While much of the political discussion in the last couple of weeks centered on marginal or made up issues such as Mitt Romney’s tax returns or whether or not he committed gaffes abroad, the implementation of ObamaCare this month is placing the real stakes of the fall election in focus. On August 1, the preventive mandate ordered by the Department of Health and Human Services went into effect, forcing nearly all employers in the country, including those whose religious and moral scruples forbid it, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. The implementation of the HHS mandate, only staved off in some instances by challenges from religious institutions and individuals, will compel businesses around the nation to choose between violating their religious beliefs or give up providing insurance and face heavy government fines.
At the same time, as the New York Times reported yesterday, the federal government is moving quickly to set up health exchanges in states that are refusing to take part in ObamaCare. This means Washington will be operating health markets in perhaps half of the states in the union. With the refusal of Republican governors and legislatures to take part in this massive expansion of federal power, the result of their principled decision will be to give the Obama administration the opportunity to set up an even more massive and unwieldy bureaucracy than even its opponents envisioned. Combined with the merciless advance of the HHS Mandate, it’s clear that while the two parties and their presidential candidates will be trading blows on a wide array of issues, the one thing we know for sure that will hang on the outcome will be whether the government will be proceeding after January to continue the implementation of ObamaCare.
The August 1 date is just the start of an era which, if not derailed by a change at the White House, will mean a raft of intrusive federal health care regulations that will allow an increasingly powerful federal government to severely restrict religious freedom.
As the Heritage Foundation wrote on its blog last week, the attempts to delay the religious exemptions being offered by the administration are so limited as to create a narrow definition of religious liberty. Yet this unprecedented attack on individual rights is proceeding without much coverage in the media except those few stories devoted to scattered protests or the lawsuits launched to stave off the law’s implementation.
The same can be said about the federal health exchanges that are in the works. Though Republicans who have opted their states out of the mess are in the right, the administration is leaping into this opening. While we can be sure that the scope of this task and the details are so daunting so as to ensure a healthy dose of corruption and incompetence, the bottom line is that by next spring, the government will be knee-deep in running health markets around the country with negative consequences that we are only just beginning to envision.
All of this means the sooner the Republicans stop playing defense about Romney’s record and return to hammering the president on his unpopular health care boondoggle and speaking up in defense of religious freedom, the better their chances will be in November.
This is so silly. There is no unprecedented attack on religious liberty or freedom. A business owner's relgious beliefs do not give him the right to deny equal right or medical care to employees anymore than they permit him to refuse to serve Black people. Conception and abortions are medical care, just as are blood transfusions and being a certain type of Christian opposed to blood transfusions also does not trump employee rights.
From what I understand (I generally use that formula when I'm willing to suggest the limits of my understanding), one major problem with American healthcare (or health insurance coverage–this is where the problematic limited understanding kicks in) is that it is so tied to employment. n nRegardless, even with overbearing fines for not doing so, there is no civic duty or moral responsibility for an employer to provide coverage of any kind. As well, also from what I understand (I'll here gladly defer to Tobin's Heritage Foundation link), the HHS mandate does not just apply to businesses, and so the mandate is rather accurately described as, at the least, narrowly defining what constitutes religious activity. In also deferring to that link, what can you make of the administration's various [weak] accommodations? Surely they are at least some evidence of deference on the part of the administration to concern on the part of religious organizations.
Yes, the WORST thing about US healthcare is that it is TIED to employment. Thankfully, the #1 BENEFIT of ObamaCare is that, as GOPs ALL UNANIMOUSLY SAY, it will result in 100% of ALL employers to DROP THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE, thus ENDING the employment based insurance. GOPs love to use that as an argument to bash ObamaCare when speaking to the ignorant masses of white working class. However, when they are being honest thinkers(elites), they admit that employers dropping health insurace is precisely what is needed.
If any publication distorted the truth about Israel the way Mr. Tobin distorts the truth about the preventive mandate, I would expect him to have been among the first to object, and I would likely applaud him for it. The fact that he allows himself the luxury of doing unto others what is hateful unto him is not only a black mark on his character, it is a negative reflection on all of us who share a common heritage. Shame on you, Mr. Tobin. No one expects you to support the President, all we ask is that as a representative of more than yourself, you make the effort to be less short term self serving and more cognizant of the long term effects your situational ethics will have on the community as a whole.
Nice rant, "Old Leftie". The cowardice and mendacity of Romney, the Heritage Foundation and their minions in the conservative press is indeed breath taking. The good news is Obama seems to be expanding his lead in the polls with only three more months to go.
Doctor, heal thyself. Oldleftie, your wishcasting as to what you want Obamacare to be doesn't make it so. Shame on you.
that's a pretty specious comment. Not unexpected. Thank you. I was referring to the preventive mandate. You obviously can't defend Tobin's view, so you decide instead to descend into ad hominem.
You yourself have only marked Tobin's view as distorting things, without giving details as to how. You then proceeded to mark on how he is such a terrible representative of his people, which would maybe be true if he was maybe truly distorting things, (I'm just being comprehensive as to what is the full range of possibilities, mind–I don't necessarily deign to think in such terms generally, unless this people-group is one strictly because of common beliefs shared.) n nAs well, it may be that you were in a limited manner talking about the mandate, but your charge really gave no grounds on which it could be rebutted, because you gave no grounds on which it was based. (You are also a mere debater with the self-adopted name of "oldleftie," which you most surely do not operate with in the real world, so you get the general benefit of not tying your name to anything, at the price of some credibility. Tobin has done more, in using his real name [not a real biggie, but eh], and in providing some source as a basis for statements. He also, as a frequent writer for Commentary, has the work of Commentary on the subject to fall back on.) So of course Tobin's view can't be defended against your charge–the reasons for that have much to do with the fault of your charge. We merely can't accept your ideological given, given that it's ideologically-based, and also that we are of an opposite ideology.
I respect your measured tone, and I will attempt to reply in kind. My criticism of Tobin is completely restricted to his mischaracterization of the mandate. There is nothing in the mandate that requires a business to approve of anything but an insurance program for its employees. It does not force any employee to avail herself of any benefit. It is designed only to ensure that employees who do not share the religious weltanschauungs of their employer be required to forego medical benefits that do not conflict with their religious weltanschauungs. Tobin is well paid to speak for his employer. He may not want any of the added benefits that his employer feels violate its ethical standards. But that is not the point. The point is that Tobin is distorting both the intention and effect of the mandate because he wants to cast aspersions on the President, just as the bishops who attempted to draw Jewish sympathy did with their ridiculous claim that by authorizing the mandate, the government was on a path to force kosher restaurants to serve pork.
From what I understand the HHS mandate does not apply to just businesses (even if it did just that there would still be problems), but also to religious non-profit groups with employees (one issue being that the administration is narrowly defining what constitutes free religious practice and who is conducting it and when). I'm also not in the know as to various plans that various employers offer (or even as to what terms I should be using in describing them), but I think that several are making their own health plans and not just buying into them. "Self-insured" I don't think is the proper term… n nAs well, I'm not exactly clear as to what this sentence of yours means: "It is designed only to ensure that employees who do not share the religious weltanschauungs of their employer be required to forego medical benefits that do not conflict with their religious weltanschauungs." I'm taking that this portion "who do not share the religious weltanschauungs of their employer" is referring to employees, leaving me to understand your sentence as "It is designed only to ensure that employees" "be required to forego medical benefits that do not conflict with their religious weltanschauungs"–I think you surely must have left out a word, like "not." n nGiven my lack of understanding I defer to the Heritage Foundation link Tobin gives. I'm of the mind that the mandate obviously tramples religious liberties, and I think that the "temporary safe harbor" described at that link that the administration is "providing" is evidence that it recognizes some sort of problem.
That was a convoluted sentence, wasn't it. Let's try again: "It is designed only to ensure that employees who do not share the religious weltanschauungs of their employer are not required to forego medical benefits that do not conflict with *their* religious weltanschauungs." nThe Heritage Foundation states: "After Wednesday, nearly all employers will be forced, at the beginning of their next health plan year, to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization—regardless of moral or religious objections." This is untrue, in fact it is exactly the opposite. After Wednesday nearly all employers will be prevented from imposing their religious or moral objections on employees who do not share them. The fact that the administration was forced into a compromise that clearly allows employers to violate the First Amendment rights of their employees is simply evidence of how close we are coming to becoming a de facto theocracy in this country. n
Where's the ad hominem, oldleftie? I was just mirroring the exact language you used above. So again, doctor, heal thyself first.
"wishcasting" is the ad hominem. The rest of your comment is specious. I notice again that you don't analyze the preventive mandate, just throw stones at me. Please don't try again, it's getting boring.
Whatever. Keep embarrassing yourself. It is a free country.
what an intelligent reply, and certainly responsive to my challenge to address the mandate rather than continue to throw specious stones at me. I bet your family is really happy with whatever they invested to get you to this stage of immaturity. Congratulations.
oh, and a big shout out to all you anonymous cowards who have nothing better to do than give someone you can't argue with a "thumbs down". You really must be making your families proud of you.
One, let's not pretend that we who use such names as "BreadAlone" and "oldleftie" don't benefit from anonymity; two, let's decide as to which is more substantive, your charge itself, which is merely that Tobin is distorting things (imagine how easily and how often this charge would be employed were it to prove effective, if Romney could merely reply to every anti-Romney piece that it was a "distortion"), or the marking down of such things; three, there are at least a few instance I can imagine where "someone you can't argue with" is someone who is so because of stubbornness or closed-mindedness, or because of incomprehensibility or other such negative factors–in fact, a one who can't be argued with is more often than not a one with no argument than a strong argument, or so I'm rather inclined to believe. Regardless, my reply above is a reply to the effects of "I'm inclined to doubt your charge and more inclined to sooner accept Tobin's opinion." Such is truly my best attempt at arguing with you.
I am not referring to any person who, like you takes the time to delineate a reason for disagreement with me. I am referring only to those who come here, hit the "thumbs down" button and leave. I accept your right to do so because you have made a substantive comment, even though under a pseudonym. I am sick and tired of all those who do not have the courage to at least state a criticism instead of just making an anonymous veto.
Don't be too hard on those who thumbs up/down but don't comment, OL. Commentary is very particular about what brand of truth they will "allow" as criticism or retort. It's possible (probable) that those who agree with you simply aren't given voice.
thank you.