President Obama, along with members of his party, are hoping this Supreme Court will uphold the new health care law based, in large part, on one central argument. They contend, an individual’s inaction regarding his/her own health choices, can have a profoundly negative, nationwide impact. Democrats believe the offenders must be punished. This opens up almost unlimited possibilities for the state to control the kinds of personal behaviors government masterminds deem non beneficial for the “masses.”
If the Court upholds that kind of thinking what could be next? Maybe the federally provoked crisis with the Catholic Church is giving us a preview. Why demand Catholic institutions pay for sterilization, abortion inducing drugs, and contraception? Maybe the government needs this huge employer under it’s thumb before implementing its next, great utopian advance. Perhaps the plan is to have Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebellius, mandate, for the good of our fragile nation, new directives regarding unprotected sex and birth control. Before you off-handedly dismiss this scenario, consider the fact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act empowers the Secretary of HHS to make policy with the force of law.
So let’s engage in a hypothetical exercise. We’ll present what could easily be Ms. Sebellius’ point of view regarding her intervention in your bedroom activities.
She might begin, “Let’s be honest. Not using a condom or failure to use birth control is the kind of inaction that has already contributed mightily to spiraling health care costs for everyone. Given that, we must be prepared to demand “at risk” couples, engaging in sex, take proactive measures meant to benefit the majority. We’re putting forward an initial, partial listing of those people who need to practice safe, protected sex, and or use birth control. Each category will be followed by a brief rationale.”
The theoretical list might include:
Heterosexual couples with a family history of prostate or breast cancer: Birth control will be required because of the obvious risks of children carrying a “bad” gene. Cancer is expensive to treat.
Heterosexual couples where there is a family history of dementia or Alzheimer’s: Birth control shall be mandated because of the possible genetic component found in these diseases. The illnesses cost billions of dollars to treat, and there is no cure.
Heterosexual couples with either spouse having a family history of alcohol or drug abuse: Birth control will be required for two reasons. One, if you’re raised in a dysfunctional family, you’re less likely to be a suitable parent. Two, some studies find this kind of dependency is genetic. Public money would be better served in other areas.
Homosexual couples: Protected sex is required to prevent the spread of HIV AIDS. As treatable as the deadly disease has become, the drugs and care are terrifically expensive.
Heterosexual couples who’ve given life to special needs children: They will be obligated to use birth control. The cost of care for severely disabled youngsters is prohibitively high. The schooling of even mildly learning disabled students is much more expensive than it is for classmates who do not require special education services.
Secretary Sebelius might conclude her address with a dark warning. “In order to enforce the law we will access your medical records. This gives us the ability to monitor individual behaviors. If someone has failed to act in accordance with the statute and, by extension, our nation’s best interests, the evidence will be as obvious as a recent birth or newly diagnosed HIV patient. Those who fail to conform to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will face fines and possible imprisonment.”
Consider it the price to be paid for inaction.