The proper role of government in health care? Try "none" on for size

Susan Nielsen from The Oregonian has been writing some rather absurd pieces as of late and cannot formulate an argument too well.  Not to say that I am any better, but have disagreed with much of what she has had to say as of late.  The following is in response to her latest editorial "Birth-control fight shows folly of federal mandates."

Susan Nielsen makes some rather broad assumptions (“Birth-control fight shows folly of federal mandates”), and she is largely incorrect.  Concluding the piece she writes that the “mandate debate is one [President Obama] can't and shouldn't win,” yet Ms. Nielsen's writing over the last weeks demonstrates that she is firmly straddling the fence on this issue, having done an about-face on the practicality of the president's mandates, yet firmly ensconced within the left-liberal crowd and the pseudo-morality they peddle to the American public.  She is but 50% correct:  Dr. Obama can indeed win this debate, yet Ms. Nielsen is right when she says he should not.

First, she says the “Catholic bishops may be wrong about birth control.”  The bishops are correct in their position and “about the rest of this month's fight.”  Ms. Nielsen may not agree—and that is her right—yet to say the bishops, relying on 2,000 years of tradition (at the very least), are wrong, and that her view—extant since the ancient days of the radical 1960s—is correct, smarts just a hair.

Next, she claims the debate is “unpalatable” because Catholics condemn contraception and that Republicans are “bloviating about religious liberty.”  Far from bloviating, religious liberty is exactly what this debate centers upon, whether Ms. Nielsen likes it or not.  The First Amendment explicitly forbids the Congress—the law-making branch of the federal government—from making law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The Constitution designed the federal government to be limited in its scope, and not meddle in the affairs of the people or their chosen religion.

Granted, Ms. Nielsen is simply parroting the left-liberal talking points in order to discredit the genuine argument of traditionalists and conservatives alike.  The Left believes that it knows best and entrusts government to do its bidding (as long as it has control of the institution).  While Ms. Nielsen may think it wise for President Obama “to change the conversation,” the hope is likely for a semantic change rather than a substantive one.  For this brand of liberalism relies heavily on emotion and feelings rather than thought and reflection.

She asserts that birth control “is indeed a basic part of good health care.”  By what measure?  Her own?  How about stop with this and other such euphemistic language and show some courage?  It is quite clear that Ms. Nielsen believes in that induced abortion is some sort of human right.  A sober look at the situation would show that it is quite the opposite.  We are unable to ask the 50 million-plus innocent human lives taken since Roe v. Wade if they believe their right to life or liberty has been exercised properly, but there is no denying that those rights were stripped entirely.

Finally, Ms. Nielsen mentions state-run “coordinated care organizations” and a “regulated online marketplace.”  These are precisely the problems with health care in this country in the first place.  The government needs to get out of the game altogether—nationally and at the state-level.  When the government interferes with pricing—in this case with more regulation—it destroys the marketplace and drives costs perpetually upward, completely phasing-out many folks of modest means from the insurance markets and, as a result, decent health care.

But, they say, if we centralize health care, it would be “affordable?”  Perhaps, to the end user, but the already over-taxed public would have to pick up this burden unless the federal government inflates its way to “affordability.”  Neither approach is sensible or wise.  Rather, it is disastrous for both the nation and its people.

Why not deflate the cost of health care and health insurance by eliminating government and its mandates from the industry entirely?  Poor people would still get care, the middle class could afford to choose insurance that meets its needs without having programs foisted upon them by commissars in Salem or Washington, and the 1% would be able to spend its dollars wisely and with more discretion to create the jobs Ms. Nielsen advocates for.

Ms. Nielsen's ideas are not “promising” as she would like us to believe.  Her idea of the “proper federal role” is incorrect.  That is not simply my opinion, but indisputable based on the American tradition and our Constitution, something she chooses to ignore.

Obama's mandate?

In response to Oregonian columnist Susan Nielsen's latest column, "Contraception and religion: Birth-control mandate full of unpleasant side effects."

I have more thoughts on this issue, as it is a nonsensical one in many ways.  Obama's actions here are purely unconstitutional.  Whether one believes as the Catholic Church does, is another issue entirely.

I sent the following to the Editors of The Oregonian after reading the aforementioned tripe this afternoon.  I welcome any comments, yet note that the debate is not about Church doctrine, but rather the Constitutionality of the latest brand of socialism to be foisted upon the as-of-late passive American public.

Pardon me if I object to Susan Nielsen's spurious claim that “Obama had logic and morality on his side” in the president's latest decree.  He had neither.

Furthermore, the insane political environment she alludes to has nothing to do with “women's health,” but has everything to do with religious liberty—a core principle of this republic.

It is neither logical, moral, or legal for a president of the United States to foist such personal beliefs upon the country.  In short, it is the Congress that makes laws, the president is to enforce them.

At hand is a president whose actions appear to be that of an ancient king rather than the Constitutionally-defined and limited duties he is bound to as the office-holder.

Simply, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Where does the president or Ms. Nielsen get the idea that it is any concern of the Executive Branch to interfere with the religious liberty of a voluntary organization—in this case the Catholic Church, of which no one is compelled to belong or follow its rules unless one chooses?

Nevertheless, if people do choose to join the Church or follow its teaching, why now is it the federal government's place to compromise teachings and a message that have existed for 2,000 years and shaped Western Civilization as we know it for a yet ever-dynamic social program—I shudder to think it is moral in any way—handed down to a passive public by commissars within the Washington Beltway establishment?

Frankly, one is not legally required to receive the care of specifically-Catholic hospitals, nor is one compelled to be employed by or educated by any other Church institution.  This is the matter of choice that should be discussed, not the take-it-or-perish approach considered wise by the sociopaths in government and their surrogates in the media.

In this case, Mr. Obama's arrogance and Ms. Nielsen's ignorance are both affronts to logic and morality.

Oregon should nullify No Child Left Behind

I tend to disagree with the Editorial Board's stance on education reform, for I believe government's influence in education must wane, not wax.  Yet calling for “more clarity and simplicity” is on the right track.

First, the State of Oregon must push back against the federal government.  Oregonians—not overlords in Washington, D.C.—should be trusted to run state affairs.

Along these lines, Oregon's intent for a No Child Left Behind waiver is a good idea, yet it can go much further.  The real play is for Oregon to nullify NCLB as unconstitutional and invalid.  Nullifying a patently unconstitutional law—look to the 10th Amendment for guidance—will send a message to the nation that Oregonians stand for freedom, not subservience.

Furthermore, what is the sense for Oregon to be bound by such federal laws that affect our children in a profoundly negative manner?  Money...And for whom or what?

The federal largess attached to education is simply a means for D.C.'s bureaucratic monstrosity to keep pesky states subservient.  Sounds more like totalitarianism rather than the principle of Liberty that Americans are supposed to champion.

This state may have to find alternative and creative means to finance schools in the meantime, yet nullification will be a courageous act and Oregon will set the tone for states—rather than commissars in the nation's capitol—to start managing their own affairs.