ObamaCare Architect Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Birth Control and Blood Transfusions

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


ezekiel_emanuel

Is Ezekiel Emanuel, often dubbed the architect of ObamaCare, really this stupid or is he only playing the fool?

The justices in the majority go to great lengths to state that the Hobby Lobby decision is limited to contraception. But no principle differentiates contraception from blood transfusions or vaccines—or, for that matter, any other health-care services that employers find objectionable on sincerely held religious grounds.

I realize that Zeke is not exactly the sort of doctor who sees patients, but even he ought to know the difference between birth control and blood transfusions.

Religious exemptions in medicine, for example when applied to children, differentiate between necessary medical treatment and optional treatments. No court is going to hold that a company can deny coverage of blood transfusions.

(For that matter, Hobby Lobby isn’t opposed to birth control, it’s opposed to some very specific abortifacient types of birth control.)

Emanuel tries to dial up the alarmism by acting as if the decision would allow the denial of medical treatments that address a medical problem, as opposed to lifestyle products that are not treating a medical problem. If there’s any loophole here, it was created when ObamaCare mandated contraception coverage. Without that, there would have been no religious objections or loopholes.

From there Emanuel switches to promoting the end of employer health insurance and the beginning of the VA model.

Medicare and the VA system, which provide medical services to Americans across the continuum of care…

Hobby Lobby adds one more reason to tip the balance against employer-sponsored health insurance, though. As of today, an employer can now refuse to cover contraceptive services based on religious beliefs. Tomorrow it might be vaccines, mental health or some other services. Many workers, especially women, might begin to think it is just better to have a voucher—or the equivalent, a defined contribution—from their employer and go into the exchange and decide what insurance plan to buy. Having my employer decide—or even having the power to decide—what basic services are covered now starts to seem intrusive and presumptuous.

The unpopularity of ObamaCare shows why that’s wishful thinking. Even for those few people who work at places that oppose abortifacients and want them, getting ObamaCare is probably not going to be worth the price.

And the number of people who might think that it does is going to be small.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “But no principle differentiates contraception from blood transfusions or vaccines—or, for that matter, any other health-care services that employers find objectionable on sincerely held religious grounds.”

    So blood transfusions are used primarily to impede pregnancy? Hmmm…

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He’s not exactly the kind of doc who sees patients…

      • Todd

        If he was that type of doc, would anyone in their right mind let him treat them? He would probably fit right in at planned (un)parenthood. Thanks for the continuing to shine the light on the thugs Mr. Greenfield.

    • olgahmccoin

      like
      Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
      on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

      • The March Hare

        Flagged.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    I guess when 0′Care crashes and burns they can blame Bush *and* SCOTUS.

  • ebonystone

    “Many workers, especially women, might begin to think it is just better to have a voucher—or the equivalent, a defined contribution—from their employer and go into the exchange and decide what insurance plan to buy.”

    Sounds like a good idea,if by “exchange” he means the marketplace, pre-Obama, and not the 0-care exchange In fact, some companies used to offer employees a smorgasbord of benefits, from which the employee could choose which bits would part of his/her compensation package. A young single person might prefer higher wages to a or comprehensive medical insurance package. A young man with his first child on the way might prefer to give up a week of paid vacation each year and get insurance coverage for his whole family instead. And so on.

    “Having my employer decide … what basic services are covered now starts to seem intrusive and presumptuous.”

    Agreed. And how much more intrusive and presumptuous it is for the government to decide what services are provided. Plus, my employer, ratbag though he may be, is still a lot more honest and trustworthy than a government headed by Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, and Holder.

  • De Doc

    They always make the slippery slope argument to fool the credulous. Blood transfusions are in the category of emergent and life saving procedures, while birth control is considered optional and preventative care. There are rare instances in which hormone based birth control meds are effective for conditions to regulate the period, but a specific diagnosis code can easily distinguish this off label use from its routine use.

  • http://oddhammer.com/tutorials/debt_clock/US_debt_clock_dynamic.swf John Barleycorn

    .

  • liz

    This is a classic case of the left taking something bad and making it even worse.
    If we’d never gone to employers providing health insurance to begin with, we wouldn’t have the problem. But their solution of course isn’t to get employers out of it and return it to the individual, it’s to make it worse by transferring it to the government, and pretending to be heroes for rescuing us from the “evil” employers and insurance companies.

    • 1stworlder

      It was a tax break to offer better benefits that wouldn’t count toward taxes.

  • Leah

    Yep, little Zeke really is that stupid …

  • Disgusted

    Why do all liberal solutions involved OPM (other peoples money?) the other option of course would be liberty. End medical cartels. End medical monopolies. End government intervention in the medical (and other) markets. If their ideas as so,damn brilliant, why can’t they stand on their own without the requirement someone else be forced to pay for it? Simply because their ideas would never even get off the ground without stolen wealth from the citizens. As it is, these infusions of stolen wealth just delay the failures, and have the bonus of stealing wealth from the productive. These idiots like this clown and his brother need to be unemployed, just like their policies are making many of those they pretend to care about.