Tag Archives: ACA

Is Abortion at the Root of the ObamaCare Chaos?

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Since October 1, a health care law that was promoted as necessary to insure 30 million Americans has suddenly morphed into an all-out effort to un-insure those who had health care policies they liked and could afford.  The excuse given for the cancelations is that certain policies are not meeting health care reform bill criteria — a minor detail the president has been well aware of since 2010.

What is criminal about all this is that despite his knowledge of the unstoppable cancelation tsunami headed our way, Barack Obama continued to stress that “if [Americans] liked their insurance they could keep their insurance.”

Weeks after the ObamaCare “train wreck” began hurtling off the tracks, the president finally “apologized,” albeit halfheartedly, for not doing a “good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law.”  Meanwhile, the liberal focus remains steady on the goal to ensure that women are properly outfitted for casual sex and that should the accoutrements fail for whatever reason, the means to deal with the result will be readily available.

Liberals like to portray themselves as empathetic, yet Barack Obama and his posse of progressives remain disproportionately focused on birth control and abortion.  That’s why, despite the caring rhetoric, abortion rights may be the reason why, since October 1, even those with advanced-stage cancer have had their health insurance plans canceled in droves.

It’s sad, but not surprising that Obama’s “war on women” victim list includes ladies with polycystic ovary disease but excludes a California woman who suffers from stage IV gallbladder cancer named Edie Littlefield Sundby.

Remember when a hysterical House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in response to a GOP-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), which passed in the House on October 13, warned that for lack of ObamaCare abortion funding, “women [would] die on the floor”?  What Ms. Pelosi chose to leave out of that warning was that thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the very sick, be they male or female, will die on the floor.

The Protect Life Act that Nancy was so upset about seeks to amend “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by prohibiting federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services.”

The bill also demands that “any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that include[] coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions.”

President Obama vowed that if the Protect Life Act makes it to his desk, he will veto it.

Not to be outdone, Congress is also complicit in all of this for failing to write any comparable language into the health care law referencing the Hyde amendment, which specifies that except in the case of rape or incest, “federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.”

That’s why the Affordable Care Act could end up allowing large taxpayer subsidies to be directed toward health plans that cover elective abortion, entangling reluctant Americans in a web that funds general health plans that include abortion coverage.

Which brings the discussion back around to the debacle that has dogged the president since October 1.  Insincere as it was, Obama must have felt compelled to offer up a mea culpa to millions of Americans who suddenly find themselves without health insurance.  His defense?  “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

Sorrowful sentiments are lovely, but for Edie Sundby, the woman suffering with stage IV gallbladder cancer, and others like her, that mini-confession is akin to Obama saying he regrets people being mangled by that train wreck he caused, especially after he himself tied them to the tracks.

Nonetheless, although his work to get Sandra Fluke an adequate supply of free contraceptives is no doubt still cutting into his schedule, Obama did manage to find time to finally admit that “we” — not “I,” mind you — “didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we” (not “I”) crafted his signature legislation.

Poor craftsmanship and a screwy website, as well as data security issues, together with three years and billions of dollars to craft a law destined to impact 300 million lives, and the whole mess smacks of something a bit more malevolent than just Barack Obama’s increasing ineptitude being revealed in the rollout.

Not only that, but due to an ongoing lack of transparency intrinsic to both Obama and his health care law, it’s literally impossible to determine which marketplace exchange plan covers abortion services and which does not.

So, all things considered, is it unreasonable to suspect that information is purposely being obscured by an administration that vowed to veto a bill that would prevent federally funded insurance plans from covering elective abortions?

Could it be that when the president talks about “better coverage,” he’s really referring to insurance plans that include abortion?

Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) must think so, because Smith introduced the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 3279), which demands that ObamaCare-approved health plans provide “full disclosure” of whether or not abortion is included in the policy.

Add to those issues the millions of Americans being dropped from adequate/affordable health insurance policies, and it’s a short leap to conclude that the loss of catastrophic care policies may hinge directly on whether a particular policy includes coverage for elective abortion.

In the end, few can argue that the emphasis on access to abortion services has proven to be central to the president’s political philosophy, so why would it change now?  Who knows — in what the president calls a “tough position,” if health care policies don’t comply with Obama’s radical pro-choice mandates, cancer patients like Edie may be the ones who end up “dying on the floor.”

American Sex Lives: Inquiring Obama Wants to Know

Sex-300x157Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It’s official!  Liberals are obsessed with sex.

Up until now the left was mostly concerned with providing the accoutrements needed to enhance the sex lives of everyone from ages 11 to 111.  Thanks to liberals’ tireless efforts, condoms, birth control, and abortion have become official rights compliments of the American taxpayer.

Even President Obama argues that kindergarten kids losing the finger paints and concentrating more on the proper application of condoms “is the right thing to do.”

With liberals in charge, forget reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmatic. The new criteria for a high school diplomas hinges on children knowing that the school nurse would be more than willing to protect their privacy by shuttling them to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic without notifying Mom and Dad.

Yet, with the full implementation of Obamacare on the horizon, for the sexually active the “right to privacy” no longer applies.  If and when Americans do secure an appointment with a doctor and finally drag themselves into that doctor’s office, when they first arrive they will be handed a feedback form that includes personal questions about sex.

If Granny goes to a podiatrist for an ingrown toenail, she’ll be asked about whether she’s sexually active, whether she’s had more than one sex partner, and whether her frisky bedmates are same- or opposite-sex partners.

Before dislodging a hunk of earwax, and prior to digging around with the ear curette in Uncle Bob’s ear, the ENT will have to first ask him delicate questions about frequency, duration and number of times.

When asked about being pushed to present uncomfortable, non-cardiology related questions to his heart patients, New York doctor Adam Budzikowski shared that he thinks “This is nasty business.”

Earth to Dr. Budzikowski: This the Obama era – the nastier the better.

The New York cardiologist is of the opinion that the probing questions are “insensitive, stupid and very intrusive.” Exactly!  That’s why the government feels it’s imperative to ask them.

To make sure that reluctant healthcare professionals gather the required information, doctors, hospitals and healthcare businesses that refuse to comply with federal electronic health records requirements will be financially penalized by being denied access to incentive payments, which are due to kick in starting in 2015.

As for Dr. Budzikowski, well, he’d better not try any funny stuff, because recalcitrant physicians will also face stiff financial penalties from Medicare and Medicaid.

In other words, similar to what they did to the IRS, Obama’s “reforms” will turn doctors into government agents who will be coerced financially to ask embarrassing “social history” questions concerning former drug use and sexual history.  Then, after they have the dirt on patients, doctors will be requested to give private information to the government, violating the Hippocratic Oath.

Americans who want to formally keep personal information out of their electronic record can do so, but according to the HHS, it will cost money which, thanks to Obamacare, Americans no longer have.  That means the government has both doctors and their patients in a bureaucratic half nelson, so to speak.

Dr. Richard Amerling, a nephrologist and associate professor at Albert Einstein Medical College, explains that a person’s medical record is “a story created by you and your doctor solely for your treatment and benefit.”

Not any more, Richard! The new Obamacare requirements are turning a person’s medical record “into an interrogation,” and the data from that cross-examination will henceforth no longer be confidential.  Let’s remember, government agencies often send checks to dead people, and have been known to do things like dump 100,000 social security numbers on the Internet for the entire world to see.

So in addition to violating our Constitutional Rights, the Obama administration’s signature legislation is drooling in anticipatory glee over the prospect of violating our medical privacy, too, especially when it comes to their preoccupation with Americans’ sex lives.

It’s sort of a hybrid version of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” that instead should be called “We’ll Ask and You Had Better Tell.”

With that in mind, remember this:

Got allergies?  First answer this:  How many times a week, day, or hour do you have sex, and in what room and with whom, and what do you wear or not wear?

Got an odd-looking mole?  It will stay that way until you answer the following question: Are you gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or “he-to-she-back-to-he/she-to-he-back-to-she?”

Got post-nasal drip? Answer this or keep on clearing your throat: When did you start having sex?  Do you wear glasses?  And at what age did your pimples finally clear up?

But fret not! There is a way to get around this, and it’s by doing what liberals are so adept at doing:  refuse to answer the question and just skip over any inquiry you’d rather not respond to.

Playing the liberal “I do not recall” game will buy Americans some time, at least until the impending Obamacare law-mandated home visits commence.  Then, under the watchful eye of government officials, Americans will be visited in the comfort of their own homes and probed face-to-face to accurately fill in all the remaining blanks.

Trader Joe’s: ‘Half-Baked Obamacare Hardtack’

trader-joes-store-300x225Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Although Trader Joe’s is a tad hippy-dippy, I like shopping there because they have fair prices and unique specialty items.

Where I live, Trader Joe’s clientele seem overly concerned with making sure they have cloth bags, and by and large, other than those sporting nose rings and those blanketed in tattoos, many of the shoppers remind me of 1970’s hippies in need of a good cut-and-color.

One other reason I enjoy shopping at TJ’s is for research purposes. I make it a habit to seek out and strike up conversations with opinionated 20-somethings who like to engage in small talk while ringing up groceries.

If truth be told, I’m so adept at wading into political waters that I’ve been known to turn a conversation about a jar of Trader Joe’s Corn and Chile Tomato-Less Salsa into a Barack Obama question-and-answer session. That’s why, thanks to Trader Joe’s, over the years I’ve had many a conversation with otherwise unemployed college-grad Obama fans who’ve spoken openly about the positive qualities of Marxism, socialized healthcare, and windmill-powered energy.

What’s odd is that, despite shilling for Obamacare and decrying the injustices of greedy corporate America, a couple of Trader Giotto workers I’ve chatted with shared that they work packing groceries for a private company for 20 hours a week because they are well compensated, get two weeks’ paid vacation, a 401K plan, and until recently, low-cost health insurance.

In fact, one time, while bagging my Organic Brown Rice Fusilli, a talkative cashier shared with me that after losing her job on Wall Street she came to work for Trader Joe’s and has never been happier.

That’s why you can imagine my shock when, after telling every unemployed person I know to “Go to work at Trader Joe’s,” I found out that thanks to the heavy burden of Obamacare, the specialty grocery store has now been forced to no longer offer healthcare coverage to its part-time employees.

That’s right, by way of a confidential letter from Trader Joe’s CEO Dan Bane, employees who work less than 30 hours per week found out that starting on the first of the year they’ll need to avail themselves of those Affordable Care Act exchanges spoken so highly of by the guy scanning my Sea Salt & Turbinado Sugar Dark Chocolate Almonds way back before the presidential election.

One anonymous employee, soon to be consigned to a healthcare exchange, described the medical coverage that was provided by Trader Joe’s as “one of the best parts about the job.”

Prior to being relegated to an ACA exchange along with millions of illegals and hordes of under and unemployed Americans, this particular woman paid $35 per paycheck, or $70 per month, for a plan that covered 80 percent of her medical costs, with a $500 deductible and vision and prescription drug coverage.

Now that same woman is freaking out, lamenting, “There are several folks I work with who are there for the insurance as much as anything, mostly folks with young families.”  The shell-shocked employee confessed, “I can say that when I opened and read the letter… my reaction was pure panic, followed quickly by anger.”

My question to Ms. TJ’s is this: Why the panic and anger? Isn’t this what America voted for? Isn’t this what ‘Hope and Change’ is really all about? Or is ‘fundamental transformation’ just for people shopping at Trader Joe’s as opposed to working at Trader Joe’s?

Scrambling to figure out what she’ll do come January 1st when TJ’s gives part-time workers a $500 check and points the reluctant toward a healthcare exchange, the terrified worker had this to say:

I still have so much anxiety over this, worrying will I have coverage, will it be equivalent, and how do I factor this into my budget?”  She continued: “I’m a full-time student living alone. Everything in my budget is extremely tight. This is something that’s throwing a wrench into everything.

In 2012, Barack Obama received 55% of the female vote, 60% of the 18-29 year old vote, and 63% of the under-30 vote, which indicates that this particular female, a college-age student working part time, probably did cast her vote for the president.  Depending on the state, the female “I have a crush on Obama” vote reached 68%.

So, if this particular young Trader Joe’s worker did vote for Obama, what exactly did she think she was voting for – free contraceptives that she’s now too anxiety-ridden to use?

Here’s a suggestion: Maybe to preserve part-time healthcare benefits, Trader Joe’s could save money by discontinuing the handing out of free Colombia Supremo samples at the demo booth.

But because that’s not likely to happen, Trader Joe’s employees working less than 30 hours per week will soon find themselves part of the healthcare system that those I conversed with spoke of so highly of just last year. That’s why after the fact, it will be interesting to engage in conversation with one particular male 20-hour-a-week cashier who frequently touted Barack Obama as the key to equity and fairness in an inequitable, unfair world.

As that Generation Y guy with half his head shaved, earlobe expanders, and the oriental tattoo on his neck double bags my next batch of Trader Joe’s Chocolatey Cats Cookies (for People), I’ll be sure to ask him how it feels to be forced to join the ranks of those he swore would be ecstatic about Obamacare.

%d bloggers like this: