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
"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.”
ReplyDeleteBut yet Obama Care intrudes on the private family big time.
What a freakin' hypocrite.
What Dan said.
ReplyDeleteDitto...
ReplyDelete"yet Obama Care intrudes on the private family big time"
ReplyDeleteHow?
Offhand, how about restricting health-insurance policies to Obama-dictated terms and conditions, making 'free choice' a thing of the past?
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the REQUIREMENT that all citizens purchase insurance...
And days after that butcher shop was discovered in Philly. The man has no conscience.
ReplyDeleteMay 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.
ReplyDeleteThat's not intrusive at all right?
Hey Dad, are there any private insurance policies today that don't dictate the terms and conditions of their policies?
ReplyDeleteHey 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
Mom, thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, 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.
Wrong-O, Jim.
ReplyDeleteThe section(s) clearly establish a limit of cost-share spending.
If you can't get that surgery for $5K (or $10K), fuggedaboutit.
I linked to the relevant section. Where is your link, Dad? Section 2713 is about preventative care.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but "death panels".
ReplyDeleteAre we forgetting that this president opposes the born alive protection act? That he thinks what happened in Philadelphia should be legal?
ReplyDeleteHey Badge. He opposed that act because it provided no protection that was not already law.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know exactly what happened in Philadelphia or that he thinks it should be legal.
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.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the Illinois law would have provided protections - for the baby. And that is why Obozo opposed it.
"the Illinois law would have provided protections"
ReplyDelete... 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.
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"?
ReplyDelete