The Dictatorship of Relativism and the Truth about Obamacare

Before retiring, I had the opportunity to serve on Nationwide’s Diversity and Inclusion Executive Council.  It was a great experience and I learned quite a bit, much to my surprise, because I never thought of myself as prejudiced.  I discovered that although I had always thought of myself as “colorblind,” when it came to race, I was also ignorant of what it was like to live in a society where you are perceived as different and treated differently because of the color of your skin, or other aspects of appearance.  Nor did I realize how much racial and ethnic tension continues in our society, even when expressed merely by a glance, or a snub.   Nationwide set up diversity councils throughout the company, and established intercultural groups to address the concerns of all minorities, including the handicapped, gay, elderly, and every imaginable race and ethnicity. 

One thing that concerned me about all this however, was the notion of “tolerance.”  The very term connotes the idea that we perceive a difference between ourselves and others, and perhaps have divergent views about the world, but we must “tolerate” everyone.  Gradually I began to realize that I was expected to “tolerate” views that were morally at odds with my own beliefs.  It was not enough to simply work alongside people with whom I disagreed, I was expected to accept and even endorse their lifestyle choices, rather than simply agree to disagree.  When I expressed my religious belief in the workplace, that gay marriage was wrong, I was considered intolerant and inappropriate.  Clearly, the gay members of the diversity council expected more than mere acceptance, they demanded endorsement.  They succeeded in squelching any discussion about dissenting views, labeling them as hateful and a denial of their civil rights. 

The same thing has happened to society in general.   Any discussion about morality and religious belief is now expected to be restricted to private discussion, confined to church and family, but never discussed publicly.  Public policy has now shifted in the direction of dictating a set of non-Christian morals that have been codified in law and are being enforced by the government.  This is exactly what Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both warned about, calling it the “dictatorship of relativism.”  Wikipedia defines relativism as, “the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.”   In Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth) John Paul II warned that once the idea of universal truth about what constitutes good is lost, the individual conscience becomes the sole arbiter of what is good.  He went on to explain that this freedom destroys itself by detaching from all forms of tradition and authority, including even the most obvious evidence of objective and universal truth.  Benedict XVI warned that this radical individualism is propelling society, “towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.” 

We are now at the point that much of Western civilization embraces this mistaken notion of absolute freedom (relativism) and is consciously attempting to establish a secular society which disavows Christian belief, substituting instead, Relativism as the law of the land.  For example, citizens who object to abortion on moral grounds are never the less required to fund it, not only with tax dollars, but insurance premiums.   Catholic hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, universities, and social service agencies are required to do the same or face massive fines. Parents have no right under the law to object to school curriculum that teaches that homosexuality is normal and healthy.  Florists and photographers have been taken to court for refusing to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.  It is no longer enough to merely “tolerate” homosexuality, we are forced by law to accept it as normal and have it taught to our children.  Ironically, those who just a few years ago demanded “tolerance” are completely intolerant of Christian beliefs.

Besides the abortion and gay marriage issues, our federal government also wants to dictate every aspect of our health care.  They have deemed that every person in the country must have insurance that includes a broad range of services, whether we want them or not.  The 5 million people whose insurance has been cancelled because it did not meet the new, much broader standards, are just the first victims of Obamacare.  The replacement coverage they need, will cost far more than what they had been paying because it includes a lot more coverage for things they don’t want and will never need.  Couples who are too old to have children, or who are sterile by choice, are forced to pay for coverage for maternity, infertility treatment, birth control, and abortion services which are all required coverages in the new plans.  Rather than allow people to purchase affordable coverage with limits, the government now demands everyone have broad unlimited coverage and goes even further in demanding that younger, healthier people pay higher than necessary premiums in order to offset the cost for sicker and older people.

What’s been going on the last couple weeks with Obamacare is only the tip of the iceberg.   The 5 million who’ve lost their coverage thus far, are mostly from the individual insurance market.  Only about 20 million people buy their insurance directly.  The vast majority of Americans get their coverage through their employment.  If you’ll recall, President Obama delayed implementation of the employer-mandate for another year, probably so that the fall-out will occur after the 2014 mid-term elections.  More than 100 million people get their health insurance from their employer and a great many of those employers will be forced to expand or cancel their coverage in January 2015.  Next year, millions will lose their employer-sponsored coverage, and/or be forced to pay much higher premiums.   The president’s suggestion that individuals be allowed to keep their current (inferior?) coverage another year, does nothing to change the underlying problem, it merely delays the inevitable.  

There are many things I find troubling about all this, but perhaps the worst is that the president thinks he can simply change the duly-passed law without involving Congress to amend the existing legislation.  This is the 3^rd or 4^th time he has unilaterally amended the Affordable Care Act, based on political necessity.    This past week, in addition to his apology, the president met with the nation’s top health insurance executives, in a display of effort to address the problems which have “caused problems for the Democrats” (the president’s own admission).   He apparently offered the Insurers government funding to help offset the tremendous costs associated with Obamacare because already, pundits are talking about a $1 trillion “bail-out” for the health insurance industry.   What the president seems to be doing is suckering in the Insurers by waving money in front of them, and then he’ll turn the tables and blame them for the cancellations, the higher costs, and the need for yet another government bailout.  Of course none of this would have happened if the health insurance marketplace had not been turned upside down by Obamacare.

All this is part of the dictatorship of relativism in which the government dictates what everyone must do, whether they want it or not, rather than allowing people the freedom to choose what they want and need from a free market.