02.27.2012 8

Opt out rule means entire law should be opted out

By Albert Maslar — ObamaCareObamacare is laden with anomalies that are arbitrarily mishandled by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is the designated implementer of what is to be and how, in Obama’s “Affordable” HealthCare law that is primed to devastate the underpinnings of the economy and related jobs potential besides further dividing the country on social issues.

Controversy is boiling over Obama’s mandate requiring religious-based employers to purchase insurance plans that pay for contraception services that are contrary to their religious beliefs; contraception, sterilization and abortifacients, substances that induce abortion; so-called Plan B abortion drugs.

Critics of the contraception mandate argue that it forces religious-based organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate their conscience. No problem; Obama solves the problem by passing the cost to insurance companies, mandating them to offer contraception coverage at no cost.

Even if that were true — there will in fact be a cost, but let’s leave that aside for a moment — this ignores the unconstitutionality of forcing insurance companies to offer a product for free, at no cost.

In the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer points out that the supposed “solution — forcing insurance companies to provide contraception for free — is an unprecedented “assault on free enterprise,” because it would allow the government, without any statutory authority, to force private companies to hand out goods and services for free.

Obama then proudly proclaims from his favorite teleprompter that religious organizations will not have to “directly” pay for contraception related services. Not having to pay “directly” by definition means they will still have to pay, though vaguely, “indirectly”.

President Obama attempted to mollify a religious uprising against the HHS requirement that religious institutions offer and pay for various contraception services, reversing himself by supposedly passing the payment requirement to health insurance companies, a solution that poured gasoline on the political fire, compounding the furor created by the lack of conscience protection mandated under Obamacare.

Opt out rules are being created and employed so that the favored can be exempted, but with so many waivers and exemptions already granted, it stands to reason that those not being exempted are unfairly subject to laws that the favored are arbitrarily exempted from.

To be fair, if anyone is allowed to opt out, in a free America, everyone should be able to opt out; eventually meaning the entire law should be opted out, the law modified, rescinded, or voided, and a total new approach that applies universally should be called for. Freedom of religion is at stake. Obama is walking in quicksand by his decision to confront religion head-on, a decision that could cost him politically.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as is his modus operandi, prevented Senators from open debate or any opportunity to offer amendments to provide religious exemption to the Obama /Sebelius contraception mandate. What happened to representation of all the people that is arbitrarily controlled by one Senator out of 100?

Reid blocked the amendment process through a procedure known as “filling the tree,” by which the Majority Leader fills all possible openings for amendments on a piece of legislation, thus preventing other Senators from offering further amendments.

Reid criticized proposed amendments because the details regarding the mandate are not yet clear; similar to Obama’s argument in a court case against the HHS mandate, declaring that the case should be thrown out of court because there were possible future changes to the mandates that might solve the problem.

The Becket Fund is not waiting for any changes. It has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university.  Its Deputy General Counsel, Luke Goodrich, said he thinks the Obama Administration’s argument will not stand up in court. Harvard Law School should be proud of its constitutional professor.

Albert Maslar a contributing writer to the Liberty Features Syndicate.

  • jwatersphd

    All the better reason simply to have a medicare-like program for everyone. The individual mandate was a Republican demand to prevent this and keep the insurance companies in the loop. Now they want to do the same for Medicare – make us all go through private insurance companies to fatten their profits. If we had a health care plan for everyone, as most advanced countries do, we wouldn’t have to worry about this kind of thing. Presumably, religious zealots would not, then, be able to force their views about sexuality (come on, folks, that’s really what it’s about) on others, unless Santorum gets elected and decides to outlaw birth control.

  • Daen

    I hope the latest fiasco with Obamacare concerning the contraception issue and the 1st Amendment will cost Obama, the imposter president, big time. 

  • Hotnike

    Hey jwatersphd, Do you believe in the U.S. Constitution?  We are not talking about religious zealots, we are talking about 1st Amendment rights zealots

  • Albert Maslar

    See my 6 page 80 point tax plan; specifically points #33-39 listed below that provide funding for true universal medicare.

    33. Mandate annual tax filing for all citizens, legal or not, income earned or not, to be used as basis for public assistance, census, and as basis for a Medicare version of Universal HealthCare, funded as a by-product of the National Sales Tax (#36). Graduated Income Tax tables (#49) should be identical for corporate, partnership, individual filing; charitable and non-profits. Eliminate all tax loopholes and subsidies.
    34. On 1040 charge $1 for each person listed for annual census count.
    35. Make employee paid health premiums deductible from taxable income in addition to the STANDARD DEDUCTION to place them on parity with non-taxable employer paid health insurance.
    36. Institute a 3% National Sales Tax (NST) with NO exceptions for resale, charity, non-profits, religious, education, or government. The many cannot be continually supported by the diminishing few. A 3% NST might raise $7 Trillion annually, reduce national debt, spread tax burden to all, legal residents or not. Allocation should be the first 1% toward Budget, 1% toward debt reduction, 1% for Universal Medicare (identical to Medicare plus monthly) for all legal residents of the U.S.
    37. The 1% NST collections are dedicated to Universal Medicare and automatically eliminate most if not all Federal and State Medicaid benefits, costs, and overhead. State Medicaid mandated costs would be eliminated, reducing State budget shortfalls and tax requirements.
    38. According to a 7/6/10 analysis by attorney Lanny Davis published in The Hill, there were $755 Trillion in total transactions in the U.S. in 2008; $443 Trillion if exempting stock transactions. Accordingly NST on stock market transactions should be set at 1/2 of 1%, beating the International movement toward the inevitability of this type of tax.
    39. There should be no exemption for sales of any product or service whether for Resale, Church, Government, Education, Private or Public organizations; Imports, Cash, or assets transferred out of the country, including corporate transfers to foreign subsidiaries; Tax On-Line sales and sellers, EBay, Private sellers, Barter, PayPal and Credit Card Companies. Payment Clearing Banks would be depositories for NST, similar to collection of payroll taxes while Government 3% tax payments are to be used for that particular government debt reduction.
    Albert Maslar

  • Rhbberry

    Are you really that that freaking STUPID ???

  • jwatersphd

    I don’t find any thought process relevant to the issues, just an insult. Of course, that is a lot of what passes for “discussion” here. As a matter of fact, Medicare works just fine – I’m on it and it was a lot better than the years before, when I paid $27,000, after paying premiums for over 40 years, until I was judged “uninsurable.” What a crock! Yes, this is why we need a health care system, not a health insurance system. OK, some people care about abortion, but denying birth control because of a religious objection that tortures the definition of “person” well beyond reason is just something we don’t have to stand for. 

    Got anything more to say than childish name-calling? 

  • Oh My Gosh .. nobody is going to outlaw birth control .. but it is NOT “We the Peoples” responcibility to pay for .. You want it “PAY FOR IT” Get the government out of our personal lives .. Obama wants birth control so he has less people to control, he will do any thing to become our dictator in chief .. The more people on welfare the more control he has ..
     Get out and Vote this guy out of office before it’s too late ..
             GOD Bless America

  • jwatersphd

    I just have to say that when you or anyone else starts talking about
    what I “want,” you’ve gone way too far. You just have no business at all claiming to know what I want. What makes you think you do? You’ve never met me. You’ve never spoken to me. Second, Santorum said he believed the states could outlaw it and that would be fine, so you’re also out of line with that comment. Third, if you didn’t notice, abortion was outlawed not too long ago, and now the claim is that birth control is abortion if it involves a fertilized egg. What do you think all these “personhood” initiatives are all about? Plenty of people intend to outlaw birth control, and that doesn’t involve any inferences about their state of mind. They’ve already said it. So please get your facts straight. also, I’d appreciate it if you’d keep your inferences about what I do or don’t want to yourself until you know what you are talking about. Now you’re analyzing Obama’s wishes, too. Listen to yourself: He will “do anything to become our dictator in chief…” What makes you think that? Really. 

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2016 Americans for Limited Government