David R. Usher
National health care: resurrecting the welfare state
By David R. Usher
Feminists have exercised nearly unfettered control of Congress's social policy philosophy since the creation of the Great Society. That arrangement, designed to help a few women in trouble, evolved into an industry executing the feminist goal of destroying marriage. The ever-escalating demands to entitle non-marriage and out-of-wedlock procreation never end.
Welfare state expansions have eviscerated the function of marriage. Marriage naturally guarantees women the economic support and domestic assistance of their husbands. The feminist Oleanna is truly a nightmare burdening women with "doing it all," earning a living, raising the children, doing the laundry, and everything else around the household.
Welfare-state expansions brought on an explosion of divorce and illegitimacy only justifying another round of welfare-state expansions. Today, the welfare state costs approximately 1-trillion annually, nearly the size of the projected federal deficit, with no end in sight.
Democrats now hope to double the size of the welfare state by adding health care to their long list of entitlements. Feminists hope to expand the destruction of marriage by dragging the medical profession, businesses, and taxpayers into the grandest expansion the Great Society has ever proposed.
National Health Care Reform is a Trojan-horse guaranteed to strongly incentivize non-marriage, particularly in the middle class. According to the Center for American Progress, 24.5% of unmarried women lack health insurance. Only 14.7% of married women lack coverage. Surprisingly, poor unmarried women are more likely to have coverage than their married counterparts due to government assistance programs.
The National Center for Health Statistics reports unmarried women aged 25–64 years are about 60% more likely than married women to lack health insurance coverage. The NCHS message is unmistakable: "Marriage affects health insurance coverage. As marriage rates in the United States decline, fewer women will have the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage through their spouse. Marriage can also increase family income and may make health insurance more affordable."
The UCLA Williams Institute recently exposed the other hidden agenda of National Health Care: entitling same-sex living arrangements, cohabitation, and dangerous sexual practices. Twenty percent of people in same-sex couples are uninsured, compared with only 10% of married people and 15% of the overall population. One-third of unmarried heterosexual individuals with partners have no insurance coverage.
Divorced individuals have chronic health problem rates 20% higher than married spouses. Their children also fare poorly. America would be happier, healthier, and need far less health care if mothers simply married the fathers of their children.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a leading liberal firm consulting for the Center for American Progress and the DNCC knows that unmarried women are driving welfarization of heath care: "unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate ... leading the charge for fundamental change in health care."
Would women support Democrats in upcoming elections if Republicans proposed answers that would truly and naturally end the structural problems unmarried women suffer?
Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The majority of costly perennial problems such as poverty, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, crime, and lack of access to health care are primarily predicted by marriage-absence. State and federal legislators should focus on changing federal and state policies to serve necessary marriage-positive goals. Federal legislators must complete the two most crucial goals not addressed in 1996 federal welfare reform: Improving marriage rates and reducing the number of children born out of wedlock.
We rejected "Hillary Care" in the 1990's. We must again reject the latest liberal invasion of marriage and look to "Marriage Values" policies provably beneficial to everyone — especially women and children.
We have an unequivocal choice before us: change federal policies destroying the institution of heterosexual marriage or tax America into socioeconomic oblivion. The "family values" landslide of 1994 proved that voters are smart enough to broadly support sensible pro-family policy. This time, "Marriage Values" policy changes will get it right.
© David R. Usher
November 7, 2009
Feminists have exercised nearly unfettered control of Congress's social policy philosophy since the creation of the Great Society. That arrangement, designed to help a few women in trouble, evolved into an industry executing the feminist goal of destroying marriage. The ever-escalating demands to entitle non-marriage and out-of-wedlock procreation never end.
Welfare state expansions have eviscerated the function of marriage. Marriage naturally guarantees women the economic support and domestic assistance of their husbands. The feminist Oleanna is truly a nightmare burdening women with "doing it all," earning a living, raising the children, doing the laundry, and everything else around the household.
Welfare-state expansions brought on an explosion of divorce and illegitimacy only justifying another round of welfare-state expansions. Today, the welfare state costs approximately 1-trillion annually, nearly the size of the projected federal deficit, with no end in sight.
Democrats now hope to double the size of the welfare state by adding health care to their long list of entitlements. Feminists hope to expand the destruction of marriage by dragging the medical profession, businesses, and taxpayers into the grandest expansion the Great Society has ever proposed.
National Health Care Reform is a Trojan-horse guaranteed to strongly incentivize non-marriage, particularly in the middle class. According to the Center for American Progress, 24.5% of unmarried women lack health insurance. Only 14.7% of married women lack coverage. Surprisingly, poor unmarried women are more likely to have coverage than their married counterparts due to government assistance programs.
The National Center for Health Statistics reports unmarried women aged 25–64 years are about 60% more likely than married women to lack health insurance coverage. The NCHS message is unmistakable: "Marriage affects health insurance coverage. As marriage rates in the United States decline, fewer women will have the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage through their spouse. Marriage can also increase family income and may make health insurance more affordable."
The UCLA Williams Institute recently exposed the other hidden agenda of National Health Care: entitling same-sex living arrangements, cohabitation, and dangerous sexual practices. Twenty percent of people in same-sex couples are uninsured, compared with only 10% of married people and 15% of the overall population. One-third of unmarried heterosexual individuals with partners have no insurance coverage.
Divorced individuals have chronic health problem rates 20% higher than married spouses. Their children also fare poorly. America would be happier, healthier, and need far less health care if mothers simply married the fathers of their children.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a leading liberal firm consulting for the Center for American Progress and the DNCC knows that unmarried women are driving welfarization of heath care: "unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate ... leading the charge for fundamental change in health care."
Would women support Democrats in upcoming elections if Republicans proposed answers that would truly and naturally end the structural problems unmarried women suffer?
Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The majority of costly perennial problems such as poverty, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, crime, and lack of access to health care are primarily predicted by marriage-absence. State and federal legislators should focus on changing federal and state policies to serve necessary marriage-positive goals. Federal legislators must complete the two most crucial goals not addressed in 1996 federal welfare reform: Improving marriage rates and reducing the number of children born out of wedlock.
We rejected "Hillary Care" in the 1990's. We must again reject the latest liberal invasion of marriage and look to "Marriage Values" policies provably beneficial to everyone — especially women and children.
We have an unequivocal choice before us: change federal policies destroying the institution of heterosexual marriage or tax America into socioeconomic oblivion. The "family values" landslide of 1994 proved that voters are smart enough to broadly support sensible pro-family policy. This time, "Marriage Values" policy changes will get it right.
© David R. Usher
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
