- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
- Bob McDonnell’s defense: Lonely wife developed ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House Republicans unveil bill to speed deportations of border children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
GOLDBERG: The price of free health care
Loss of freedom is too costly a sum
Question of the Day
“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 them 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 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 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 (providing yet another example of how Mr. Obama misled voters when he promised that the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t cause anyone to lose his or her 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, Mr. Obama’s solution is to make paying taxes a moral dilemma for many pro-lifers.
I think Mr. 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. 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 Mr. Santorum’s warning doesn’t scare you, maybe Mr. Santorum should. Personally, I think his detractors are determined to turn him into a right-wing caricature (a cause he has aided more than once). He’s been prodded about homosexual 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 rosaries has the same power to trample the ones with ovaries. If you’re afraid of Rick Santorum, you should be afraid of Obamacare.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- McCLAUGHRY: Finish off the "Islamic State" quickly and cheaply
- New York Times reporter Carol Vogel accused of plagiarism
- Iraqi Christians rally at White House: 'Obama, Obama, where are you?'
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- ISIL destroys key bridge leading to Baghdad; suicide truck bomb severed supply line