Government takeover of health care

We’ve seen the signs.  We’ve heard the rhetoric.  We’ve listened to the protests.  Conservatives don’t want government takeover of health care.  As many have said, “Keep your hands out of my health care”, or something to that effect.

Well, I guess the Michigan GOP didn’t get the message over the past three years.  Either that, or it’s one of those “Do as I say, not as I do” type things.  In what can only be described as government controlled health care, the State of Michigan passed a law that bans insurance companies from providing abortion coverage in both public and private policies, except for when the mother’s life is at risk.  In what’s being referred to as the “Rape Insurance Bill”*, anybody who wants to have abortion coverage as part of their insurance has to buy a separate rider in addition to their insurance package.

*I hate that term and only use it because of the widespread use already.  That’s the first and last time I’ll use that too as I see it as trivializing a traumatic, criminal act.

Michigan Legislature approves controversial abortion insurance bill

LANSING, MI — Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature on Wednesday approved controversial legislation that will prohibit insurers from paying for abortions unless a woman has already purchased coverage through a separate rider.

The “citizen-initiated” law, backed by Right to Life of Michigan, will take effect in March without crossing the governor’s desk or appearing on the statewide ballot next year.

House and Senate leadership took up the measure shortly after 4 p.m., prompting a series of impassioned speeches from opponents, who have called the bill a “rape insurance” proposal because it does not include any exceptions for abortion coverage beyond imminent death of the mother.

The Senate approved the bill shortly before 5 p.m. in a 27-11 vote, with one Democrat crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. The House followed suit 20 minutes later, approving the measure in a 62-47 vote with support from two Democrats and the lone independent. Neither chamber had the 2/3 majority necessary for immediate effect.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a similar measure last year, in part, because he thought it would “interfere” with the private marketplace by prohibiting insurers from offering coverage options of their choice. He also cited the lack of exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.

Now, I know it’s the commonplace rhetoric and disillusioned belief that conservatives are for small government.  You also hear the stuff about conservatives view the free market as the go to choice for these things, especially without government interference.

So, how in the Sam Hell can one be a conservative and push such crap as this?  This piece of legislation runs counter to almost every single talking point of rhetoric that conservatives attempt to paint themselves with.

Let’s hit the free market first as I tend to agree with the idea of allowing the market to dictate these things.  If there is no market for abortion coverage, the insurance companies could forgo it without having the government dictate what they can and cannot offer.  One of the major gripes about the PPACA was that the government was dictating insurance requirements to the insurance providers.  The Michigan GOP just totally blew that notion out of the water because they went full speed into the very sin they accused Obama of committing.  Not only did they not allow the market to deal with it themselves, they went full-bore with a two-fisted overhand sledgehammer blow of intrusion into the free market.  I guess the only government intrusion that’s ok for the free market is conservative oriented and approved government intrusion.

With the heavy-handed approach, this is the ultimate in Big Government control over industries.  I love the duality of conservatism where Big Government is abhorred as though it’s equivalent to wearing white shoes after Labor Day.  At the same time, when it’s something conservatives favor, no government is big enough to ensure what they want is done.  I know not all conservatives feel this way, and if it appears that I’m broad brushing all conservatives, that is not my intent.  Those that do not think or operate in this manner are guilty by association, in my opinion, as long as they don’t raise the slightest peep about what’s being done in the name of conservatism.  Silence comes across as tacit approval of the methods and ideals put forth by the vocal ones in control.

I must say that personally, I do not believe in abortion.  I don’t demonize the process or those who do believe in it or have had one.  This country is built upon the idea that freedoms should be protected, even when we don’t necessarily agree with them.  A woman’s right to privacy with her body trumps anything I think she should do.  I don’t want people telling me what I can or cannot do to my body, therefore I give others the same respect.  In the end, if we don’t protect all the rights and benefits of being American, it’s only a matter of time before a right we cherish get’s stomped on.

From the religious aspect, I believe a person’s religion is just that, it’s theirs.  I don’t get between a person and their God.  I don’t allow anybody to get between me and my God.  That relationship is personal.  I can’t absolve anybody other than myself for sins committed, and those sins have to be dealt with by the person who committed them.  I don’t mind sharing beliefs when asked, but I do not push my beliefs on others.

It’s a shame when we live in what’s supposed to be the epitome of democratic societies and people are passing laws like this.  Doing things like this, we have very little moral standing to tell other countries how to treat their citizens.  When we don’t respect the rights of our own people, we fail the those around the world that look to us as a beacon of freedom.



10 thoughts on “Government takeover of health care

    • I see a glaring difference. People are almost certain to need a trip to the dentist, even if it is for routine care. Insurance is intended for catastrophic coverage, and I don’t think anybody would disagree that rape is a catastrophic event. I have no problem with the insurance companies themselves making the decision to not cover abortions, but the government should not force the companies to make that decision, especially when it’s a private citizen using their own money. I seriously doubt these same legislators would pass laws that abridged rights they thought were sacrosanct. That’s my issue. Trampling one right leads to doing the same to others at some point and time.


  1. Actually…

    Healthcare reform includes a variety of limits on coverage benefits for abortions. For example, individuals with subsidized coverage can’t use federal subsidies for abortions. Federal law does have some exceptions, such as rape, incest and saving the life of the mother. At least one plan in each state provided by a health insurance exchange must limit abortion coverage to these exceptions. However, states do have the right to prohibit plans that cover abortion in their exchanges.

    Michigan is in compliance with the ACA.


    • Michigan is in compliance with the ACA.

      That’s all fine and good, but that’s not my issue. I’m wondering if conservatives see the apparent hypocrisy in blasting Obama and the Democrats for government takeover of health care for years and then doing the exact same thing themselves.

      I don’t like the PPACA, and I don’t like what Michigan pulled. I would rather have the insurance industry doing the necessary steps to deal with this. I don’t think the government needs to continue to interject themselves into the private affairs of the citizens.


  2. Duly noted.

    ” I would rather have the insurance industry doing the necessary steps to deal with this.”

    But when there’s money to be made, it’s likely they would ignore those voices who would prefer their money not be pooled for the purpose of abortion. There’s little policyholders could do since insurance coverage is now mandated. Think of the state’s actions as insurance for the “conscientious” policyholder…not to say that the other policyholders aren’t conscientious.


    • But when there’s money to be made, it’s likely they would ignore those voices who would prefer their money not be pooled for the purpose of abortion.

      I’d say, create a separate pool for people who have a “conscientious objection” or religious objection to such things. That way, they don’t have to deal with abortion, birth control, or anything else that goes against their religious beliefs. Then, I think that everybody’s rights are respected and everyone gets what they want.


    • The comments are posted based on how you respond. If you post a comment, then it goes to the bottom of the pile. If you reply to a post, then it creates a sub-thread to that post. I think I have it set to 4 sub-threads. I think that makes it easier to respond to a particular post instead of having to read through everything. Not like there’s many posts here anyway. LOL!!!!!


  3. “When we don’t respect the rights of our own people, we fail the those around the world that look to us as a beacon of freedom.”

    Tell like it T I Z…………..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s