Obama's Health Care Law Is Great for Government Power Grab, But Devastating to Moms

Rant 23

chess pieceHealth 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

2012 election, health care

23 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

MomMom23 MomMom23

What about being devastating to women in general? Not just moms.

Bendana Bendana

Lori went to the Jenny Erikson school of journalism, can't find facts to support your argument? Cite your own opinion pieces and faux news.

Flori... Floridamom96

Do you guys actually have any points to debate or do you come here just to insult those with whom you disagree?

bills... billsfan1104

I love how the liberal commentors bitch and complain that they site conservative websites, but every single liberal blogger does it here. Wheres your outrage?

JAFE JAFE

*YAY* I totally agree with this post. !!!!CLAPPING!!!! Finally someone sees it. 

nonmember avatar mel

This is funny, because I actually have read the "obamacare" plan and what it actually does is this: insurance companies will have to insure people with preexisting conditions, 85% of premiums must be used toward patient care (not ceos getting rich), premiums can't go up without the company providing evidence to why they need to raise costs, preventative care is free (no copay), and those who can't afford their own insurance get medicaid. There is more, but everything listed in the affordable care act is designed to give rights to the insured, something they don't currently have. How is this bad for moms?

Samantha Wortham

I am going to start taking a tally of everytime Billsfan gets on here and says, "Well, they do it to!" I think just about everyday you have posted something to the effect of, "Liberals are hipocrites so conservatives get to be also."


eyeroll


As for the article, I don't mind a good rant now and then. Sometimes you just gotta get something off your chest. However, this "article" was all over the place and hard to even follow. I did not bother looking at the links. I should not have to read other aticles just to postulate what you are even getting at.

nonmember avatar NOLA

Good points and I see where the author is going but really poorly written. @billsfan I understand your feeling but the, "they did it so it's ok for us to do it too," attitude is just not good. I stand by my beliefs - which are prbly similar to yours - because I believe they are better. I don't then think it is ok to sink to their level. Bad journalism us bad journalism, liberal or conservative. Also, please watch the language. I'm sure you have more intelligent things to say.

nonmember avatar MeganC

Wow,The Stir is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if Lori and Jenny Erikson are the best Conservative writers available. This article isn't based on facts,statistics,rather a one sided rant. Please,Lori,don't waste our time.
You seem to have a deep loathing for liberals,Obama and moderate view points,so why would we expect a balanced,unbiased article,based on fact rather than fear and hatred?

nonmember avatar Sarah in AL

CountryGirl pretty much nailed it. Health care is ALREADY severely rationed under the current system. In fact, most of the objections to the new law list potential problems we currently have and have had for YEARS. Rationing, check. Ballooning costs, check. Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies to politicians protective of their interests, check. Reduced number of primary care physicians, CHECK. Someone other than the patient and their doctor making medical decisions, checkitty check check check.



You can disagree on the solution to the current system, but you're better off not listing problems we already have as your reasons.

11-20 of 23 comments First 123 Last
F