Um, except for two idiot Senate candidates who went down in flames, it was the Democrats who were pushing so-called "social" issues this election cycle with radical positions like forcing everyone to buy health insurance that includes contraceptives, whether they wanted to or not.
Saying the employer or the insurer is one paying for the contraceptives is economic nonsense -- the cost ultimately comes out of the employees' pockets. Should, say, a woman who's gone through menopause or a gay man really have to pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize someone else's birth control? Given that birth control pills are legal and cheap (~$10 a month at Walgreens) this was really just about trying to create a wedge issue by scaring people with a phony controversy.
And after being in office for four years, Obama waited until about five minutes before the election, when the polls showed support was turning in its favor, to announce his very tepid support for gay marriage. Not exactly, a shining example of leading on principle.
A few more years, and barring total failure to push the reforms through, repealing healthcare provisions will quickly become totally politically unpalatable in the US too.
Just like the Conservatives in the UK had to turn 180 a few years after the National Health Service was established because it was that or cease to exist as a realistic contender once people saw the effects the existence of the NHS had on their lives.
I think this is part of the reason why the republicans fought this issue so desperately: It is going to be almost impossible to reverse once people experience the full effects.
It's not silly. All countries with no government or almost no government are hellholes. Whereas, since the fall of the soviet union, most countries with more government than the US are pretty nice.
So, it's not silly to say 'try somalia if you want zero government'. It is silly to say 'try north korea if you want more government', especially since north korea provides fewer government services than western states.
Yes, because it's the absolutely the same thing. There's really no difference between $10 a month birth control pills and cancer treatment.
When the government writes thousands of pages of regulations precisely dictating what type of health insurance coverage individuals are required to purchase and how doctors are required to provide and charge for their services, then healthcare choices aren't being made by "the individual and the doctor", they're being made by a remote, unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy.
By all means, let's subsidize health care for low income people. I think there are very few people other than hardcore libertarians who don't want their to be some kind of a safety net that includes health care for those who need it but can't afford it. The point is that a national political party that chooses to make free contraception into a major electoral issue in the middle of an economic crisis is fundamentally unserious.