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

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

Read More >