Another Day, Another Diktat

 

Religious institutions will no longer be required to fund free birth control for all.  Instead, the health insurance companies contracting with religious institutions and everyone else will be required to fund free birth control for all.  See the difference?

Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama announced he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies.

Glad to see that our president is eschewing the politics of division in favor of compromise.

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 28 comments.

  1. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author

    This circus illustrates one of the dynamics of top-down government-directed healthcare: coverage mandates based on political calculation.  Most voters are healthy, so therefore money that would otherwise be spent caring for the sick is redirected toward making healthy voters happy with incumbent politicians.

    • #1
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:07 am
  2. Profile photo of John Murdoch Member

    Nice try.

    • #2
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:08 am
  3. Profile photo of Nealfred Member

    Is he done yet! What else is he going to give that isn’t his to give?

    • #3
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:09 am
  4. Profile photo of Tom Lindholtz Inactive

    When a man ceases to believe in God, he believes not in nothing, but in anything. — GK Chesterton

    • #4
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:14 am
  5. Profile photo of DocJay Member

    He fakes, he dodges, he shoots, air ball. I saw Sebelius doing her two step today and realized what this meant too. I use Catholic insurance and have never had a problem paying for my own non-covered care which included bribing my urologist with Duckhorn for a procedure. This policy forces the Catholics out of the health insurance business. The policy I have is from the most ethical folks in town, I bet they shut down though which is probably the idea.

    • #5
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
  6. Profile photo of Tom Lindholtz Inactive

    BTW, how is the insurance company going to pay for this mandate? They’ll simply price it into their overhead and pass it along to their clients …. including the Catholic and other religious agencies who don’t want to pay for it in the first place. They obviously think we’re stupid.

    • #6
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:17 am
  7. Profile photo of Casey Member

    You think this is great?  Imagine how much fun we’re gonna have when Obamacare actually begins.

    • #7
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:30 am
  8. Profile photo of Aaron Miller Member

    As Rush pointed out this morning, Republicans must defeat this mandate not only on the grounds that it is wrong but also on the grounds that neither the President nor the HHS has the Constitutional authority to make such a mandate… regardless of what SCOTUS rules on Obamacare. We must remember that even failed actions can set precedents which sway public perceptions of authority.

    Even if Obama is defeated in the November election, he will leave office after a flurry of last-minute dictates like this one.

    • #8
    • February 10, 2012 at 11:52 am
  9. Profile photo of C. U. Douglas Thatcher

    So basically, it’s all okay.  Catholics don’t need to worry because Obama just placed another layer of bureaucracy between their values and his?

    • #9
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:01 am
  10. Profile photo of DrewInWisconsin Member
    Aaron Miller: As Rush pointed out this morning, Republicans must defeat this mandate not only on the grounds that it is wrong but also on the grounds that neither the President nor the HHS has the Constitutional authority to make such a mandate… regardless of what SCOTUS rules on Obamacare.

    That is exactly right. They do not have the authority to force this — on the church, on businesses, on insurance companies, or on individuals. It’s time we went to the mat over this.

    • #10
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:05 am
  11. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author
    C. U. Douglas: So basically, it’s all okay.  Catholics don’t need to worry because Obama just placed another layer of bureaucracy between their values and his? · 10 minutes ago

    Well put!

    • #11
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:12 am
  12. Profile photo of genferei Member
    Religious institutions will no longer be required to fund free birth control for all.

    But religious individuals will. I don’t see “institution” in my copy of the First Amendment. I’d better upgrade.

    • #12
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:24 am
  13. Profile photo of Leigh Member
    genferei
    Religious institutions will no longer be required to fund free birth control for all.
    But religious individuals will. I don’t see “institution” in my copy of the First Amendment. I’d better upgrade. · 3 minutes ago

    Exactly.  I have the right (and, in fact, the responsibility) as an individual to live out my faith, regardless of whether my work is explicitly religious or not.

    • #13
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:32 am
  14. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive

    I still don’t understand Obama’s motivation on this issue.  Is he overwhelming arrogant or monumentally clueless?  Or both?  Who in the Obama administration decided it was a good idea to challenge the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue?  If Republicans don’t use this to drive a stake through the heart of this administration, we deserve to lose.  Maybe Professor Rahe is correct, Obama really is the gift that keeps on giving.   

    • #14
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:44 am
  15. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author
    ~Paules: I still don’t understand Obama’s motivation on this issue.  Is he overwhelming arrogant or monumentally clueless?  Or both?  Who in the Obama administration decided it was a good idea to challenge the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue?  If Republicans don’t use this to drive a stake through the heart of this administration, we deserve to lose.  Maybe Professor Rahe is correct, Obama really is the gift that keeps on giving.    · 1 minute ago

    Paules, the president is, in his own words, out to fundamentally transform the United States of America.  You cannot remake a constitutional republic into a statist utopia as long as independent institutions provide a locus of non-conformity.

    So the Catholic church in particular, and religious institutions generally, must be brought to heel.

    This is just the opening salvo.  As Obamacare gets rolling along expect to be buried in offensive minutiae as the unelected, largely unaccountable legislators toiling away in the cubicles of the administrative state go into overdrive to impose Obama’s vision of “fairness” on us all.

    • #15
    • February 11, 2012 at 1:51 am
  16. Profile photo of Mendel Member
    ~Paules: I still don’t understand Obama’s motivation on this issue.  Is he overwhelming arrogant or monumentally clueless?  Or both?  Who in the Obama administration decided it was a good idea to challenge the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue?  If Republicans don’t use this to drive a stake through the heart of this administration, we deserve to lose.  Maybe Professor Rahe is correct, Obama really is the gift that keeps on giving.   

    According to a new survey out today (by a group with apparently good credentials), a majority of Catholics support the contraceptive mandate, including for religious institutions!

    I’m sure this idea looked good on paper to the Obama administration, but, as always, their lack of political sense turned what had the potential to be a winning argument into a scandal.  Were Bill Clinton president, this mandate would have been long since adopted with nary a peep.  Republicans should thank their lucky stars for such a bumbling opponent, but be ever mindful that center of popular opinion is still further left than they can imagine.

    • #16
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:05 am
  17. Profile photo of heyjude Inactive
    DocJay: He fakes, he dodges, he shoots, air ball. I saw Sebelius doing her two step today and realized what this meant too. I use Catholic insurance and have never had a problem paying for my own non-covered care which included bribing my urologist with Duckhorn for a procedure. This policy forces the Catholics out of the health insurance business. The policy I have is from the most ethical folks in town, I bet they shut down though which is probably the idea. · 3 hours ago

    Edited 3 hours ago

    It is the idea.  Satan, through his accomplices here on earth, will stop at nothing to destroy Christianity. 

    • #17
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:09 am
  18. Profile photo of Mendel Member
    George Savage: Religious institutions will no longer be required to fund free birth control for all.  Instead, the health insurance companies contracting with religious institutions and everyone else will be required to fund free birth control for all.  See the difference?

    Isn’t this the same logic that the administration is using in defending the individual mandate in court: “it’s not a mandate to purchase something, it’s a tax that everyone with health insurance is exempt from!”?

    • #18
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:16 am
  19. Profile photo of AUMom Member

    What am I missing here? The Catholic opposition is contraception, not paying for it. Paying for it is only adding insult to injury. Why does the President and his administration not understand that? Or do they just not care? 

    • #19
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:37 am
  20. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive
    George Savage

    Paules, the president is, in his own words, out to fundamentally transform the United States of America. 

    Thanks for reminding me.  I guess the statement answers my question.  He’s arrogant for believing he has the vision, the political skills, and the talent to pull it off (much less a mandate for something so audacious).  He’s clueless about the nature of our republic:  slow to act, but ferocious once provoked.  The Tea Party demonstrations should have been sufficient warning.  Hubris will destroy him, and nemesis will feast on his bones.

    • #20
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:47 am
  21. Profile photo of BKelley14 Inactive
    ~Paules

    George Savage

    Paules, the president is, in his own words, out to fundamentally transform the United States of America. 

    Thanks for reminding me.  I guess the statement answers my question.  He’s arrogant for believing he has the vision, the political skills, and the talent to pull it off (much less a mandate for something so audacious).  He’s clueless about the nature of our republic:  slow to act, but ferocious once provoked.  The Tea Party demonstrations should have been sufficient warning.  Hubris will destroy him, and nemesis will feast on his bones. · 1 minute ago

    I just don’t share your optimism. I think many voters are “stupid”, in that they don’t analyze issues deeply enough. Obama will win on optics on this — compromise, and all that. Liberal Catholics, and there are many, will vote for him again, regardless of this issue.

    • #21
    • February 11, 2012 at 2:53 am
  22. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive
    BKelley14

    ~Paules

    George Savage

    Paules, the president is, in his own words, out to fundamentally transform the United States of America. 

    Thanks for reminding me.  I guess the statement answers my question.  He’s arrogant for believing he has the vision, the political skills, and the talent to pull it off (much less a mandate for something so audacious).  He’s clueless about the nature of our republic:  slow to act, but ferocious once provoked.  The Tea Party demonstrations should have been sufficient warning.  Hubris will destroy him, and nemesis will feast on his bones. · 1 minute ago
    I just don’t share your optimism. I think many voters are “stupid”, in that they don’t analyze issues deeply enough. Obama will win on optics on this — compromise, and all that. Liberal Catholics, and there are many, will vote for him again, regardless of this issue. · 16 minutes ago

    I don’t share your pessimism.  Remember the proverb “pride goeth before a fall.”  As far as what voters think, we just won’t know that until November.       

    • #22
    • February 11, 2012 at 3:14 am
  23. Profile photo of Charlotte Inactive

    Another Day, Another Diktat

    Am I the only one who read the title of this post as Another Day, Another Ditka?

    ditka_817616783.jpg

    • #23
    • February 11, 2012 at 4:14 am
  24. Profile photo of Pilli Member

    Ever hear the joke about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?  He lay awake all night wondering if there was a dog.

    Ditka, indeed.

    • #24
    • February 11, 2012 at 4:24 am
  25. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author
    Charlotte: Another Day, Another Diktat

    Am I the only one who read the title of this post as Another Day, Another Ditka? · 2 hours ago

    If only!

    • #25
    • February 11, 2012 at 5:58 am
  26. Profile photo of barbara lydick Member
    ~Paules: I still don’t understand Obama’s motivation on this issue.  Is he overwhelming arrogant or monumentally clueless?  Or both?  Who in the Obama administration decided it was a good idea to challenge the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue?  If Republicans don’t use this to drive a stake through the heart of this administration, we deserve to lose.  Maybe Professor Rahe is correct, Obama really is the gift that keeps on giving.    · 4 hours ago

    Perhaps O is trying to cover all bases, i.e., in case Santorum is the nominee – or perhaps the veep nominee – O wants to get the “nutty religious right” issue out front and center.  “See what fanatics they are! They’re against woman’s health issues. They’re even against contraception.”  The issue can set up all kinds of arguments against conservatives.

    Obviously this isn’t the case in this instance, but it does establish a platform that he hopes many will fall for. 

    • #26
    • February 11, 2012 at 6:13 am
  27. Profile photo of George Carver Member

    Isn’t it discrimination to favor religious groups that don’t believe in contraception?  If you are a religion operating schools and/or hospitals and you are OK with contraception, you have to provide such insurance for your employees.  If you operate said schools and/or hospitals, but think contraception is immoral, your employees get contraception provided to them without any cost to you.  The pricing is based on theological grounds!!  I think the Obots may have a problem here.

    • #27
    • February 11, 2012 at 7:00 am
  28. Profile photo of Teresa Mendoza Member
    DocJay: He fakes, he dodges, he shoots, air ball. I saw Sebelius doing her two step today and realized what this meant too. I use Catholic insurance and have never had a problem paying for my own non-covered care which included bribing my urologist with Duckhorn for a procedure. This policy forces the Catholics out of the health insurance business. The policy I have is from the most ethical folks in town, I bet they shut down though which is probably the idea. · 49 minutes ago

    Edited 47 minutes ago

    OF COURSE that’s the idea! 

    • #28
    • February 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm