Tag Archives: Kathleen Sebelius

Heads up! Obamacare ‘Clarification’ Keeps on Coming

sabelOriginally posted at Clash Daily

Dollars to donuts, Florida + library = senior citizens, which is why being prematurely gray makes Sebelius so approachable for certain age groups. That’s good, because the chief Obamacare spokes-falsifier, Kathleen Sebelius, matter-of-factly surprised a group of local residents at a Miami library with the news that “There are some individuals who may be looking at increases” in health insurance premiums.

Standing in the shadow of the stacks, the HHS secretary clarified for the timeworn that you “cannot make a statement based on cost unless you compare what they had to what they’re going into.”

Sebelius, bearer of good tidings and more bombshells, popped in on the Sunshine State to badger shell-shocked residents to enroll on the website that isn’t working. In addition, she informed a group that probably hasn’t even fully mastered the computer mouse that if they manage to live long enough to get enrolled, they shouldn’t be surprised if, despite their fixed incomes, they end up paying higher premiums.

In other words, henceforth, the advocates of freedom of choice will be doing the choosing, and if that choice happens to cost more than Americans are able to afford, then pipe down, Pops, and buck-up, Grams, because you’re either going to pay the fine or prepare to deal with a nasty squad of IRS goons.

Hey, stop complaining! Costs will be higher for some because the government is mandating coverage for things that retirement home residents aren’t aware they need.

Barack Obama is hoping to facilitate scenarios like the one where a randy 96-year-old named Ramajit Raghav of Delhi, India, when not working the fields, found the energy to sire a son with his 52-year-old fertile wife, Shakuntala Devi.

Ramajit and Shakuntala prove that although Gramps and Granny may not realize it, by universally folding maternity leave into their health insurance policy Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius have the best interests of older Americans at heart. In fact, it would be a great promotional gimmick if the president could recruit Ramajit to accompany him on his next “Shove Obamacare Down America’s Throat” tour.

For those who want to exercise their reproductive rights, if, down the road, Ruth and Melvin decide that an unplanned pregnancy would cut into Mahjong tournaments and country line dancing at the community center, it’s comforting to know that abortion-on-demand coverage is included in Obamacare for everyone.

Either way, from Miami to Mukwonago, grateful people of all ages are slowly acknowledging that gross personal incompetence is what prevents Americans from governing their own lives, and in turn are becoming more appreciative by the day that the Obama administration is anxious and willing to accept the responsibility for making every life-and-death decision for us.

Take for instance the Obama administration’s FORWARD-looking plan to advance the common good by canceling perfectly adequate, affordable individual health insurance plans. How about government central displaying how much they care by removing trusted family doctors from the list of available healthcare providers? And let’s not forget fostering fairness by making world-renowned cancer and research hospitals off-limits to those whose lives depend on them.

And to help the president advance this superb agenda, everyone, including Americans on fixed incomes, will have to pay more, and should be happy to do it!

Next on the itinerary, hopefully Kathleen Sebelius will clear up the misunderstanding about Obama’s pledge that the elderly, chronically ill and those with preexisting conditions would be covered for healthcare, because that’s not really what he meant at all. The smiling HHS secretary can drop in on hospitals and retirement communities and help ease anxieties by calmly clarifying that what the president meant to say was that Obamacare will permanently alleviate suffering and then subsequently cover burial costs.


Sebelius Spares No Expense to Save Money

kathleen-sebelius-to-congress-whateverOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Health and Human Services, headed up by the always brilliant and vivacious Kathleen Sebelius, is once again making every effort to ensure good stewardship over the 30 million Americans without healthcare.

Even if it means canceling the policies of 100 million Americans who already have insurance.

Nevertheless, in keeping with that sort of logic, in response to foreseeable expanded needs and in order to reduce already-unaffordable Affordable Care Act costs, the HHS is planning on spending $7 billion to – you guessed it – look for ways to save money.

None of this makes any sense. That’s why to understand liberal reasoning it’s best to resist the temptation to interject logic and sanity.

It helps to think like this: In order to insure 30 million uninsured people, first uninsure 100 million people who already have health insurance. Then, in order to cut costs incurred for insuring the 130 million newly-created uninsured, propose a project that will cost taxpayers $7 billion.

Got it?

In the midst of the non-functioning marketplace website and subsequent cancellation commotion as well as ongoing budgetary constraints, HHS, in conjunction with ACA’s namesake, Barack Hussein Obama, managed to secure from God-knows-who an approval to petition for bids to develop a project called Research, Measurement, Assessment, Design, and Analysis (RMADA).

According to Solicitation Number RFP-CMS-RMADA-2014, this is what RMADA demands:

The work awarded …will involve the design, implementation and evaluation of a broad range of research and/or payment and service delivery models to test their potential for reducing expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured beneficiaries while maintaining or improving quality of care.

The contract is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity, or IDIQ, which means work quantity and time can vary and that quantity and time will determine the price paid.

Therefore, in keeping with the existing state of affairs, a $7 billion government-approved budget will demand that every second of the allotted time be frittered away, the quantity delivered short of projections, and the quality, at best, be substandard.

If $7 billion needs to be wasted administrating Obamacare, maybe Michelle Obama can hook-up her friend Toni Townes-Whitley a second time.

Senior Vice President of CGI Federal and Princeton classmate of Mrs. Obama, Townes-Whitley’s company was awarded the no-bid contract to build the still-unworkable $678 million Obamacare website. Unfortunately, Obama’s good friend, Mark Zuckerberg, must have been unavailable for consultation. Of late Zuckerberg has turned his attention from FaceBook toward furthering a civil right called amnesty.

Nevertheless, even if Toni Townes-Whitley isn’t given another crack at screwing things up, to everyday folk who are not scholarly economists, it still seems illogical to spend $7 billion to find ways to economize on a law nobody wants. And that same law was initially enacted to insure 30 million uninsured people, many of whom are either here illegally or who have exercised their freedom to do without insurance.

Moreover, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if insuring the uninsured was what the ACA was really all about, and fiscal frugality is of the utmost concern to Obama and Sebelius, it would be wiser to invest in pharmaceutical research for new drugs, educating new doctors, or even hiring professionals to address the broken-down Obamacare website.

America should know by now that all of this discussion is moot. Why? Because unfortunately, with slow-thinking Sebelius and Obama in charge, even entertaining rational ideas becomes nothing more than a frustrating exercise in futility.

Remember we’re dealing with government officials whose idea of a noble gesture is to spend $3.4 million in stimulus funds for a tunnel under a highway to preserve the lives of slow-moving turtles: common sense and logic never intrude in their decision-making.

Medicare Reimburses the Deceased and the Illegal

greentoetag1Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The  Washington Times headline reads: “Medicare paid millions to dead patients, illegal immigrants, probe finds.”  While this subject has been broached before, it is imperative that it continue to be stressed.  Why?  Because the government reimbursing dead people and providing drug subsidies to illegal immigrants underscores the ineptitude of a bureaucracy that, despite its obvious inefficiency, is determined to make decisions that impact life and death.

Health and Human Services, the department headed up by Kathleen ‘Whatever‘ Sebelius, in a report issued by its own inspector general revealed that in 2011 Medicare paid out $23 million for dead patients and from 2009 to 2011 subsidized the cost of drug benefits for illegal aliens to the tune of $29 million.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), also a physician, said the report was troubling because Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had been warned there were problems five years earlier.  Not to worry — Barack Obama, the man who assured Americans that the Obamacare website launch would be ready to roll out on October 1st, can surely come up with a plan to address bankrolling medical treatment for dead people and supplying illegal aliens with free pharmaceuticals.

In the meantime, HHS investigators claim that Medicare has built-in safeguards to prevent paying dead patients, which explains why it gave away $23 million anyway.  If, when fully implemented, Obamacare makes 23 million healthcare mistakes, an error of that magnitude would affect 76.67% of the 30 million people the law was supposedly established to help.

Marilyn Tavenner, administrator for CMS — the same agency clumsily attempting to resolve the malfunctioning Obamacare website – admitted to paying dead people and illegal aliens and, like Secretary Sebelius, said the agency will try to take steps to fix the $52 million problem. Emphasis on “try.”

Ms. Tavenner conceded:

We agree that in cases where the information indicates an individual is not lawfully present in the United States, that individual should not be permitted to enroll or to remain enrolled in a Part D plan during the period where he or she is not eligible to receive federal benefits.

Yeah, Marilyn, illegals shouldn’t be permitted to enroll, and yet they are.  

Sounding like Obama chalking up the humiliating Obamacare website launch to “glitches,” the agency stressed that although 4,139 illegal immigrants filed 279,056 drug benefit claims, which amounts to 67 prescriptions each, in total the payouts were just a fraction of what Medicare pays out annually in prescription benefits.

Using that reasoning, if 4,139 individuals die annually as a result of government-run healthcare errors, expect to hear that 4,139 people are but a small percentage of those who somehow manage to survive.

The investigators explained that while CMS has policies in place that prevent illegals from getting most Medicare benefits, policies are not in place to prevent illegals from abusing the prescription drug program.  Likewise, it’s highly likely that in the future a few lifesaving healthcare policies will be in place, while others will not.

As for the dead people collecting benefits, investigators maintain that oftentimes the practice is linked to lost or incorrect dates of death.  Not only that, but over a three-year span, dead doctors were also compensated with $25 million, which works out well because when doctors and patients want to kill themselves thanks to the obstacles placed in their way by Obamacare, at least they’ll have a monetary incentive.

Senator Coburn stressed that “Every individual wrongfully awarded benefits, be it the deceased or undocumented, diverts scarce resources away from those who need it most.” That’s true, but what it also proves is that the last thing the government is equipped to do is oversee healthcare.

Sorry Sebelius! It looks like Sarah Murnaghan will turn 11 years old

130605-Sarah_Murnaghan_620x350-300x169Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Kathleen Sebelius must be a little upset.  Why?  Because despite her “some will live and some will die” comment the worst has happened: 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan, a little girl with cystic fibrosis, got her lungs and is still alive.

That’s right – despite Kathleen Sebelius’ refusal to waive the law so that Sarah, who was eligible for non-available pediatric lungs and too young for available adult lungs, could get a pair of healthy adult lungs – Sarah prevails!

Talk about a humiliating turn of events for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just last week, waxing philosophical, Kathleen said “No” to Sarah getting an adult double-lung transplant.  Then a judge intervened and said, “Yes!” Now Sarah, who Kathleen Sebelius handed over to death, has a new lease on life.

Barring complications like rejection and infection, as it stands right now little Sarah will be around for a while. Sarah Murnaghan was one sick little girl.  After the surgery, her ecstatic family was “thrilled” to share the good news that, thus far, despite Sebelius’s attempt to send Sarah to the morgue, the transplant was a smashing success.

The whole Sarah Murnaghan situation opens a can of worms for Ms. Sebelius because it appeared the government was gearing up to use a little girl with cystic fibrosis as sort of a trial balloon to gage public reaction to the Obama goons denying medical care for a deathly ill child.  If Sarah had done what Kathleen had hoped, and died, saying “No!” would have set a precedent.

In essence, by refusing to waive the adult lung law so that Sarah could live, Kathleen Sebelius was rehearsing her role as God so that in the future, when the new healthcare law kicked in, she’d have already practiced saying “No!”

Then Kathy S. could have said “No!” to Grandma’s pacemaker, “No!” to chemo for Uncle Harry and “No!” to neonatal care for premature babies who the Obama administration would have much rather seen aborted.

Therefore, saying “No!” to everyone would have been a piece of cake, or as pie-sharer Michelle Obama likes to call it:  ‘A piece of pie.’

The problem Ms. Sebelius must now grapple with is that she publicly declined to waive the rules for a deathly ill little girl whose life could have easily been saved.  As a result, Americans are now aware that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is has no problem handing over helpless little girls and boys, who would otherwise be saved, to premature death.

Instead, much to Kathleen the Ghoul’s chagrin, instead of going to Sarah’s funeral, her friends, family and a nation anticipating the ramifications of government-run healthcare will all be watching Sarah use her new lungs to blow out the candles on her 11th birthday cake.

Obama’s ‘Saving Even One Child’ Policy Falls Short

obama1Originally posted at American Thinker

Something happened between the time the president talked about Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl shot dead in the Tucson Gabrielle Giffords shooting, jumping through rain puddles in heaven, and the country finding out that Sara Murnaghan, a 10-year-old Pennsylvania child with cystic fibrosis, is being denied a life-saving lung because of government regulations dictating age restrictions on organ transplants.

Sara Murnaghan does qualify for pediatric lungs.  However, there are currently none available.  Without transplanting adult lungs into Murnaghan’s body, the little girl has about five weeks to live and will qualify for a transplant one year and eleven months too late.

Lately, America has been subjected to radically pro-choice Barack attempting to advance an anti-gun agenda by pretending to care about saving the lives of children he’d have otherwise been fine with aborting had they still been in utero.

Undermining Second-Amendment rights is why the president shows up at memorials, fake-cries on camera, hugs grieving parents, signs legislation surrounded by high-fiving youngsters, and repeatedly vows that saving the life of one child is worth the effort.

Piling it on, Michelle Obama even flew to Chicago to attend the funeral of 15-year-old gun violence victim Hadiya Pendleton and then invited the dead girl’s parents, Cleo and Nathaniel, to grace the State of the Union skybox, just to add a good dose of parental bereavement to the anti-gun atmosphere.

Now, after hearing Kathleen Sebelius make the cold comment that “someone lives and someone dies” in response to questions about why she refuses to intervene in the Sara Murnaghan emergency lung transplant case, it’s clear that anti-gun political pragmatism is at the root of concern over the saving of some lives and not others.

It’s clear that in the Obama administration, if gun violence kills a child, it matters.  However, if cystic fibrosis is the killer, oh well — as Kathleen Sebelius says, “someone lives and someone dies.”

In response to the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children and six adults lost their lives in Newtown, Connecticut, the president stressed that “if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.”

Yet, during a recent House hearing, when Lou Barletta (R-Pa) implored HHS Secretary Sebelius to “take that step” so that a little girl can have a shot at life, and to “please, suspend the [lung transplant] rules until we look at this policy,” Sebelius, who does have the authority to waive the rule on Sara’s behalf, refused.

At the Tucson Memorial, Scripture-quoting Barack Obama said, “If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.”

At the Newtown Vigil, Obama reaffirmed those sentiments when he said that “[t]his job of keeping our children safe…is something we can only do together … we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, while signing executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence, flanked by four anti-gun youngsters, Obama said, “This is our first task as a society. Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.”

So if saving children’s lives are “not on the usual plane of politics” when an opportunity to fulfill “our first task — caring for our children,” arises for one little girl, why does Kathleen Sebelius respond by coldly reminding Congressman Barletta that although it’s an “incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies … 40 [other] people in Pennsylvania are on the ‘highest acuity list’ for lung transplants”?

And while caution is in order because the government changing the rules for the benefit of the one sets a dangerous precedent — in the future, the government could be inclined to change the rules to detriment of the many — there is a huge amount of liberal hypocrisy afoot here.

Why?  Because in the end, little Sara Murnaghan will likely die, and not as the result of a gunshot wound, so Barack Obama won’t care.  Moreover, Michelle Obama will not attend Sara’s funeral, and neither will Sara’s mom and dad, Janet and Fran, be sitting beside the first lady next year in the State of the Union skybox as representatives of the need to change organ transplant laws.

Rest assured, in the short time that Sara has left, Barack Obama will not be reminding America that “we bear a responsibility” for Sara.  Nor will he sign a middle-of-the-night executive order overriding Kathleen Sebelius’s stubborn refusal to waive the adult lung transplant rule in time to save the child’s life.

It’s also unlikely that health care reformer Barack “Doesn’t Care” Obama will be on hand to shed one fake tear or quote a single out-of-context Scripture passage at Sara’s funeral.

Instead, as a result of refusing to “take that step … [to] save even one child,” Barack Obama and his self-serving administration have exposed the true nature of an agenda that has nothing to do with shielding the lives of helpless children from harm and everything to do with advancing a progressive anti-gun agenda.

Kathleen Sebelius Advocates for GaybamaCare

Kathleen Sebelius

Originally posted at American Thinker

This is June, and Barack Obama has transformed a month that used to be about fatherhood and dragging out the barbeque into 30 days of homage to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (and Questioning) pride.  That’s right, count ’em: 30 whole days to rejoice in LGBTQ-ness.

Along with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Barack must feel it’s time that fairness be extended to the gay community.  That’s why, for those who tend toward melancholy and depression, if ever there were a time to be gay, this would be it.  Why?  Because in addition to reassuring college grads that free birth control should give them peace of mind and sharing the roster at Girl Scout conferences with late-term abortionists, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wants to commemorate LGBTQ month by making it one of her priorities to actively advocate on behalf of the sexually confused, conflicted, and/or questioning.

When not sending out clandestine e-mails on her secret Obama-established e-mail account, Mrs. Sebelius is about the important business of spreading the word that she’ll be doling out privileges to the LGBTQ community based solely on non-traditional sexual preference.  And although she doesn’t expound on exactly how they’ve been pushed to the side, Sebelius feels that “for too long … [LGBTQ people] were pushed to the side.”

To prove how committed she is to preferential treatment for homosexuals, Sebelius has refused to override a policy that will deny help to a dying 10-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis in need of a lung transplant.  Because of government regulation concerning adults getting first dibs on adult lungs, the woman who has been integral in directly benefiting victims of HIV/AIDS has declined the opportunity to intervene.

Sebelius concurs that in the case of Sara Murnaghan, it is an “incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies.”  So in other words, if you’re 10 years old and your name is Sara Murnaghan and, through no fault of your own, you have a deadly lung disease, you will be “pushed to the side.”  On the other hand, if you’ve participated in promiscuous, risky lifestyle choices and simply refused to join the Rubber Revolution or attend Condom University, or if you’re a 12-year-old girl trapped in a 12-year-old boy’s body and desire sex reassignment surgery, by way of GaybamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius will override any policy obstacle that might stand in the way of realizing your dream to be prom queen.

In the meantime, in order to determine who the government decides will live and who the government decides will contribute to providing shovel-ready jobs for cemetery workers, a careful compilation of “gender status” queries is required, which will be included on health surveys and questionnaires.  Gone are the days of basic check-boxes that say “male” or “female.”  Now, even the “other” category no longer suffices; expansion is needed to include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender categories.

Wait!  What about transsexuals in the process of “transitioning” from male to female who are temporarily neither male nor female?  What box do they check?  Not to mention intersex individuals, formerly known as hermaphrodites.  Where do they fit into all of this?

Nevertheless, despite the wrinkles that still need to be ironed out, if all goes well under ObamaCare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it is starting a new analysis that could lift the spending ban for sex-change operations for individuals requiring surgical treatment for Gender Identity Disorder.  In other words, if your pre-existing condition was a raging case of Chaz Bono-itis, you will not be penalized; you’ll be penis-ized.

In addition, standard things like preventative services, HIV screenings, vaccinations, mental health screenings, contraception (God knows why), intimate-partner violence screenings, (can people who are generally “gay” be violent?), and well-woman visits (for both males and females?) will also be part of GaybamaCare.

If you’re a homosexual, all this is wonderful.  However, Americans who are happy, but not gay in a “gay” way, may be at a bit of a loss.

Therefore, while Kathleen Sebelius is busy helping gays be gayer, here’s some survival advice: if you’re a straight guy or gal, to circumvent the obstacles in ObamaCare, in case of an emergency, invest in and never leave home without a pair of Christian Louboutins or Doc Martens — the Louboutins for the gentlemen, of course, and Docs for the ladies.

Then, one day, if by chance you should you find yourself sitting in a clinic spurting blood from a main artery and a busload of stragglers from the Gay Pride parade pull up and unload into the waiting room, to avoid being punished for the sin of being straight, slip on those Louboutins or Doc Martens.  Then, grab the nearest person of the same sex, drag them over to the triage nurse’s station, and plant a wet one on them, because starting on January 1, 2014, it looks like gender-bending footwear and passionate same-sex kissing will be a surefire ticket to the front of the Kathleen Sebelius GaybamaCare line.

Graduates Promised Contraceptive ‘Peace of Mind’

health-sec-kathleen-sebelius-100110Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

 Liberals are obsessed with sex. That obsession includes other people’s sex lives and outfitting them with all the accoutrements to ensure that sexual activity is worry-free. In the mind of a liberal, college = sex; if you’re a 14-year-old, that = sex; and even elementary school = the need to learn about sex. In the military there’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ sex; in the Oval Office there used to be cigar aficionado sex; and let’s face it, politics always = sex.  Not to mention the potential for illicit mayoral sex with Anthony Weiner emerging in NYC as a contender.

Now, thanks to Obamacare, which everyone already knows is all about sex, liberals are fulfilling their patriotic duty by facilitating opportunities for Americans of all ages to indulge in carefree sex.

Imagine! You’re graduating from high school or college and the President of the United States’ Health and Human Services Secretary sends congratulations your way via a HealthCare Blog post, wherein she assures you that you’ll be outfitted free of charge for an activity humans have somehow managed to master without the help of either a high school or college diploma.  Go figure.

Those are exactly the sort of salutations that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued when she extended kudos to the class of 2013 in a HealthCare Blog post entitled “Class of 2013: Graduate with Peace of Mind.”  Question: Since when did mindless sex have anything to do with your mind?

Either way, whether it does or it doesn’t, sex-obsessed Sebelius has promised grads “protections and benefits” that afford amorous alumni “greater control” after they remove their mortarboards.  Those “protections and benefits,” in addition to abortion on demand, include free birth control.

In the mind of a liberal like Kathleen Sebelius, having “less to worry about” doesn’t mean securing a job (because that ain’t happening) – it means having something fun to do between trips to the mailbox to pick up unemployment checks.Sebelius’s graduation 2013 post read, “Bottom line: Because of the Affordable Care Act, you’ll be able to begin this next chapter of your life with the peace of mind and security health insurance provides.” Clearly, that means despite a bleak job market and the country going bankrupt, thanks to the taxpayer-funded Affordable Care Act debauchery is still doable.

Why?  Because, according to Kathleen Sebelius, Obamacare “provides protections and benefits that give [Americans] greater control of [their] health care.” These include “requiring most insurance plans to cover proven preventive services–like birth control and certain cancer screenings–without you paying a penny.”

In her  post, Sebelius didn’t mention responsibility, success, or the future; instead the graduates of 2013 were told how Obamacare guarantees ex-students who are unemployed or without health insurance the security of remaining on their parents’ health plan until they’re 26.  Yippee!

That’s because the liberal mindset is such that mooching off Mom and Dad is not only acceptable, it’s encouraged.  It’s similar to the entitlement approach socialist types like to foster for the collective.  Therefore, if you graduate high school at 18 and choose to forego college, Sebelius is saying that as a reward you get to copulate with wild abandon for eight years compliments of the US government.

The liberal lexicon defines immaturity, focus on frivolity, and sexual promiscuity as “flexibility to make choices about your future without worrying about where you’re going to get health insurance.”  That’s why the left’s idea of “flexibility” really has more to do with positions used in activities that require free birth control than it does with worries about having or not having healthcare coverage.

So according to Kathleen Sebelius’s blog post, although employment prospects look grim, 2013 graduates need not burden themselves with spending one penny of their unemployment benefits on contraceptives.  Instead, sex-obsessed liberals, by way of Obamacare, will provide an array of contraceptive methods, sterilization, and emergency contraceptives, which will alleviate the stress of having to spend hours hanging around in abortion clinics.

In other words, if you’re younger than 26, Obamacare will give your sex life a boost by providing free birth control and, most importantly, eradicate the need to fret over incidentals like disposing of an unwanted pregnancy, finding a job, and venturing forth into the world as a full-fledged adult.

In closing, Sebelius reminded graduates that starting in 2014, health insurers cannot deny coverage “based on a pre-existing condition, like cancer, asthma, or acne, or mak[e] you pay more just because you are a woman.”

What she didn’t mention was whether repeated-abortion-damaged reproductive organs, genital herpes, antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, or Chlamydia would be considered a “pre-existing condition.”  Therefore, if sexually transmitted diseases are not game changers, then Kathleen Sebelius was definitely referring to more than graduation when she ended her 2013 post with “Congratulations on your achievement!”

The Liberal Quest for Population Control

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.

In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has also indicated that annual preventive breast cancer  screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn’t detected until it’s too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left’s initiative to foster fewer human beings.

From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a ‘death-panel’ per se, it could be described as a life-preventative.  The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care.

With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent appearance before a House panel takes on new meaning.   Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing the number of human beings born in the United States will “compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.”

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the “estimated cost” for insurances payouts will go “down not up.”

Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius’s formula for fiscal solvency, it’s clear to see what’s up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care.  Fewer human beings keep costs “down not up,” which is why the fewer the better — from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.

During the hearing, Ms. Sebelius touched upon the subject of religious liberty and how the First Amendment “free exercise of religion” is impacted by the government imposition of ‘sterilization, contraception or abortion’ regulations on Christians who, together with Catholic bishops, agree that they “cannot…[and]…will not — comply with this unjust law.”

Verbalizing the Obama administration’s peculiar interpretation of the Constitution, Catholic Kathleen Sebelius insisted that a mandate that forces Christians to violate their conscience “upholds religious liberty,” which is sort of like the liberal “right to privacy” belief that abortion really isn’t ‘killing.’

During the hearing, Sebelius revealed to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a minor detail that shed light on how liberals also disregard the canon of the Catholic Church.  Ms. Sebelius admitted that “Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.”

Having it all figured out, Sebelius explained to the subcommittee that “The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives.”

Apparently, the premise is that if an insurance company pays for a Catholic’s tubal ligation, it’s as good as receiving papal dispensation.

During the subcommittee hearing, Tim Murphy (R-PA) made the point that “contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be free.” Murphy asked, “Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service.”

Well that’s for sure; especially when what’s being offered has such a high cancer risk.  If cultivating less people is the real plan, why not just advance population control by handing out free cigarettes?

Either way, Sebelius responded that whether birth control is free or not is not the point with insurance. “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. In other words, by doling out “free” morning-after pills, insurance companies save money in the long run by avoiding the cost of having to pay for little Susie’s tonsillectomy.

Murphy expressed surprise at Sebelius’s “addition by subtraction” answer, saying, “So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” By probing a tiny bit further Mr. Murphy could have verified the obvious by asking whether the long-term plan also included saving money by applying similar logic to dying people.

Using cost-benefit language, Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”  But a yearly mammography is not?

Murphy again sought clarification: “Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back.”

Sebelius responded that according to big pusher of contraception and promoter of population control, the Institute of Medicine, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country.” Yeah, but what about the health risk related to birth control and abortion and their alleged causal relationship to breast cancer?

After the hearing, Brett Guthrie (R-KY), a member of the subcommittee, injected additional logic into Sebelius’s line of reasoning.  The Kentucky congressman said that if “mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.” Guthrie argued further, “If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money.”

And so, the bottom line is this, don’t think about it — just accept it.  Because whether America wants Yaz® or not, ObamaCare free contraception, sterilization and abortion will be provided to women who, in addition to not having children, will also have the opportunity to decrease the population when the government deprives them of preventative mammography’s to head off breast cancer that’s been induced by federally-funded Depo-Provera.

Obama lied, babies died – American Thinker – July 18, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

It’s hard to comprehend that intelligent people believe Obama speaks the truth. A simple question: If an individual encourages coldly tossing a barely breathing infant into a laundry room to die and uses the upholding of the original intent to kill the baby as an excuse, is it logical to assume such a person has a high regard for truth?

Barack Obama supports killing the unborn and if by chance the infant should happen to “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion” by refusing to die, Barry disagrees with providing a helpless being medical care. Plain and simple, Obama is cold and heartless.

If lying were an art, Barack would be its master.  Liberal pro-choice advocate Barack Obama “successfully opposed including language in the [health care reform] bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions.” The President intended to quietly advance an “abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions.”

When it appeared a few sentimental pro-lifers jeopardized Obamacare, it didn’t take much to sway the easily fleeced Bart Stupak and seven left-leaning lackeys. In order to pass health care reform the President lied to gullible pro-life Democrats, signed a phony executive order, and swore health care would not fund abortion.

Obama might as well have pulled a dirty tissue out of his pocket, called it an executive order and after getting the credulous to agree, crumpled it up and filed it in the “easily deceived” category.

After health care reform passed, taxpayer monies are now going directly to abortionists in Pennsylvania to make sure murder is amply funded.  Under the new national government-run health care program, “the Obama administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high risk” insurance program.” Named after pro-choice champions Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the program is called the Rendell-Sebelius plan, which is Obama-speak for taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

The Rendell-Sebelius federally-funded insurance program is being presented as monies to cover “preventative care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more.”  Get out a yellow highlighter and underline the words “much more.”

Let’s do the math. If all of the $160 million dollars go to fund first trimester abortions, which run about $350.00, it calculates to be 457,143 human beings successfully sluiced from society. If a meager $40 million dollars were spent to cover “any legal abortion…except sex selection,” that would assure nationalized health care 114, 286 fewer sick people to worry about, which would ultimately benefit the Obamanomic bottom line.

Besides the lies, Barry has, under duress, legally bound pro-life Americans to tax-tithe to the First Church of Obama’s most highly esteemed charity, government funded abortions.  If Barry gets his way, which he always does, regardless of religious affiliation or moral conviction Americans will fund feticide.

Obama claims when it comes to ending a pregnancy, “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.” Yet, the President’s dictatorial decrees deny choice to those who don’t support abortion.  Obama is intolerant toward conscientious objection and denies religious exemption. Barry’s policies force the resistant to hand the abortionist the suction and scalpel by financially aiding and abetting the executioner.

If America is in search of an apropos motto, here’s one that fits: Obama lied and babies died. The next time Barack finishes speaking and turns to walk from the podium, look closely, his pants are on fire.

Belkis Gonzalez, Secretary of Health and Human Services


As luck would have it President Barack Obama may have found a potential Cabinet appointee today right on the front page of the Sun Sentinel and realized that he might have prematurely chosen Governor Kathleen Sebelius as head of Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius is controversial and pro-choice projecting herself to be someone who is moderate and wants to lower the abortion rate in her state. She is a typical example of the “My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong” group. Followed up by the schizophrenic liberal clarification, “However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation” Abortion, not resume, could dominate Sebelius confirmation.

Like most liberals what they say and what they do are two different things. Regardless of what she “says” Sebelius always comes down on the side of extreme abortion rights, such as her veto of a bill that attempted to place restrictions on late term abortions (Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (CARA). Sebelius has fought against parental consent or any effort to curtail late-term abortions.

She is also an ardent supporter of Dr. George Tiller a Kansas late term abortionist who admits to having performed over 60,000 abortions. Congratulations Dr. Tiller you wiped out three coliseums full of human beings, quite an accomplishment. Tiller dismisses the concern for infants born alive calling them “just sloppy medicine.” Her relationship with the renowned Dr. Tiller is personal and financial, quite radical for someone who claims that “…all life is sacred, and personally believes abortion is wrong.” I can’t imagine who Sebelius would hang out with if she had no conscience at all. Maybe she would scrub up and hand Dr. Tiller the scalpel, suction and saline and then gleefully drag the biohazard bag’s contents to the dumpster?

Shocking as it might be, Kathleen Sebelius is moderate compared to likes of our esteemed Commander in Chief when it comes to abortion. Personally, I think Barack Obama deserves someone who doesn’t play both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue because he certainly doesn’t. Not that Obama has a conscience– but he rescinded the Bush’s “conscience exemption” originally instituted to protect health care professionals who found participating in an abortion morally reprehensible to be exempt from and having the “right to refuse” participation. Can anyone say Dr. Mengle?

Nazi doctors gave the following arguments in their defense: “involuntary research on prisoners had a long history, prisoners were already sentenced to death, they were only following orders, there were no clear international ethics standards respecting research, the toleration of a lesser evil to tolerate a greater good, those who did not participate might have been killed” (Tarantola, 1993).

If Kathleen Sebelius has any scruples on the issue she very well might be the wrong person for the job. Barack Obama has consistently voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which is a bill on the Illinois, as well as the Federal level, which would make illegal death by neglect of born alive but unwanted infants. In other words botched abortions where the unthinkable happens and the infant is born alive, you know “sloppy medicine.”

Regardless of Obama’s misrepresentation of how he voted on the Illinois bill the truth is, “…he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the bill he voted against in 2003” (News Busters, Warner Todd Huston, Obama Lied About Vote Against Live Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum, 8-13-08). Long story short, Barack Obama is so committed to making sure babies born alive during botched abortions not make it off the cold, stainless steel table still breathing that he voted against a bill that included the amendment with the Roe-protection wording, which he claimed he was so concerned about.

Obama is proving why, before becoming President, he had the reputation of being the most radical, left-wing US Senator. One reason obviously was his unabashed support of the most heartless pro-choice practice, which is late term abortion and the abandoning, without medical care, of any aborted baby “born alive.” That small detail didn’t seem to bother 52% of the American electorate who felt he was the harbinger of “Hope” and “Change.” I’m sure this voter base would heartily support any Cabinet choice he made and should applaud his appointment of like minded appointees, especially if Kathleen Stebelius shows some cracks in her armor and goes wobbly when it comes to refusing to aid a baby who has the extreme misfortune of being born alive in Barack’s hope laden America.

Obama has made clear that he doesn’t want to “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion” by having an additional physician to attend to a live born infant. You know a sort of undermining of the original intent, which was a lifeless, dead baby. This could be a problem for Ms. Sebelius if her conscience and her Catholic faith should unexpectedly kick in.

That is why I think Obama should have someone in the position of Health and Human Services who would have the stomach to assist Dr. George Tiller after he is appointed Surgeon General. A person who will make sure that the original decision of the woman will never force her to be, as the President says, “punished with a baby.” My recommendation for the position is Belkis Gonzalez the women’s clinic worker in Hialeah Florida who “delivered a live baby during a botched procedure and then threw the infant away” she is tailored made for the Obama Administration.

Barak needn’t worry, even if Gonzalez is prosecuted, convicted and sentenced she will probably only face a year in prison, if anything at all. The woman who delivered the baby in the Miramar Woman’s Center in Hialeah waited until she was 23 weeks pregnant to decide she didn’t have, “the resources or maturity to raise a child.” Lucky for her Belkis was there. Upon giving birth to her baby girl, who she named Shanice, “She came face to face with a human being and that changed everything.” It may be above my pay scale to say so but, “Oops, we can’t have that!” So Ms. Gonzalez “…scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth” into a red plastic bag and threw Shanice away.

The little girl had taken a breath because her small underdeveloped lungs were filled with air, meaning she had been born alive. “The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage. People all over the country are just aghast,” said the lawyer representing the mother. I beg to differ with you Mr. Brejcha the whole country is not “aghast” 52% are applauding the bravery of Ms. Gonzalez. Maybe President Obama can speak on her behalf and appeal to the judge on the basis that she will be gainfully employed by his Administration and will be operating fully under his jurisdiction and direction. Kathleen Sebelius can go back to Kansas and as far as Belkis is concerned, “You’re hired!”

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

%d bloggers like this: