Saturday, February 11, 2012

Not Good Enough (Continued)...

If you wanted this, congrats...
Instead of continuously updating the last post as I was doing yesterday, I figured I would just do another post here instead.

The so-called 'accommodation' from yesterday is not an accommodation at all - the same people still will be forced to buy things they consider morally objectionable, but certain corners, such as the Washington Post editorial board, thinks that the 'accommodation' is a 'win-win' for President Obama:
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION appears to have found an elegant way out of its contraceptive problem — or, perhaps more to the point, to the political problem created by its approach to contraceptive coverage.
It's elegant only if you wish to be talked down to and if you were looking (or begging) for the Obamaites to do SOMETHING to make it all go away (like Sr. Carol Keehan - who has been a major cheerleader for 'health care reform', and who keeps being trotted out as a representative of Catholics.  Here's a clue, she has revealed herself to be a useful idiot by her swaying in the wind on this issue).  Continuing...

The solution unveiled Friday passes the buck — literally — to insurers. The religiously affiliated employers themselves will not be required to pay for coverage or to direct employees to other ways to obtain it. Instead, the responsibility for providing coverage will be shifted to insurance companies. This is, most likely, a win-win situation.
Seriously? Companies buy policies, or purchase into the group. This is just a semantic shell game that is being played. No matter what, religious organizations that object will still be paying for services they consider to be sinful, and will be forced to direct employees to the same. The editorial gets around to calling this part a 'wrinkle', but they don't seem to think it will be a problem. Of course it is a problem. Why? Because the 'accommodation' is not very accommodating. I also love how they invoke Archbishop Dolan saying it was a 'step in the right direction'. I guess they didn't really read this letter...
These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
In due course, this all goes back to the nature of an individual mandate, which is the heart and soul of the health care bill passed two years ago. I predicted then that the mandate would be struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the federal government (especially the executive branch and its bureaucracies) does not have the authority to...

a) Force companies to offer products at no charge 
b) Force employers to buy a certain product
c) Force individuals to buy/consume certain products 
d) Penalize people who do NOT buy or consume said products 

If the mandate is upheld, then we have Leviathan in our midst, and we are no longer free, but an authoritarian and tyrannical society.  Be careful what you wish for.

No comments:

Share...