The decision of HHS Secretary Sebelius’ to narrow the conscience exception should come as no surprise. Under her interpretation, employers must provide contraception as “preventive health service” under Obamacare. That includes abortifacients, like the morning-after pill. Religious institutions, like hospitals and schools, are not exempt.

In 2007, Jonah Goldberg authored a book with the provocative title of Liberal Fascism. Goldberg’s thesis is that there is an affinity between modern American liberalism and fascism.  He defined liberalism as the “ideology of good intentions” that can end up in “the totalitarian temptation.” The Sebelius decision was a classic example of what Goldberg meant.

He defined Fascism as “the religion of the state.” Mussolini was clear about that. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” The current conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church (and other religions) has an historical precursor.

Mussolini waged jihad against Catholic social organizations, notably Catholic Action. Their social activities, including with youth, were viewed as operations “outside the State” and hence a threat to it. The activities were treated as political actions adverse to the state. In the fascist mindset, all mediating institutions threaten the state. In this instance, the Obama Administration is dangerously close to adopting that mindset.

In 1931, Pope Pius XI issued an Encyclical defending Catholic Action and the Church (Non Abbiamao Bisogno). He noted that “liberty and right are the heritage of souls.” In strong language, reminiscent of the strong language of U.S. Bishops today, Pius XI said the fascist ideology “clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State – the ‘Statolatry’ which is no less in contrast with the natural rights of the family than it is in contradiction with the supernatural rights of the Church.”

In its pursuit of the good intentions of promoting women’s health, the Obama administration has succumbed to the totalitarian temptation. It has trampled the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion. Instead of permitting Americans to practice the faith of their choosing, it endeavors to make us all worship in the pagan religion of the State.

Jerry O’Driscoll

Cohn points out that “As a practical matter, few of us are prepared to allow a somebody die when life-saving treatment is available, just because that person isn’t prepared to pay the bills.” He goes on to point out that hospitals cannot legally refuse emergency medical treatment and that doctors are obliged to render aid under their professional oath.

He treats individual responsibility, “whether it’s the responsibility to stay healthy, the responsibility to seek timely medical care, or the responsibility to make the right choices about health insurance.” And he points out that luck, misfortune plays a significant role in medical problems and their outcomes.

Cohn concludes: “My definition of a decent society is one that protects people not only from bad luck, but also, in some circumstances, from their own bad judgment.”

It’s hard to fault his good will but not his argument. His problem is the fallacy of equating “society” to “government.” Society is composed of individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, synagogues, churches, mosques, social service organizations, and charitable organizations. Society has moral obligations and norms. Society enforces social obligations with association and ostracization.

Government is the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, and societies. Government creates legal obligations and regulations. Its laws and regulations are frequently broad and of the “one size fits all” variety. Government enforces these obligations with civil and criminal penalties. What it extracts, it extracts at the point of a gun.

What is a social obligation is not necessarily a government obligation. Cohn misses the principle of subsidiarity, that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent social unit closest to the particular issue. Families, charities, social groups, hospitals can handle the case of the 30 year old with cancer who can’t afford treatment. Those groups close to the problem can make case-by-case judgments on the cancer patient’s misfortune or bad judgment. In short, they, better than the government can handle Cohn’s “in some circumstances” hedge. Likewise those groups can better handle the obese patient or alcoholic that refuses a life style change, which is the side of universal health care or health insurance that Cohn doesn’t mention.

The money that government doesn’t extract by legislating and enforcing universal health care or health insurance is money that subsidiary social groups will have to provide the necessary care in appropriate cases.

TIME TO REDUCE BENEFITS FOR ALL OF US

The United States and the State of Nevada together are facing budget deficits that threaten the financial viability of the country and the state. The national debt is reaching unprecedented levels– this year alone it will reach a record $1.6 trillion, due to the weak economy, higher spending, and renewed tax cuts.

At the national level, combined expenditures on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to account for 45% of federal spending, up from 27% in 1975. That entitlement spending could triple by 2035. When defense spending, interest on the debt, and federal pensions are added in, this accounts for 86% of federal spending. Interest on the debt currently costs $200 billion annually, but if nothing is done, in just five years the interest on this debt will triple to around $640 billion.

Nevada does not have the luxury of printing money to cover budget deficits, and must have a budget that is balanced. The Governor is set to accomplish that by severe spending cuts and not raising taxes. His opponents in the Legislature have squawked loudly, but have yet to offer an alternative plan. The target of the Governor’s cuts are personnel, since that is where the lion’s share of expenditures go, with a focus on reigning in overly-generous pensions, benefits and salaries, a problem that is even greater at the local government level.

Government employees must be prepared to accept reductions in retirement pensions and pay much more for health benefits. That goes not only for local and state employees, but those who work for or are retired from the federal government, including military retirees. The Defense budget is not sustainable and will have to be reduced in the future, especially to offset soaring retirement and health benefit costs.

Those of us who have reached 65 and are now receiving Social Security and Medicare must also be prepared to accept changes—means testing of Social Security perhaps, more paid in doctor visits and prescriptions. Yes, I know, we who have paid money into the system for decades in good faith have reason to protest while those who have been less thrifty in planning their retirements will not be penalized. It is what it is—not fair, not fair at all, but it must be done.

And those of us who served in the military can make the point that our service was much more demanding and difficult. I, for one, had two tours in Viet-Nam in my 26 years—living in the swamps, fighting off the VC and cobras alike, separated from our families for a year at a time (I only saw my first-born one week the first year of her life!). We moved 17 times our first 13 years of marriage, I worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in my 6 years in the White House. No overtime, no sick leave, no padding my retirement with phony “call backs” or special health programs (oh, I do go to the VA, but to participate in an Agent Orange tracking program for those of us exposed to the dangerous defoliant).

Still, the nation cannot afford the entitlement programs that I and many others are eligible for. The state, and especially local governments, is on the verge of a financial crisis and personnel costs, particularly benefits and retirement, must be roped in. It is happening in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana and other states where budgets can only be balanced by reigning in benefits for government employees. GOV Sandoval says it must also happen here, and he is right, but at all levels of government.

It ain’t nice, it isn’t pretty, but it must be done.

-Tyrus W. Cobb

Former Special Assistant to the President, Republished from Nevada Appeal

By Frank Partlow

I can barely spell it, but I am a Septuagenarian.  At 72, I receive a federal pension for 34 years of Army service, Social Security, Medicare, Tricare and VA benefits.   I believe I am “entitled” to all of that.  Septuagenarians disagree on many issues, but not on their “entitlements.”

These entitlements are unsustainable.  My federal paymaster is $14.5 trillion in debt and borrowing $1.5 trillion more each year.  72 million entitled “Boomers” are right behind.  Social Security is a “Ponzi Scheme” which makes Bernie Madoff blush.  I receive as benefits what three current workers pay in.  What happens when there are two workers paying in?  More federal debt.

The only way to fix the deficit and balance the federal budget is to reduce current and future entitlements, which account for 62% of budget outlays and grow each year.  Septuagenarians and Boomers not only cringe at this idea, they vow to unseat any politician foolish enough to suggest it.  The problem with that approach is that while they may live long enough to collect, their children and grandchildren will not, even while facing crushing new taxes.

A better way is for each generation to take a hit—mine by some sort of means test for Social Security payments. The Boomers could delay their retirement to say, age 70.  Those still paying Social Security taxes could pay in a higher percentage of their salary. We are the only country in the world without age limits on medical procedures, an enormous drain on our Medicare and Medicaid, as health care costs grow by nine percent per year.  The potential list of reductions is virtually as endless as the nature of “entitlements” themselves.

When Social Security began, the oldest US generation was the poorest.  In part by taking mortgage interest rate deductions on their income taxes for thirty or more years, Septuagenarians are now the richest.  Can that continue?

Our parents were called the “Greatest Generation” for getting the US through the Great Depression and World War ll.   One can argue about that title, but they did get themselves out of their own jams.  My generation won’t even come close to doing that. Septuagenarians must understand that our world, its mores, beliefs, facts and fictions are irrelevant.

We septuagenarians are very opinionated.  We caused the problems we now face.  Yet, we expect the 50 year olds now in public office to jump at to our solutions. Perspective is the only thing we have to contribute.  Experience yields perspective and is what you get while you are looking for something else. Our perspectives will help those younger generations understand that if they do what we did, they will get what we got.  They can ignore our advice. However, they will live with their decisions and we will not.

With the wisdom of experience and perspective, my generation should lead the way.  If, however, we are unwilling to sacrifice some of what was heretofore promised, we will deserve to be called what we will have become: the “Selfish Generation.”

Special Report for the Northern Nevada Network.

Frank Partlow is a Nevada veteran since 1964 who now lives in downtown Reno

Of course, it has done none of that. But it has added another Trillion dollar entitlement program that our grandchildren are going to be paying for with the meager compensation they receive from their Chinese employers.

It has also supplied the rulers with another discretionary plumb with which to grant waivers from its 2000 pages of rules and regulations. Until now, these waivers have been granted or denied on the basis of political pull. So the unions regularly get waivers as do those political organizations like AARP who supported Omabacare. But those gutsy or principled enough to oppose the Obamacare leviathan are denied these plumbs.

Part of the financial farce of the legislation was to expand Medicaid enrollment by 25% and push the costs of that expanded welfare onto the states, so the costs would not count against the financial costs charged against the unsustainable program. Apparently if you add a new unsustainable entitlement to an existing almost bankrupt entitlement, you get Obama’s dependent but bankrupt society.

Well the states are starting to squawk. Governor Mitch Daniels’ WSJ op-ed, An Obamacare Appeal From the States, sets it out pretty well. He correctly points out that the law is a massive mistake amplifying the big drivers of over consumption and excessive pricing. “Why not, it’s free? Reimbursement…and, The more I do, the more I get. Provider payments.

Daniels hopes for legislative repeal or judicial strike down of the monstrosity but as the governor of a state cannot rely on that. He and 20 other governors have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting relief from some of the law’s worst strictures. He correctly points out that the law not only increases Medicaid costs by 25% but also commandeers the states’ employees to enforce the new law with insurance exchanges and police powers. If a state refuses, the federal government will operate the exchange within the state. Thus opening Pandora’s box!

Daniels has written Sebelius conditioning Indiana’s participation of several conditions:
• Flexibility in deciding which insurers offer insurance in the state.
• Freedom of choice in coverage, thus not forcing only single costly policies.
• Elimination of discrimination against consumer driven plans, like HSAs.
• Freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchanges.
• Reimbursement of the full costs of Indiana’s administration of the law.
• An independent projection of expected enrollment, given the law’s incentives to employers to off load employee insurance programs.

Daniels recognizes the chances are slim to none that Sebelius will grant this effective rewrite of the legislation. But he argues that she should recognize that the paternalistic, command-control nature of the legislation should be recognized as a failure. This because one small part of it, the high-risk preexisting condition pools, have been a failure. A majority of the states refused to participate in these pools, leaving the task to the Feds. Sebelius failed miserably at it with costs far above projections used to get the law passed. Daniels called it a “fiasco.”

Let’s pray that the Supreme Court accepts certiorari on an expedited basis from the various lower court Obamacare cases. Mitch Daniel’s op-ed only scratches the surface of all the wasted economic activity—public and private—attendant to this fiasco that is Obamacare.

They who make it their mission to steal from our grandchildren are claiming the high ground and claiming that repeal of this monstrosity will increase our grandchildren’s indebtedness. If the public believes that they will buy bridges in Brooklyn!

Yesterday’s WSJ editorializes against their lies with ObamaCare’s Reality Deficit. The article treats the phony assumptions given to the CBO, and the real assumptions withheld from the CBO, and shows how the CBO can do the math correctly and say that the deficit will increase. Given the real assumptions and complete picture, the CBO would say that the deficit will be reduced by repealing Obamacare.

“Among the worst Democratic abuses was gaming the CBO’s budget conventions to make it seem as if ObamaCare “saves” money.”

“The accounting gimmicks are legion, but we’ll pick out a few: It uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies. Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion. A new program funding long-term care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, gradually going broke by design. The law pretends that Congress will spend less on Medicare than it really will, in particular through an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Democrats have already voted not to allow for this year.”

“The CBO budget gnomes are required to “score” what’s on paper in front of them, no matter how unrealistic, and that’s the method its Congressional masters prefer. The political class makes believe that CBO’s forecasts are carved into stone tablets through divine revelation, but all they really show is that politicians have rigged the budget rules to hide the true cost of entitlements.”

“The government can’t subsidize coverage for tens of millions of new people and simultaneously reduce the deficit, as most Americans seem to intuitively understand. The real offense Republicans are committing in the eyes of Washington is exposing its illusions.”

A quick review of some of the posts on Nationalized Health Care on the right side of this page may refresh any memories that need refreshing. Suffice it to say that the House should repeal the damn law and let the Senate go on record after the November results as favoring it; and let Obama veto any repeal that gets to his desk! 2012 is just around the corner!

As if that’s not enough, we now see a sinister regulatory uncertainty under Obamacare. This regulatory uncertainty is the discretionary kind, in which Obama supporters are granted waivers from various provisions of Obamacare, but his opponents are not.

Two articles highlight the problem. Dr. Paul Hsieh pens a telling article in The Washington Times, Best health care political pull can buy. “According to the New York Times, many consumer advocates thus fear Obamacare will have the perverse effect of reducing competition and driving up costs.”

“Yet while Obamacare is suppressing genuine marketplace competition for medical services, it is also spurring a more sinister facsimile of competition – for political favors. Employers and insurers with sufficient political clout can save money by obtaining a much-coveted “waiver,” exempting them from onerous new insurance regulations. The 222 current recipients of such waivers include popular employers such as McDonald’s and Universal Orlando as well as the Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures members of the Service Employees International Union (a major political supporter of the Obama administration). Because these waivers are granted at the discretion of the secretary of health and human services, they create easy opportunities for political favoritism and corruption.”

Karl Rove in his WSJ op-ed, ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies, adds that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius exceeds her statutory by regulating insurance rate increases needed to cover the additional health services mandated by Obamacare: “Then, on Dec. 21, Ms. Sebelius announced that insurance companies seeking rate increases of 10% or more in the individual or small group market must publicly justify the hikes under standards set by her department.”

“Insurance regulation has traditionally been a state responsibility, and 43 states must already approve proposed insurance-rate increases. ObamaCare does not authorize HHS to deny rate increases, but the agency said that if a state “lacks the resources or authority” to conduct the kind of review the agency wants, it will conduct its own”

And this after exempting AARP’s lucrative “Medigap” plans from rate review and other Obamacare requirements. This so-called “non-profit” won’t pay any of the new taxes on insurance companies; nor will it be required like other insurers to spend 85% of Medigap premiums on medical claims. Oh, by the way, AARP spent a big chunk of the $121 million in advertising supporting Obamacare passage.

A line from Hamlet, “Something is rotten in…Denmark,” is sadly appropriate! The lack of basic morality here is troubling, but not unexpected considering who is in power.

We have reached Communist level control in this country under Obama and his leftists thugs. They dictate services increases and price controls without any economic justification.

Tom Sullivan in Connecticut, against Tzar Sebelius’s mandate, approved a 20% increase justified by required increased services. “I find myself in an unprecedented place and time, as do my counterparts throughout the country,” Mr. Sullivan wrote to Mr. Blumenthal, “in overseeing the implementation of one of the most far-reaching policy initiatives enacted by the federal government in recent history.” State regulators, he continued, are “in an unenviable position as we are required by Congress to approve richer benefit packages, while simultaneously being called upon by you to reduce rates.” He ultimately resigned and his predecessor reversed his decision.

“Congress, which by some miracle declined to give HHS the formal legal authority to explicitly block premium increases, despite a direct appeal from President Obama. Instead, Ms. Sebelius is creating by regulatory fiat larger de facto powers to achieve the same end.”

Yesterday, we saw the FCC grant itself authority to regulate the internet and expropriate private property in the name of net neutrality. No statutory authority. Here we see Comrade Sebelius grant herself authority to block justified premium increases. No statutory authority.

Is it any wonder that businesses won’t invest, won’t hire, while the economic recovery is stuck in “slow” and unemployment in “high?” This regulatory uncertainty is as bad as legislative uncertainty. Investors and businesses don’t know what will come next. These unelected bureaucrats can grant themselves power and exercise it at will!

Our nation will not recover until we rid ourselves of this leftist scum.