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.
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.
Shut the fuck up. Healthcare choices are to the individual and the doctor, not to the insurer or the government.
If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia.
Exhibit 23239 in favor of the argument: politics should not be allowed on this site.
If you love government mandates so much, move to North Korea. See how silly that is?
The real question we should be asking is why employers have anything to do with health insurance in the first place.
Or Sweden, Canada, England or France. That's the thing. There's plenty of examples of advanced countries with a government run healthcare system.
There are zero examples of advanced countries that do things the way conservatives say would lead to prosperity.
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.
Opposition to government-subsidized healthcare is not anarchism.
So yes, it is silly, to put it nicely.
So, it's not silly to say 'try somalia if you want zero government'.
It's very silly, because it implies that the alternative to spending $3.8 trillion a year is to dismantle core government services.
Domestic discretionary spending has actually been falling relative to inflation the last 12 years. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/...)
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.