A Fluke by any other name

A Fluke by any other name

via Wizbang by Baron Von Ottomatic on 3/13/12

Sure it's a losing issue for conservatives with women, but I can't stop myself from beating this dead horse's ass.  Frankly, I don't care how this particular issues polls.  This Fluke character is indicative of everything that is wrong with the Obama administration.  Turning wants into needs into something that must be provided free of charge.  Completely oblivious to reality in the productive sector of the economy – easy when you've never been a part of it – yet certain they know best how everyone else should manage their affairs.

Let's not forget that last point is the most important.  This kerfuffle is about Obama using the power of the federal government to silence someone's religious conscience.  Yeah, the idea of a 30 year old law student without the wherewithal to purchase health insurance with prescription drug coverage standing before Congress begging for free birth control is bad enough.  Doing it to force the church to give you birth control is despicable.

Separation of Church and State is a one way street, I suppose.  Or was there a constitutional line-item veto buried somewhere in the Obamacare bill?

It stands to reason that if Obama is comfortable imposing medical practices against religious conscience on the church pretty much in direct violation of the First Amendment any future resistance to his diktats will be as worrisome to him as a fly on a Rhino's back.  And Gloria Allred wants Rush Limbaugh arrested for blaspheming Saint Sandra the Unchaste.  Two out of four ain't bad for one healthcare mandate.  You can petition for redress of grievances but Obama isn't listening.  Of course, we've still got freedom of the press.  For now.

Since it's come up in the comments, a couple of preemptive strikes.  The first is, all Fluke wants is for the health insurance she paid for to cover birth control.  Here in America we have these things called contracts.  These "contracts" are legally binding agreements between two parties defining the scope of their relationship.  When a person signs a "contract" they are agreeing to the terms and conditions as written.  Any changes to a "contract" must be mutually agreed upon and cannot be enacted unilaterally.

No one forced her to enter into a contract with Georgetown.  There are hundreds of health insurance policies from which one may choose that offer varying levels of coverage – including prescription drug coverage.  She chose a plan that does not offer coverage for birth control.  To expect Georgetown to offer her coverage beyond the scope of the contract to which she agreed because she wants it is unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Next up, refuting my assertion that insurance is for unexpected events by pointing out pregnancy is unexpected.  I suppose if you're 10 years old and living in a cave pregnancy might be an unexpected result of intercourse, but beyond that I assume the mechanics of child production are well disseminated.  Pregnancy may be untimely, it may be unlikely, and it may be unwanted – but it shouldn't be unexpected.  I'm reasonably certain that all forms of birth control come with a warning they may not be 100% effective.

You don't hear couples talking about looking forward to it someday but they're just not ready to have cancer.  Most people expect a pregnancy in their life at some point.  I stand by my assertion that insurance should be reserved for truly unexpected medical emergencies.  I also believe that insurance companies should be free to offer policies that cover pregnancies if they so choose.  Mandating pregnancy coverage may serve a useful purpose, but the end result is higher premiums for everyone.  Clearly, taking money from large numbers of people and using it to pay for utterly predictable expenses is not insurance – it is a subsidy.

Last, the idea that Georgetown and conservatives are trying to restrict access to contraception.  I want a new stainless steel .45ACP longslide with laser sighting.  I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.  If someone doesn't provide me with handguns for free on demand they are restricting access to the firearms necessary to exercise my right to bear arms.  I pay my taxes, I have a right to bear arms, I should be provided guns free of charge.  I'll see your birth control and raise you an AK-47.

This whole Fluke imbroglio stinks to high heaven.  I would assume freedom-loving people would be outraged that our government would be so brazen as to force Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not AND force the church to provide abortions.  Rugged individualists?  No mas.  We're nothing but a bunch of timid wards of the state.  Our future, and Ms. Fluke's is self evident:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Double?  I wish.  Government cost estimates for sweeping social programs always end up off by an order of magnitude over time.  No, I mean a little farther into the future:
Greek Students Fight Stray Dogs and Despair Amid College Cuts

Fluke is just deadweight on Obama's Freeshit Express as it hurtles down the tracks for the inescapable head-on collision with the Broke-as-hell Cannonball.  I hope they hand out free birth control in the bread line.