A Critique of "ObamaCare's Greatest Awakening" by Joe Rago

Wall Street Journal editorial board member Joe Rago provides readers with a case-in-point argument regarding the opportunistic nature of unchecked political control when personal choice is legislated. He believes this is the inherent problem in ObamaCare, and is likely to get worse unless repealed. His article, "ObamaCare’s Great Awakening", sites Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recent mandate requiring that almost all insurance companies pay for contraceptive and sterilization methods regardless of religious beliefs.

The fact that HHS has been given the authority, in the name of standardized health care, to ignore individual choice, especially those specifically protected by the First Amendment, implies a significant break in the moral aspect of public policy. It leaves up to administrative discretion what even the most liberal states have avoided, which is, simply stated, the right for the government to decide, via healthcare, what should be left to the discretion of the individual.

Mr. Rago points out that since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is lengthy and extremely ambiguous, it is left up to HHS to decide the logistical specifics of the act, which, in this case, prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control. His insight points to the infringement of personal liberty by those doing the regulating, because agency selections for the public are irrelevant to personal choice. He illustrates the subsequent enabling relationship that is formed between the regulators and the federal government. Together their abuse of fundamental personal liberties far exceeds anything ever justified within the restraints of the Constitution. Surely this does not represent the separation of power championed by our Constitution, or the checks and balances system necessary to prevent tyranny. That this situation has rightfully awakened the concern of all faiths and no faith alike indicates the across the board threat it poses to liberties and freedom nationwide.

The breadth of his argument, however, goes beyond the obvious infringement of First Amendment rights, which has become a wakeup call for many of the Catholic left who supported ObamaCare. That they were willing to overlook the obvious and severe pitfalls of legislated health care in order to win the liberal  prize of enforced equality, is indicative of the deceptive nature of the Obama beast, and serves as a voice of warning for what we can look forward to in 2013.As well are the pro-life Democrats who were, at one time, willing to speak out against ObamaCare, but instead accepted a dubious executive order compromise which would prevent subsidized abortions from federal funds.

His central concern is pointed at presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, but is really being addressed to all Americans and it is a point that he does not feel we cannot afford to miss.  That is that yes, the HHS ruling is an infringement on our religious freedom which rightfully should be protected.  However, dissected more deeply one appreciates the magnitude of the problem of a government which is given the authority to decide who can and should receive health benefits and who is required to pay for them. Because of its nature, a government will then exploit this power to dictate the outcomes of its own policies and interests, which is, in this case, that women’s health wins over religious concerns. This unchecked political power is exactly what our Constitution was designed to prevent.

Mr. Rago’s keen perception and astute political insight is consistent with the political philosophies of the Framers of the Constitution, and rings in particular harmony with the voice of James Madison who in the 51^st Federalist Paper made clear that because angels do not govern men it is necessary that we have internal and external mechanisms to keep governments in check.

Indeed, what Mr. Madison is referring to and Mr. Rago is talking about is that the interaction between HHS, the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare really isn’t about birth control or healthcare or insurance plans or even the First Amendment. What is really being achieved by such narrowly drawn mandates is the forcing of individuals out of the protection of the private sector and into the overreaching hand of government. This is the looming issue, and has been since the dawn of time, because historically there is a shortage of angels. 

That the Obama administration has rushed an excessively complex, lengthy and grossly under read document through Congress and effectively touted it as the government’s responsibility in equalizing health care is an exercise in deception and, without a repeal, I think Mr. Rago’s opinion accurately and clearly describes the dilemma America now faces. His logic precisely ties together the depth of the issue and is particularly significant as we the people consider the upcoming election and our participation in it.