Friday, February 10, 2012

White House puts lipstick on the pig!

The White House "compromise" on their unconstitutional HHS mandate basically amounted to putting lipstick on the pig!


Kevin said...

The White House should not be mandating what minimum coverage is. They are driving up the cost of health care for all Americans because all Americans with health care now have to subsidize the cost of contraceptives. A single man has to cover the costs of contraceptives. A gay couple has to cover the cost of contraceptives. A Buddhist monk is paying for contraceptives. An infertile married couple is covering the costs of contraceptives.

The White House has identified a special group of people and has mandated that all Americans pay for them w/o any option.

People who only want catastrophic health care coverage now have to pay a premium for others.

Why aren't Americans concerned that if this administration can mandate minimum coverage to include contraceptives, that the next administration can mandate that all insurance companies must provide wight loss programs at no charge, or cannot provide certain types of contraceptives without a charge. Perhaps the White House can set the minimum price for certain types of coverage?

Insurance companies will now spend millions of dollars on lobbyists to get exceptions and loop holes put into these rules; so the government gets bigger and grows stronger because they meddle.

Kevin said...

This was a good move by the White House to try and avoid the "attack on religious freedom" issue. They've added a layer of indirection to the discussion which makes the the argument harder to make for Catholics. Catholics, whether they like it or not, buy a lot from companies that do things with their money that they might not approve of... the key difference now is that they have lost the ability to choose another option.

A rough equivalent would be if the White House said that Kosher and Halal delis and butcher shops were allowed to sell Kosher and Halal approved meats, but no slaughterhouse could slaughter an animal using Kosher and Halal practices because they are considered to be cruel. You've eliminated the choice, but haven't directly attacked the freedom.