One of the gravest problems with Obamacare has nothing specifically to do with health care.
Sure, Obamacare will destroy this country’s health care system. It may one day kill me or you. But it will also have a profound effect on the relationship you and I have with our government.
Obamacare will, of course, bolster the sense, particularly among those who should be striving to achieve more in their lives rather than suckling ever more forcefully on the government teat, that Big Wet Nurse – aka the federal government – is there to take care of you whether you decide you’re interested in working or not.
But even more insidious is that once the government can order you to purchase health care, it will start feeling it oats and decide that this is only the beginning of what it can tell you to do.
Requiring private citizens to engage in a specific form of commerce is a new and pernicious abuse of government power. Most conservatives understand the need for some – even as they try to limit it – government encroachments in the form of taxes, regulations of economic behavior, and dictates in the name of national security. But telling you what you must do, as opposed to providing limited controls on what you do so that you don’t harm others and even perhaps yourself, is a brave new world.
And so, in case you need proof, we have a mostly overlooked provision in the Obama budget – though not by CNS News – which would order all workers not enrolled in a tax-deferred retirement account to get one.
That’s right, if this provision of President Obama’s budget passes, you are automatically enrolled in a retirement account whether you want to be or not. Even if you desperately need those funds for current expenses or are quite sure you octogenarian Aunt Noonie is going to leave you a fist full of stock options. You can opt out if you want, but the whole purpose of these “automatic opt in” schemes is that most people don’t. It’s effectively government deciding on your economic behavior.
We’ll see more of these types of government-directed lifestyle and economic choices as people get used to being ordered by Big Wet Nurse to purchase federally mandated health insurance. One area to watch out for – and we’re already seeing it with New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s cancellation of the Big Gulp and Michelle’s requirement that kids eat slightly seasoned twigs for lunch – is government control of your diet.
Because you, YOU, with your bag of Nachos – you’re raising everybody’s health costs and YOU’D BETTER CUT IT OUT. And if you don’t, well, we’ll just cart some Nachomakers off the jail for purposely addicting children to their product’s irresistible cheesy flavor.
Obamacare heralds a brave new world of federal intrusion into your life. But don’t worry too much. The Politburo always knows what’s best.
34 thoughts on “Obamacare’s Pathway to Creeping Control by the State”
“21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.:” – NDASP Twenty-Five Point Program, Munich, 1920
Ever wonder why Health Care is SO important to statist? It’s simple;
They OWN you.
Your body belongs to the State. They will tell you what to do with it, how to care for it, and cut you off when it no longer serves the State. Owning health care lets them do all of this.
It also gives them some DANDY leverage on the REST of your liberties – and with YOUR consent!
Consider how Cuba implemented their “wonderful” universal heath system;
“It is impossible for any country to emulate Cuba’s sterling example in the world in health care without making a socialist revolution and forging the kind of leadership that puts the interests of humanity above everything. As the Argentine-born leader of the Cuban Revolution Ernesto Che Guevara put it, to be a revolutionary doctor you must first make a revolution. ”
Univeralism won’t work in so many ways, the state will HAVE to take over and run EVERYTHING…for YOUR benefit, of course…
And don’t they now have a GREAT tool for knowing stuff about you that USED to be priviledged? You know, your medical problems, drugs you are or have taken, your mental health history – GREAT stuff, in case they want to make you unemployable for some reason, or deny you your right to bear arms…
This also concentrates vast economic control on…the government. P.J. O’Rourke puts this problem succinctly;
“When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state … this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people.” — P.J. O’Rourke
And, of course, give the Government power, and they WILL abuse it;
“Legislation has been filed that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual. But, as I note elsewhere, AB 460 isn’t limited to a finding of actual infertility. Nor does it require that gays and lesbians have tried to conceive or sire a child using heterosexual means, natural or artificial. Rather — as with heterosexual couples — merely the inability to get pregnant for a year while having active sexual relations is sufficient to demonstrate need for treatment, meaning if the bill becomes law, it would require insurance companies to pay for services such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. for people who are actually fecund. Indeed, since the bill prevents discrimination based on marital or domestic partnership status, theoretically every gay and lesbian in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage merely by the fact that they don’t wish to engage in heterosexual relations.”
So the thesis above is valid; “Obamacare’s Pathway to Creeping Control by the State”.
The only part I would question is “Creeping”.
a lot of insurance companies won’t cover fertility treatments for heterosexual couples.
What happens in California, never STAYS in California…
Also, did you know that this very thing happened in the British socialized health care system?
“Technological advancements mean that same sex couples have an unprecedented opportunity to have their own genetic children. There are a number of different options available to both female and male same sex couples, and while there are ethical and religious concerns around the topic, the practice is perfectly legal in the UK.
Artificial Insemination for Same Sex Couples
Same sex couples may wish to have a baby via third party reproduction, depending on their situation, there are a variety of options available. Lesbian couples will require a donation of sperm taken either straight from the donor or a frozen sample from a sperm bank. The donor may be found privately (I.e. a friend or relative), or found via an agency. The sperm is taken to a lab to be washed and prepared for insemination and is also tested for transferable diseases.
The sperm can be inserted in several ways, firstly, using a needless syringe. The syringe will insert the semen into the vagina, using a long tube to place it as deep as is necessary. This is known as intra-cervical insemination.
Intrauterine insemination involves the semen being placed directly into the uterus, this semen must have been treated to remove unnecessary components to prevent it from being expelled from the body via urine cramping. After the procedure, movement is not recommended for at least 15 minutes.
Gay male couples will provide a sample in a similar way to donors and this sample will be used to fertilise a donor egg. A surrogate mother is needed to bear the embryo to full term, and this is discussed in more detail below.
Surrogate Mothers for Same Sex Couples
Surrogate mothers may be found via agencies or can be personally known to the couple. Gay male couples will chose a partner to provide sperm for artificial insemination, and as the surrogate will be biologically related to the child, under UK law they maintain the right to determine what happens to the child. Unless an adoption contract is drawn, then she will be the child’s legal mother. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK, this means that surrogate mother cannot be paid more than expenses for carrying the child.
As you can imagine this can make the situation a bit complicated, and so it is always advised to involve a solicitor to make sure there are no misunderstandings or complications further down the line. It is also important to have a clear understanding of what the surrogate wants before going ahead with any part of the process.
IVF for Same Sex Couples
A conventional IVF procedure involves eggs being directly extracted from the follicles in which they are housed and mixed with the collected sperm in a petri dish. These eggs are then incubated to form a fertilised embryo. This embryo will be implanted back into the uterus where it will hopefully implant itself in the womb, resulting in pregnancy.
Same sex couples may want to use IVF rather than adoption so that they have a biological connection. Lesbian couples may use a surrogate mother, using one of their own eggs and a sperm donation or one of the partners will carry the baby themselves. Gay couples will use a surrogate mother, using their own sperm or a donation.
Recent changes in Civil Partnership laws mean that same sex couples have the same rights as married couples when it comes to IVF. Post 1990, eligibility to use IVF treatment looked at the financial stability of a couple to see if they were able to provide the baby with an adequate upbringing However this included “the need of the child to have a father”, which discriminated against lesbian couples. The chair of the British Fertility Society, Allison Murdoch argued that as long as the child is going to be brought up in a loving, caring environment then their parent’s sexuality should not be seen as an issue.”
Coming to a clinic near you…Enjoy it, you’ll be paying for it!
Don’t think so? Ask the Catholic Church how that birth control thing is going, or whether tax money is used for abortions…
“The Planned Parenthood Federation of America finally released its 2008-2009 Annual report detailing its financial figures. The report shows it received more government funding, which has translated into more abortions.
The nation’s largest abortion business released a factsheet in September showing the number of abortions it performed in 2008 increased to 324,008, a 6.1 percent increase over the 305,310 abortions it did in 2007.”
Ain’t politics grand?
I think our last hope is the 2014 election that Obama so desperately needs a super majority in DC for ….. to finish us off :( (Amnesty anyone?)
We need to take back the Senate and keep the House. No small feat for a GOP that’s imploding with idiots (Mark Sanford anyone?).
Obama’s OFA will go after the most vunerable seats and destroy them with the same tactics that gave us two terms of Obama.
I hope I’m wrong :(
I fear you are correct. Obama will try to keep the Republicans from control. It’s not that he loves his fellow Democrats: Baucus is dropping out not because the Republicans will certainly beat him but because Obama is out for revenge for his anti-gun control vote in the Senate. It’s to consolidate his own power and agenda.
Low information voters are his target, he could give a crap about the country. Just listen to his ongoing campaign speeches. While the Dems are pushing granny off the cliff, BO’s convinced his supporters that’s it’s really the Evil Republicans.
It’s why our media is needed more important than ever and I just wish we had the journalists from the Nixon era on guard :D
Good luck on the voter fraud thing.
Obama’s thugs are still in play.
Isn’t this “really” redundant? We have this thing called Social Security. And every working soul send 15% of their income to the Federal coffers. Isn’t this a tacit admission that Social Security is an abject FAILURE?
I can’t think of a single federal program that is solvent.
And if you don’t work, you don’t have to participate – us working stiffs will cover you all!
Sorry dudes, I am broke and seriously depressed about the future.
Broke here, too–and have been since this man seized power.
Pingback: Another Obamacare Mandate – You MUST Enroll In A Retirement Account - The Ulsterman Report
Do not despair! Obamacare is collapsing on itself. The rats (Max Baucus) are jumping ship. Ironically, the SCOTUS decision may turn out to be the solution to the problem:
“Can one Iraq vet stop Obamacare?” Let us pray! Iraqi war vet and businessman Matt Sissal’s lawsuit (filed in 2010) was put on hold during last June’s SCOTUS decision making process. Ironically, the controversial ruling that Obamacare is a ‘tax’ gaves his case a new lease on life.
“In that ruling, the Majority held that the individual mandate was essentially a tax. This finding prompted the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represents Sissel, to file a new constitutional cause of action based on the way the law was rammed through Congress. What we now know as Obamacare was initially cobbled together in the Senate, and that body of Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to write tax bills. Sissel and his PLF lawyers have therefore amended their complaint to say that the “reform” law violates the Origination Clause.”
Read more: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/29/can-one-iraq-vet-stop-obamacar
I frequently read comments about postponing it for a year. If that comes to pass and the Republicans win 2014, we’re in good shape: it will be postponed indefinitely. On the other hand, maybe Obama and the Democrats would like to see it postponed to 2015 to remove it as a 2014 election issue. If they win, we’re sunk. On reflection, I’m not for postponing it–let the Republicans use it and the horrors we are going to encounter as their prime issue.
The collapse of Obiecare is welcomed by the Left because they know it will be replaced by a nationalized system. There’s no going back now.
Hey Keith. Did you put a camera in my house?? I was just reaching for the Nachos……yikes.. Actually my addiction is more Ruffles With Ridges, Original. :-)
This is nothing–yet. Wait’ll the IRS people start making you prove you’re poor enough to get help with the $1500 a month insurance premiums.
You take a nice picture. How did you get a camera past Souza and the Secret Service? (Do you also have a special pass to take photos at Beyonce’s concerts, now that she’s barred press photogs?)
It’s not too far behind.
William – Suggested read.
Orwellian double think enters the gun grab debate
Re: those “tax-deferred retirement accounts”, soon to be required by the government: my understanding is that Step II will be the government taking over the managment of them. Kiss your $$ goodbye – they’re gonna get their hands on it, one way or another.
I believe that too. Fortunately – they won’t get their hands on mine because I used it all up trying to save the house – which, UNFORTUNATELY, we lost anyway.
All Hail King Obama!
I felt heartsick reading that.
Welcome to Greece.
Pingback: Obamacares pathway to creeping state control
Congratulations on making RealClearPolitics again.
“One area to watch out for – and we’re already seeing it with New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s cancellation of the Big Gulp and Michelle’s requirement that kids eat slightly seasoned twigs for lunch – is government control of your diet.”
My God. Keith, I find it hard to believe you actually agree with what you just wrote.
First of all, if you want to buy 32 ounces of soda, nobody’s stopping you, or “cancelling” your right to do so. It just requires you to take the 2 seconds necessary to do extra math. 2 sodas x 16 ounces = 32 ounces of soda. Buy 2 16-ounce sodas. If conservatives find that math operation too much work and an “encroachment on their freedom”, then maybe they need to scale down to, say, 24 ounces of soda per meal. It would free up desperately needed brain cells.
Second of all, “slightly seasoned twigs?” Good Lord in Food Pyramid Heaven. When, exactly, was the last time you went to a school cafeteria, Keith?
It is true that nationwide, slightly less emphasis is being placed on tater tots, french fries, and all-purpose cheese pizza, and slightly more on peaches, milk, and (horror of horrors!) green beans than there was when, say, we were kids. It is also true that unless you’re a.) a picky-eating tot, or b.) a person used to treating Twinkies as “bread group”, NUTRITIOUS FOOD IS SOMETHING ONLY DEEPLY PERVERSE SILLY PEOPLE MAN THE BARRICADES OVER. If kids go on hunger strikes because they actually have to “eat vegetables” now, well, boo-hoo. They’ll get over it. Somehow, I think you will too, Keith.
You’re so CUTE when you’re scornful. Why should people have to do the math on soda? And they are seeing now that a lot of those carrot sticks and even baked chips are landing in the trash. As for raising everyone’s health costs, jogging causes many hip replacements later, statins may not be the miracle big-woo you think now, and climbing mountains can cause expensive rescues etc. Maybe YOU are raising my rates!
You either missed the point or are hellbent on making your own. When and where does it say that any agency local or federal dictates what you eat or drink. If they want to “suggest” a change, fine by me.
Keep bending over
Is that you, RT?
all very true Keith. all true. but you, like many other people concerned with freedoms are missing a major point – besides forcing people to engage in sanctioned business transactions -buying insurance – obamacare prepetuates the status quo or crony capitalism that is the true root of much of the country’s distress. our system supposedly functions one of two ways- competiion or regulation. vast, important segments of the economy have become large enough to buy their way out of either – healthcare, banking and communication (cable tv/internet). none of these industries have real competition, the result being legal monopolies that sprawl and feed themselves, smothering real innovation and FAIRNESS in the economy. The basic out come sought after by conservatives and liberals alike should be an even handed level playing field – the economy would bloom, consumers would benefit and we would retunr to a place where small business and indiviauls again had a chance to make their fortunes. bring back TR and break these monopolies up!
Here’s how save money on the elderly and healthcare: http://youtu.be/aMyiS9o4VBI
Chief Justice Roberts gave us another wonderful prize in the Obamacare ruling: as long as you call something a “tax,” Congress can do whatever it wants–and make We The People do whatever it wants too.
every once in awhile, I think about what it would be like if Romney had won last November. (then I usually burst into tears and start banging my head against the wall.) aside from all the other benefits, we would also not be having this conversation about Obamacare.
Comments are closed.