a three month supply. $20 per month isn't going to break the bank for most people, and we could easily find other ways besides insurance coverage to assist the women who would find them beyond their reach. This approach has an advantage. When birth control pills and devices are left uncovered by insurance, market forces tend to push their costs down even further. It's better not to cover them, especially since the cost is pretty low to begin with.
On the other hand, penalties that Obama will impose on organizations who don't provide coverage impose a substantial cost.
Many bishops have already declared that they will not obey this unjust law. The penalty for such a move would be severe. Catholic hospitals, universities, and other organizations would be forced to pay punitive fines ($2,000 per employee) for refusing to purchase insurance that violates the teaching of their church.
For some institutions, it would spell the end of their existence—and their far-reaching service to the public and the needy.
This is a political strategy with at least two tactical objectives. The more immediate goal is creation of another entitled group. Single women of child bearing age — along with their male partners perhaps — are the target. The hope is that their dependence upon this new entitlement, where some third party is forced to give them something, will impel them to the voting booth to support its perpetuation and with a vote for Obama.
The second objective is longer term. Quite clearly, the Obama administration is doing everything possible to hasten the day when America adopts a single payer system. The coverage rules and their extraordinary fines are a way to weed out competitors.
This is clearly a progressive power play. Obama and his Democratic colleagues strive for entrenchment by putting in place the mechanism through which they can punish individuals and organizations who oppose their policies. And their policies are always intended to put more and more of those mechanisms in place.
I agree with your part about the second objective being a longer term attack on our current medical care & health insurance system. I would add that it's also another attack on the Constitution. This is an ugly example of government meddling where it does not belong and it will only restrict our rights. It is being promoted in part as more freedom for women, but it's an attack on our freedom to be left alone by government.
Posted by: Jamessir Bensonmum | February 10, 2012 at 07:49 AM