Saturday, January 22, 2011

Obozo Doubles Down on Massacre of "Sub-Humans"

For the anniversary of Roe:

President Barack Obama is marking the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on abortion by calling the procedure a constitutional right he’s committed to protecting.

Only one week after his call for 'civility.'

HT: Zippers

18 comments:

Dan said...

"Obama said the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion affirmed what he called a “fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”
But yet Obama Care intrudes on the private family big time.
What a freakin' hypocrite.

neomom said...

What Dan said.

TerryN said...

Ditto...

Jim said...

"yet Obama Care intrudes on the private family big time"

How?

Dad29 said...

Offhand, how about restricting health-insurance policies to Obama-dictated terms and conditions, making 'free choice' a thing of the past?

Not to mention the REQUIREMENT that all citizens purchase insurance...

Amy said...

And days after that butcher shop was discovered in Philly. The man has no conscience.

neomom said...

May I also add that the "Comparative Effectiveness Panel" will determine which treatments will be available and there is a section that forbids paying in cash. I believe it makes accepting cash payments a crime for the doctors. So if the Panel doesn't say you can get a treatment, there is no way you can.

That's not intrusive at all right?

Jim said...

Hey Dad, are there any private insurance policies today that don't dictate the terms and conditions of their policies?

Hey Mom, do you think there is any private insurance company in existence today that doesn't determine which treatments they will pay for?

And Mom, can you please cite the section of the Act that forbids paying in cash?

neomom said...

Yes Jim, people are at times denied coverage for certain procedures from insurance companies. And there is a pretty reasonable chance that with some appeal or public pressure, the insurer covers it. In the worst case scenario, you pay out of pocket anyway - mortgage your house, have fundraisers, whatever it takes.

There is recourse.

However, the government will not allow you this same recourse under ObamaCare. Medicare already forces seniors to take the coverage and doctors can be penalized for two years if they accept out-of-pocket money for a treatment denied by Medicare.

ObamaCare institutionalizes that penalty for all of us. It is covered in Section 2713. Here is a take on that from an Orthopedic surgeon. http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/04/out-of-pocket-spending-obamacares-silent-killer/

Good Luck suing the Feds.

Jim said...

Mom, thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, it totally (and no-doubt purposely) mischaracterizes Section 2713.

What Section 2713 does is:

Requires new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without co-pays, deductibles, or other
cost-sharing requirements;

In other words, rather that not allowing patients to pay cash for services, it prevents insurers from requiring co-pays or cost-sharing for specific preventative services.

That's why I love this blog. I read so much mis-information that prompts me to actually RESEARCH the FACTS.

Thanks again, Mom.

Dad29 said...

Wrong-O, Jim.

The section(s) clearly establish a limit of cost-share spending.

If you can't get that surgery for $5K (or $10K), fuggedaboutit.

Jim said...

I linked to the relevant section. Where is your link, Dad? Section 2713 is about preventative care.

John Foust said...

Yeah, but "death panels".

Badger Catholic said...

Are we forgetting that this president opposes the born alive protection act? That he thinks what happened in Philadelphia should be legal?

Jim said...

Hey Badge. He opposed that act because it provided no protection that was not already law.

We don't know exactly what happened in Philadelphia or that he thinks it should be legal.

neomom said...

I think its pretty clear what happened in Philadelphia - don't be dense. There are pictures in the Grand Jury report if you need illustrations. I recommend an empty stomach before viewing.

And yes, the Illinois law would have provided protections - for the baby. And that is why Obozo opposed it.

Jim said...

"the Illinois law would have provided protections"

... that already existed. That's why Obama did not support it.

I really don't know what happened in Philadelphia and I'm willing to accept your characterization of it. However, to suggest that the president supports what occurred there is pulling stuff out of your butt.

neomom said...

If the protections for children that survive late term abortions were already there, what was the issue? It couldn't have been the babies left in closets to die, would it? Was that why Obama spoke so certainly about not second guessing that "choice"?