Conservative Principles: The pro-choice Argument against Mandates

Conservatives have been liberated in this last election. Had Mitt Romney won, the weight of responsibility for cleaning up the fiscal mess we are in would be on him and us. Now,  I’d rather we had the power and responsibility, but since it’s up to Obama now, it’s on him, and we are liberated to speak our minds and set the record straight on what is going on. As such, we have a golden opportunity to right the wrongs that cost us the election.

How do we win? First, we win the argument. Then we win the election. Then we win the policy.  We are literally back to square one:  winning the argument. We failed in this election because we didnt win the argument – we didn’t make the case that Obama is responsible for our economic misery. I was concerned enough about this in September that I wrote a few diaries explaining what Romney needed to say – and then was thrilled when he actually said them in the first debate. Alas, the message wasnt reinforced in the rest of the campaign.

to get back in the game, and to make headway in a ‘prevent defense’ that stops Obama’s tax hikes, fiscal cliff,  we are goign to have to go to the mat on correcting the record. We can still win the argument. We need to make clear a few basic things. Newt Gingrich speaks of 70% issues, issues where 70% of Americans would agree. Do you think 70% of Americans would be on one side of this question:

Should Americans be required to pay for products that they dont want?

We have to be making the case for repealing mandates. Here’s an atempt to do so, first written on another blog. A Liberal wrote:

“Women who have health insurance should not have their employers dictating to them what coverage they can or can’t have.”

Not a single employer in America has that power. Anyone at anytime can go get whatever their healthcare they want on their own time and own dime. No employer is dictating anything. YOU are dictating the terms and conditions and the govt doesnt have the right to force you, me or anyone to buy products against our will and against our moral codes. It’s sad that so many like you dont understand how freedom really works. Sad.

“They can’t get their own Catholic church members to follow their ban on contraception, so they try to force it on ALL of the American people by law?”

Nobody wants to ban contraception, a nonissue for almost 100 years; they just are objecting to having the Federal govt forcing them to pay for something morally objectionable, specifically abortificant-type contraception. And BTW, condoms aint healthcare so it should never even be in a discussion about health insurance. Contraception never needs to be in health insurance. This is like forcing people to buy ‘car accidence insurance’ that includes oil changes..

“These medications are used for many other things besides contraception”

Red herring. There is no objection for other uses and conditions that are medically necessarily. Another one of those strawmen used.The objection is for voluntary birth control uses.

“It is not “religious freedom” for an employer to micro-manage your health-care coverage.”

Strawman. Again, no employer has EVER stopped an employee from getting medical attention on their own time & dime. NEVER. Millions of Americans have gaps in coverage some far more serious than the silly non-issue of condoms. Having been through multiple employers and health insurance plans, not a single one was “micro-managing” anything, simply because it had different coverage levels. Claiming this is absurd and puts things upside down.

What you are really saying is pretty Orwellian. You are claiming that a free-market exchange of money and benefits for labor isnt really ‘voluntary’ – wrong, it is, and if your employer is doing something not satisfactory wrt benefits, there is a simple solution: Negotiate for what you want or quit. Then you turn around and claim that your personal choice REQUIRES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE COVERAGE FOR EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

Huh, never mind that this is a blatant intrusion on employer-employee negotiated decisions, the real insult here is that all women who DONT want this benefit, whether because of age or choice, will now be subsidizing those who do. Heck, why not throw breast enhancement and plastic surgery on the pile, since some women want that too?

“it is a personal issue, and should stay a personal issue.”

I agree – a personal issue to decided in a voluntary way by those making the purchasing decisions … WHICH IS WHY GOVT NEEDS TO BUTT OUT OF MANDATES ON HEALTH INSURANCE! Jeez, dont you get it? Your position is ANTI-CHOICE. You want to take away MY PERSONAL CHOICE to have health insurance that doesnt cover this and take away the personal choice of not just catholic institutions with their own moral objections but millions of others who simply object to paying up for something they do not want or need and isnt really healthcare. You want to take away my rights, my freedoms, and have a govt bureaucrat intrude on my personal healthcare decisions.

Keep your mandates off my prostates!