We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
His first is to ask, what about, say, Muslim patients who refuse to see other-sex doctors (and but hey - what about the nurses and the gay docs?)
Second, he considers whether it is up to the government, via the Big Government payors Medicaid and Medicare or (slightly indirectly) Obamacare, to decide what they want to pay for.
As for the first question, no problem. They should get their care from whomever they choose in whatever form they choose (unless trying to die in the ER). It's called freedom. (Last I read, however, Muslims may be waivered from ObamaCare anyway because it's not Sharia or whatever reason.)
As for the second question, of course government payors can decide what to be willing pay for, given whatever Congress, the bureaucracy, and etc decides. However, that does not, or should not, require that it be provided. The requirement is the rub, and it constitutes a federal takeover, an overreach, an intrusion into choice.
Of course, the larger issue is the politicization and governmentalization of medical care, which promises to create endless explosions if ObamaCare proceeds. Dr. X is quite right that we are headed towards turning the corner where medical coverage is no longer insurance, but plain payment with the feds as the Grand Medical Commission in DC.
Rather than ObamaCare, I would have liked to have seen a wide-open, nation-wide market for private (including charitable) medical coverage of every size, shape, and sort with no federal involvement, and subsidies for the poor of any age - old or young. (Medicare was a giant error, since the elderly, statistically, are wealthier than the young who pay those bills with their taxes.) Muslim policies for Muslims if they want them, Muslim clinics and hospitals if they want them, Catholic policies if Catholics want to buy them, etc. etc. If unrestrained by government, the market would be providing for every individual or family want. Unfortunately, we never had a wide-open market for medical insurance due to the state insurance commissions' protectionism, or whatever it has been.
I'm surprised no one has complained about the process. HHS comes out and says the law says employers have to pay for contraceptives. The Catholics protest. So then without a public hearing or a court order or having Congress pass a new law, some guys in a back room decide that the Catholic employers are a special category. Really? That's where our laws come from? Obama just decides what the law is going to be? There are a lot of problems with the decision and how it could be implemented, but having the law dictated in this way seems like a slippery slope.
The slippery slope line is a little naive. Actually the reason no one complains about the process is because everyone expects the government to act this way. Congress writing nice, tight laws doesn't happen any more. The bureaucrats rewrite the laws and can put in things Congress never thought of or never intended. This is just another notch down a slippery slope we've been on or quite a while.
Slippery slope? This is all BS! THE problem with our healthcare system is that the provider of services is insulated from the consumer of services. If physician and patient were voluntarily associating...we would have an efficient, effective, workable system. Right now the provider cares not about the consumer because someone else (govt., insurance) is paying the bill. Try that at your neighborhood grocery store!