San Diego –– I thought i would have at least a week to sit back, take in the sad spectacle of presidential contenders forming their circular firing squad, and worrying perhaps more about issues of foreign polict such as actions in Iran and their proxy, Syria. Now there is a chance for us to really get in deep doo-doo no matter what we do beause we have utterly failed to do what was called for back when we could have had some potentially positive inpact. Now, if that explodes, we will truly be “damned if we do and damned if we don’t” no matter what. Brilliant. The only good side for the administration is it will be a great distraction.
But no, another flack has arisen over health care/insurance mandates that has both sides focussing on the surface and ignoring what, to me is clearly a huge issue over the power of the presidency and the government in our private and contractual lives.
What is it that makes some minds go numb when the messiah du jour speaks? What arcane mesmerism makes them just assume that the assertions by their idols in government are accurate against all common sense and checkable facts to the contrary? This whole flack about insurance companies being mandated to provide contraceptives is couched in the warm and fuzzy language of caring about women’s health care.
What it is about is a naked power grab that will set a precedence that you all will not like when a president of another party is in power that you fail to see?
We surely all know by now that the President thinks (because he has openly said so) that the Constitution is flawed and, by implication, needs to be replaced with one he would write. His view is echoed by a Supreme Court justice just returned from the middle east, that garden of interpersonal relations and political sweetness where she offered opinions stating they should not use our Constitution as a model. Statistics would probably show that at least 9 out of 10 dictators would agree with her… and with him.
Lets forget for the moment that Presidents and Justices swear an oath to defend, protect, and uphold that Constitution and just assume neither the President’s nor the Justice’s vocabulary permitted them to understand those words as most folks would. After all, they are two syllables each and not words in the common TV-inspired language. And no where are the terms “like” or “you know” or any four-letter epithets in evidence so the entire thing is rendered incomprehensible to most of the posters on that paragon of deep intellectual insight, Facebook… and apparently to the President and at least one Supreme Court Justice as well.
We almost have to assume that level of illiteracy otherwise their own statements and actions would make of them the ultimate hypocrites and surely they are not that… surely. Or it would make some actions treasonous and surely we do not want to go there. It does certainly give you a new respect for their writers who populate the teleprompters…
But here is the deal now as I see it: the president is usurping Constitutional limitations on his power, as well as congressional authority, by mandating all by himself that insurance companies of all types provide some service, targeted to a specific demographic, free of charge to the recipients. So what is the problem? I see several.
Problem One: He is proclaiming the presidential power to override personal contracts to mandate activity that is not even discussed in Congress. There is no provision in the Constitution that grants him OR congress that power. If it stands, then there is nothing to stop a President from the other party from declaring the opposite, or that he has the personal positional power to mandate that all insurance contracts for male employees contain clauses where they will be granted penile implants for free… or for that matter to interfere in any contractual arrangement he or she thinks should be changed for his view of the greater good. If you support it happening now then you better be prepared to shut up when it happens in the other direction.
Problem Two: He is proclaiming the presidential power to provide special services for non-life-threatening issues to a limited demographic and not to another. Generally in the interests of their beliefs in social fairness, the left argues that something must be done for ALL of those effected if it is done for any of them. Well, as pointed out in the next segment, ALL policy holders or the companies that pay for them are effected whether or not they are female. And since males generally do not have contraceptives, does this policy mandate that they must be given condoms for free? If not, then how does that equate to the equal social justice for all whined about by liberals? The answer, especially since those meds are already available for free from Planned Parenthood, is obvious. This does not address some inequity: it is neither about social justice nor is it about health care. It is about insinuating and asserting power.
What if instead of an evangelical Marxist you had an evangelical Christian Fundamentalist who mandated that such medications could not, as part of a government program, be given to ANYONE? You would, if you support this mandate now, have to support that opposing president’s right to do that even if you did not agree with it. Or are you only willing to ignore the Constitution when it goes against your personal wishes but want to see it used as a club when you agree with its provisions?
Problem Three: He is ignoring the laws of economics by pretending that his mandate has no cost to it to anyone. That is just economic ignorance gone to seed if you believe that. Even New Math would let you figure this out for yourselves. The medicines in question are not free to the providers, so who pays for it if not those for whom it is provided? When Planned Parenthood gives the same meds out for free, the cost is borne by their contributors… but there is still a cost that is going to be borne by someone.
When a private company does it, that cost is borne by being spread across their customer base meaning, for insurance companies, the buyers of the policies are paying for something whether they want to or not and whether they have any moral objections to it or not. And since Obamacare mandates that businesses pay all the costs of health care and provide it free to employees, the cost is borne by the business and ultimately by their customers… us. And the slack is picked up by the taxpayers… again, us. Free? Not hardly.
Not enough problems for you yet? OK, here are some more.
Problem Four: He is talking out of both sides of his mouth when he argues that women should be in charge of their bodies (so they can abort a pregnancy if desired) but apparently now arguing that they are also so stupid or so weak they cannot take charge at the other end of the reproduction process and not get pregnant in the first place. So which is it? Strong and intelligent or weak and stupid? What works at one end has to work at the other or it is not true.
I also need to have it explained to me how free contraceptions from this source is somehow better than the free contraceptives ALREADY available free from outlets such as Planned Parenthood? This is not about women; women are being used as pawns in a power struggle and because the opening volley uses ammunition dear to them, they are following along without seeing past the immediate red herrings.
Problem Five: It removes any pretense of allowing the free practice of any religion guaranteed in the First Amendment by demanding that anyone who is in anyway involved in paying the costs of this medicine must do as mandated whether or not they find the use of it voluntary and morally repugnant.
Remember we are not talking about pills for headaches or pain; we are not talking about antibiotics for helping to heal wounds or diseases – unless you think that pregnancy is a disease. Obama apparently does; he already said he does not want his children to be “punished” with a child. Punished with a child? Really?
Is there anyone from basically grade school on up who does not now know how to make a baby and how to avoid that happening? We are talking about dealing with the results of a voluntary act, except in the case of rape for which I would happily make an exception.
But the real issue here is the answer to a simple question: does the federal government, or the President, have, under the authority granted them by the Constitution they/he swore to uphold, the power to prohibit not just churches, but the people themselves, the citizens of this country, the free exercise of their religious beliefs unless those beliefs lead to some criminal activity?
If you do not know the answer to that then you really need to read the document this flack is all about. And until you do that, you need to shut up and back out of the discussion until you can engage intelligently in the real issues.
Personally I do not believe the government has ANY business in this area at all. I do not believe that abortion, except in the case of rape or incest, should even be a governmental topic. It is not a constitutional topic. I do not believe the government should take it upon itself to prohibit it or make it somehow illegal. But I also do not think the government should facilitate it by making taxpayers pay for it. I think it is entirely a private matter, a matter of choice that i think individuals have, but it is none of the government’s business one way or the other unless it is tied to some criminal act.
But this mandate is not really about that issue either. Stripped of the obfuscatory shield of pretense at being about women’s health, it is about cold, naked power and whether or not the President, any president, has this sort of power. It is not really even about contraception or abortion; those, along with “womens’ health care” are just the ammunition being used to rally some narrow-viewed individuals into the fray. It is, at its core, about the power of the President and the government and how far that extends into private lives and business contracts.
And if it is allowed to stand, what it does is give any president, not just this president, the power to step into the middle of your beliefs and into the middle of your business contracts. At least insist, even if you support the result, that it be debated in Congress and presented as a proper bill that does not do any violence to the constitution. Then when he signs it it will be under the proper authority.
But that is not what he wants to happen. He wants the authority to do it himself outside of congressional oversight and outside of the constitution. This is a floodgate I do not want to see opened. I do not want even Presidents I support having this much power because when it happens, the America of the founders will be dead.
Remember in the last post I said you had to take the complaints used as the rationals in the Declaration of independence as the foundations of the limitations to federal power protected by the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. Here, direct from the Declaration itself, is one of those things that pushed the founders into a war…
Speaking about the abuses of the monarchy they wrote,
“… He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
Can we spell “Czars” and the incredible expansion of them in the Federal Bureacracy where without congressional oversight they crank out regulations for the most intimate details of our lives? Those are the sorts of things we rebelled against and created a government of only 3 parts where laws could come from only that set.
Or how about this complaint in the Declaration?
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.”
That same Supreme Court Justice mentioned above once opined we should look to foreign laws; and this entire administration seems interested in allowing foreign bodies and departments such as in the U.N. to subject us to their rules.
I would suggest the transformation mentioned in previous posts is well underway. If this latest power grab succeeds, and if Obama is re-elected and then is free to use that power as he wills without worry about future elections, we will see our country become unrecognizable in a very short period. And if efforts are made to override the XXII Amendment all pretense will be gone. I can live with a President Obama, I cannot accept a King Barrack I.
Should that happen, I think the people will decide it is time for another revolution as Jefferson anticipated, just later than he thought it would happen. And in the furtherance of that outcome, I will now go back to watching the presidential candidates beat each other up so the public hates them all and, int he process, do all that they can to re-elect Obama.