No Insurance Is Better than Unapproved Insurance Under Obamacare

Would President Obama prefer that you have health insurance of which he doesn’t approve, or no health insurance at all?  Well, based on the penalties in play under his signature legislation, it would appear that he prefers for you to have no insurance at all than to have the “wrong” insurance (as defined, of course, by his administration).

As those who have been following the Hobby Lobby case-argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday-know, under Obamacare, the “wrong” kind of insurance includes policies that don’t provide “free” coverage of, among other things, the abortion drug ella.  (Coverage of cancer or heart disease-apparently being less essential-need not be “free.”)

If your employer offers you insurance that doesn’t provide free ella, or anything else on the list of “preventive services”-as defined by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and ultimately by Obama-then it’s subject to a fine of $36,500 a year.  But if your employer doesn’t offer you insurance at all, it’s subject to a fine of $2,000 a year.  Actually, for now your employer’s choice is between a fine of $36,500 or $0, as Obama has extralegally decreed that fines for not providing insurance (but not fines for providing insurance that doesn’t cover all “preventive services”) will be waived until after we get to the other side of the midterm elections.

As Rep. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) put it after the oral arguments, “Only Obamacare could create a system that carries 18 times the fine for providing insurance coverage to employees than for not providing any coverage at all.”

THE WEEKLY STANDARD

{Matzav.com Newscenter}