Yes, the concept of 3rd party payers, be they employers or government entities like with Medicare, is something the general public has long been conditioned to expect that it rarely even occurs to anybody to question it. Kind of like nobody questions that water is wet. Just the briefest consideration leads any remotely logical person to conclude, “pretty darned odd when you think about it, actually”.

I understand that the whole thing started among private companies as a means of enticing people to come work for a particularly labor-needy company that wanted to expand but was limited due to wage and price controls in effect at the time so this was the novel and alluring perk they offered….and over time, health insurance coverage became a practically obligatory offering for most companies for employees much above minimum wage. All, to the point that many patients I’ve seen hate their jobs but feel indentured to them because of the health care benefits and
fears about pre-existing condition exclusions if they had to switch insurers with a new employer. The lack of portability with health insurance – which typically occurs with employer-based health insurance – is obviously unhelpful and frustrating to say nothing of the fact that patients’ previous doctor/s may not be covered or covered as well in the new employer’s plan and so the patient is having to switch doctors…as might be the case with his or her entire family. This can increase costs as well as sometimes more visits are recommended by the new doc or the patient due to their lack of familiarity with perhaps the patient’s Condition X…. Money – added to employees’ paychecks to be used as each individual employee sees fit to maintain his or her or family’s health would be the way to go….akin to how employers give us money to use to buy food!

“Socializing” the healthcare of every man, woman and child is the exact opposite of the way to go. To say nothing of how unamerican (ie anti-individual) that would be, nor how poorly it would work despite utopian notions to the contrary, obviously no trampling of anyone’s religious liberty rights (eg as relates to abortion, abortion-inducing drugs which per manufacturers can include morning-after plan b and week-after ella plus potentially routine hormonal contraceptive drugs*, surgical sterilization, etc) would then occur. Of course the Obama administration delights in trampling on religious liberty rights and fostering a pro-abortion agenda whenever possible…so that would only make collectivized medicine all the more of a goal.

*Note that many drug manufacturers will claim that their products “don’t end a pregnancy” – BUT they are commonly using the bogus re-defined “pregnancy” definition that claims “pregnancy” doesn’t begin until AFTER the offspring implants in the uterine wall…5-7 days AFTER the 23 chromosomes from the man paired with the 23 chromosomes from the woman yielded the unique new 46 chromosome human being. So, if you recognize that life begins once you have the unique 46-chromosome human being – and not when said human being is 5-7 days old – you might be very disturbed and anguished to discover the loophole in claims that morning-after, week-after or even routine oral “contraceptives” sometimes act in ways that cause the loss of your offspring before he or she has implanted in the uterus. Wish I was making this up:(. Most doctors aren’t even aware so read up and then inform them so patients will have true informed consent, at the very least.

See my post above which reflects one reason why at least pro-lifers are increasingly reconsidering whether to use or prescribe or pay for it. (Pointing this out doesn’t mean I think that contraception itself should be a focus of presidential candidates, including the one trying to get re-elected. Which reminds me – where in the constitution does it suggest that the alleged “Leader of the Free World” has any obligation or authority in ensuring free “birth control” for all!? It’s absurd!)

The Jan 20th Obama-Sebelius HHS edict was an exercise in raw [and usurped] executive power, to borrow and modify a phrase – that from one of the 2 dissenters in the Roe vs Wade abortion legalization decision.

Roe vs Wade borrowed, in its flawed legal reasoning from the Griswold decision you mentioned and without Griswold, we wouldn’t have had Roe. My hunch is they’re trying to piggyback some abortion “right” (free abortions in “health care insurance” for everybody +/- something else) onto the current attempt to mandate free “birth control” for everyone.

Nt

Obama’s endgame is to drive the Catholic Church out of healthcare (1/6 of the healthcare market if not higher; much higher in some regions), out of social services (eg Catholic Community Services, Catholic Charities) including adoption services, out of education – and then TAKEOVER (at fire sale prices to boot, unless utterly overt totalitarianism is in place by then, obviating the need). Then it’s abortions including the late term ones in every (including formerly Catholic) hospital and gyn office, assisted suicide and euthanasia for every expensive or disabled or “too old” or difficult patient, unconstrained by the clout and organizing ability of the bishops and other prominent Catholics. And it’s expanded in vitro fertilization leading to more widespread adoptions by same-sex pairs of “2 fathers” or “2 mothers” – because men and women are interchangeable after all, and 1 mother=1 father. It appears that the Catholic bishops have woken up as to at least part of this; if they stay awake and make up for decades of distraction, they may be able to turn around this impending disaster of totalitarianism and the even more imminent end of religious liberty in America that is necessary to facilitate the destruction of broader liberty in America.