Health Care law is actually a misnomer. It's a Government Care law. From the start, Obamacare was never about health, but about government and power. Some seem to be conflating it with European socialized health care or 'universal health care,' but it's not quite that yet. Thank goodness! If it was, we could look forward to six-month waits for doctor's visits and a survival rate for breast cancer that is much lower than here in America. Sadly, Obamacare is moving us in that direction; they've already started by having the FDA de-label the life-extending breast cancer treatment Avastin. Hello, rationing!
We can expect more of this, as Donald Berwick, Obama's appointee as head of Medicare and Medicaid Services, has said as much: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Oh, well, as long as you ration with your eyes open! Tell that to the women who can no longer receive breast cancer treatments.
But, wait -- the GOP has a war on women and wants women to die, right? I mean, that's what the Democrats are telling us in a sickeningly transparent ploy to scare women and win an election. They are using women as pawns and exploiting women for power, as usual. All based on outright lies. Take the absurd birth control 'controversy' of late. This mandate, while super awesome as a way to scare dames into not defecting from Obama, is actually harmful to women and will increase costs of birth control.
Nancy Pelosi once uttered the ridiculous statement that Obamacare means that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition." But that is exactly what they are doing; they are saying that a woman's anatomy is a pre-existing condition and one from which a woman must be saved.
I'll put the religious liberty question aside for now, even though it is a horrific affront to the First Amendment and the principles on which this nation was founded. It is ironic that those who incessantly screech "separation of church and state because, Theocracy!!!" are the ones seeking to have The State quash religious liberty to further the religion of Leftism. But, that aside, the part of the law mandating that contraceptives be covered without even a co-pay will be devastating.
If this is meant to help The Poor (tm), then why are 30-year-old Reproductive Rights Activists demanding that it covers all law students at a fancy pants law school? If, as she claims, 40 percent find paying for their own birth control an 'untenable burden,' then why are *all* -- including the 60 percent who find it unproblematic to pay for it on their own -- to be covered? If there is concern from the Obama Administration for 'women's health,' then why is he ending funding for women's health program to instead cater to a favored (and fund-raising) group like Planned Parenthood? Because, lies.
This mandate will increase costs. Maybe President Obama would like to explain to poor, helpless women that this mandate will increase costs of contraceptives. It aids drug companies, not women. The cost of contraceptives will rise as any price incentive is now gone. The working poor will be hardest hit; those who are uninsured and pay out of pocket. For those who are insured, policies will of course increase in price. But, hey, as long as Obama gets some sweet, sweet pharma money for his campaign.
Secretary Sebelius said -- with a straight face! -- "The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss." Oh, really? Then why are you mandating that her boss be involved?
Ladies, don't buy into the hype. This isn't about women's health. It's about using women as a campaign strategy. I plan to vote for those who stand up for all and oppose this harmful law.
This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers.To see the original question and what the other bloggers have to say, read Does a Candidate's Position on Health Care Affect Your Vote?
Image via Alan Cleaver/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 23
This article is too vague and gives too many links to other articles. I would have liked more facts here than references.
Providing links to your own articles, conservative bloggers and Fox News. There's some balanced analysis for you.
Ok, so of the many, many things to be pointed out in this article this is the one I choose:
You talk about government controlling health care as a bad thing and would prefer limited government involvement in health care, however, the place where you mention the government stepping out of health care and instead granting funding to a private not-for-profit (Planned Parenthood) you do so saying this is a terrible thing. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot have government run women's health programs and want the government out of health care, these two things do not go together. Do you see how these views are not compatible?
If this is what passes for objective reasoning (note, not journalism) nowadays, then God Save America!
You are too vague, and your thoughts are all over the place.
Come back when you can write something concise.
"Hello, rationing!"??? I have something to tell you that may turn your world upside down, Lori: healthcare is already rationed. And not by the long, thoughtful and scientific process thru which the FDA decided to de-label Avastin. Healthcare is already rationed by income.
You have only to look at the cuts made in the last two years to nearly every state's Medicaid budget. Now, some women may not get Avastin, but you know what countless "poor, helpless women" aren't getting due to Medicaid cuts (varies by state)? Vision care. Eyeglasses. Dental care (except some may get extractions only). Limited doctor visits. Limited rehabilitative care from therapists. Hospital admissions for mental health concerns. Certain organ transplants. Wheelchairs. Hearing aids. HIV medications. Many medications outside of generics. In home services to the aged. And their children? Cuts to treatment for autism. Dental care other than extractions. Home services to blind children. The list goes on. And even if your Medicaid will cover your necessary health needs, good luck finding a physician who will take it, because the reimbursement is so low many physicians limit the number of Medicaid patients they will see, or won't see any at all (that's what it looks like when "the market" decides).
con't...
So Medicare won't pay for Avastin and now you think other insurances will follow suit? Yes, that will probably happen. Of course, there is nothing preventing physicians from still prescribing Avastin for breast cancer treatment. Naturally, most insurance companies probably won't cover it for the small minority of women who benefit from it. Alas, that is also what you can expect when you let the market decide.