Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And who might be making the decision as to which people we can afford to give the extra help to when its a government controlled program? Might it be the ones who are exempt from this wonderful program? You know, the ones who are exempt from most of the laws that govern the ones they rule over?
Obviously people who can afford to have and raise 5 kids don't care about free contraceptives.
We have to convince the ones that have 5+ kids that can't afford them to avail themselves of FREE contraceptives.
What I find interesting is that I clearly remember back when Obama was selling the healthcare plan, one of his main points was that we had to have an individual mandate because the more people that were involved the more people we could spread the cost over and the cheaper it would get.
Now apparently it's the opposite.
I guess it's like how Obama said "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase" and then said the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority"
Or maybe how Obama swore to the nation if you liked your insurance as it was, you could keep it without changes. And now HHS is mandating changes.
Or how Obamacare was going to lower the deficit before it was passed, but after it was passed oops now it's going to raise it
Or how death panels were a conspiracy theory, up until they found the "independent advisory boards" which are, in fact, death panels
Sorry. You might be good at second grade math but you fail at the economic reality of insurance. We need a larger pool, not a smaller one. We need lots of young, healthy adults paying premiums to offset the high cost of getting old. Insurance pools are risk sharing and cost sharing.
I'm a conservative and an advocate of some type of single payer and very good at math.
We don't need unwanted children (who may not be healthy btw) and when you start there the rest of your theory is a pipe dream. Population is NOT a problem for us.
I also advocate some sort of a single payer and I know my times tables too!
What I find interesting is that I clearly remember back when Obama was selling the healthcare plan, one of his main points was that we had to have an individual mandate because the more people that were involved the more people we could spread the cost over and the cheaper it would get.
Now apparently it's the opposite.
I guess it's like how Obama said "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase" and then said the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority"
Or maybe how Obama swore to the nation if you liked your insurance as it was, you could keep it without changes. And now HHS is mandating changes.
Or how Obamacare was going to lower the deficit before it was passed, but after it was passed oops now it's going to raise it
Or how death panels were a conspiracy theory, up until they found the "independent advisory boards" which are, in fact, death panels
In most states "bait & switch" schemes are against the law. However, then the POTUS does it via his HHS Sec. and her writing of the "rules", not so much.
Yes, you heard that right. The more human beings we get rid of - or at least fail to conceive - the more we will save on Health Care. This by an unelected, unaccountable czar with the full backing of the President. Have to wonder how delighted she was by a (hopefully unrelated) report out of England, proposing the idea that as long as we are aborting babies before birth, we may as well "abort" them after they are born too.
I'm not even going to bother drawing Sebelius's statement out to its logical conclusion.
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate
by Fred Lucas
March 1, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in 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.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be involved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith.
She is a complete loon!!
But looked who appointed her
the king of loons!!
how anY sane person can take their words seriously
amazing to me!!
Since Obamacare mandates people to get insurance, I'd guess it would be.....drum roll.......
The insurance companies????
Yep. Wonder how those in government, who are exempt from ObamaCare, will rank in line, when the health care resources are running low and like another poster said, we just can't afford to keep everybody alive?
"One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."
Yep. Wonder how those in government, who are exempt from ObamaCare, will rank in line, when the health care resources are running low and like another poster said, we just can't afford to keep everybody alive?
"One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."
We have never been able to keep everyone alive. Ever. Never. Did I say never ever? You can't afford it and there is no point when someone reaches the end of their natural life to keep them hooked up to machines or to save every life no matter how little quality there would be to it.
It's also weird that some people who are so fixated on the wonders of the afterlife want to fight tooth and nail to keep everyone from it.
No, I'm not advocating killing people who are sick or disabled...I know your mind wants to go there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is good to be dictator...........
