As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Cato on Contraception Mandate: 'We Should All be Exempt'

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable…[more]

February 10, 2012 • 04:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
What To Do About “Health Care Reform” Print
By CFIF Staff
Wednesday, July 29 2009
This “health care reform,” as has been amply observed by others, is incremental legislation, camel-under-the-tent legislation, the beginning of a very bad end, to be fixed and fixed and fixed as it moves down the road, turning disaster into catastrophe.

Oppose it. Oppose it out of self-interest or simply because the country is being jobbed yet again by a President and Congress that seem incapable of telling the truth on any legislation before or after the fact.

Do not be sidetracked by the propaganda crap storm in favor of “reform.” Do not be flimflammed by the talk of compromise or bipartisanship. Do not become mollified because of one provision or another, or one version or another. The details, still in flux, are far from clear. The intent, however, has the clarity of finest crystal: government control of the health care decisions and outcomes for every man, woman and child in the country. Government control of your health care and your family’s health care.

This “health care reform,” as has been amply observed by others, is incremental legislation, camel-under-the-tent legislation, the beginning of a very bad end, to be fixed and fixed and fixed as it moves down the road, turning disaster into catastrophe.

Do you believe that a government which cannot effectively run Medicare or Medicaid or the Veteran’s Administration has anywhere near the capacity, the compassion or the concern to run health care for the entire population? For you? If you do, then you have sacrificed reality for the ever-shifting mirage of hope and change. In this case, that could be deadly. Literally.

If you cannot understand legislation, it is not in your or your family’s interest. You will not understand this legislation without the help of experts, and by then it will be too late. Most of those who must vote to pass it do not and will not understand it. Representative John Conyers says it would take a Congressman two days and two lawyers to understand it, so there’s not much sense in reading it. Senator Olympia Snowe says a simple explanation is impossible.

Those who seek to pass it are counting on your not understanding it until it is too late. Heed this one sentence from politico.com: “...as the health care battle enters a critical phase – with lawmakers about to greet constituents during summer recess – the reality is that the outcome will probably be shaped less by the intelligence of advocates on any side than by the ignorance of most Americans.”

You think the President and Congress are not going to lie their way through this? Read just one sentence from an AP story: “While Baucus reported the Senate Finance measure carried a price tag of under $1 trillion, congressional officials said it included only the cost of the first year of a 10-year, $245 billion program to increase doctor fees under Medicare. House Democrats used a similar sleight of hand, excluding the entire $245 billion when claiming their measure wouldn’t add to the deficit.”

If the Congress that seeks to enact “health care reform” and the President who is its principal cheerleader will not subject themselves to every term and provision of it – and they will not – then you should not condone it, unless, of course, you perversely enjoy being a serf to our government royalty.

It is painfully amusing to watch proponents and opponents debate such in-the-weeds arguments as whether the so-called “end-of-life counseling” provision is a step toward government-guided euthanasia or just ever-so-helpful advice on preplanning your demise as you reach the end of your usefulness to the state. Either way, some prior government advice from an equally misplaced perspective might now, a half century later, be pertinent: Duck and cover.

Our view of this attempt at health care reform – which is needed as a careful, deliberative process, understandable to all – would be different if it evidenced any sign of a direct, honest dialog with the American people who are the consumers of health care. Its proponents, however, chose a path of stealth, speed and deception. They have sought to silence opposition and demonize critics.

That must be stopped. What to do about “health care reform?” Oppose it now, oppose it tomorrow, oppose it until it’s dead, because that’s the only kind of “end of life counseling” it deserves.

Question of the Week   
Where does the United States rank in The Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Someone needs to ask Mr. Obama how an increasingly impoverished nation, limping along on food stamps and housing subsidies, is going to pay for the existing beneficiaries, along with 77 million Baby Boomers set to retire in the next 25 years. A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground."…[more]
 
 
—Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
— Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration support Israel in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?