HHS Secty Kathleen Sebelius: The fewer humans we have, the more $$ we'll save on Obamacare (unemployment, interstate)

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Is it November yet?

---------------------------------------------------

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

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.

[Frank DeForrest]

Another administration creepy creature.
I'm so glad I won't be one of those who attempts cover for her statements

[sanrene]

Can't believe she said this, as if pregnancy is a disease.

And of course, the MSM won't touch it.

They will ignore all the outrageous comments from the democrats, but play up every one from the republicans.

[HappyTexan]

She must get her talking points from Pelosi...
"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it"
"Unemployment and food stamps create jobs".

[Little-Acorn]

Just think: If we can start encouraging suicides, we'll save even more!

And if we play our cards right, it will be all "voluntary"!

Especially those pesky old people. They soak up most of the Health Care anyway. And for what? A $100,000 operation, just so they can live a few months longer?

Truth!
Sebelius might be on to something here.

[Memphis1979]

What she said is that buying birth control will more then be paid back by the lack of insuring unwanted children.

This is common sense, quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[lifelongMOgal]

I posted a link to this article in another thread yesterday. I'm glad Sebelius slipped up and let the rest of the nation see her for the population reduction eugenicist she is. Eugenics is the foundation upon which Obamacare is built.

Obama: Maybe granny should take the blue pill instead.

Post-birth abortion coverage coming to an HHS rule near you soon.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

What she said is that buying birth control will more then be paid back by the lack of insuring unwanted children.

This is common sense, quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

As if a responsible person should be forced to pay for either

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

What she said is that buying birth control will more then be paid back by the lack of insuring unwanted children.

This is common sense, quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Birth control is cheap enough. If that didn't do it then "free" is not going to make any huge changes.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

As if a responsible person should be forced to pay for either

When government has to step into the insurance game, mandates will happen.

You see, we have this problem, the American people (you know, the ones who are supposed to run this country) don't want to see people die in the streets without healthcare.

So then government mandates care, happened under Reagan in 86. Then we had to find a way to pay for it, because after years of not paying for it, costs extended beyond the rate of inflation.

So instead of saying "Ok, Americans expect a minimum amount of care be provided, so lets provide that", like they should, lobbyists convinced government officials that doing nothing, or forcing large mandates was the way to go.

I disagree with both, but it seems that both parties decided that was the lines to draw to help their lobbyist buddies.

So now we have this. And its actually a republican position, remember they backed this under Clinton in 93. Oh how soon we forget.

So instead of having a universal care system that took care of the extreme basics, paid by tax money from EVERYONE, with private insurance to make up the cost beyond that, we now have an even more screwed up system, and every party backer played right into the hands of the insurance companies.

So now that we have mandated care, then a basic mandated care need must be done. If you buy insurance, doesn't government have the power to regulate what it provides through the interstate commerce clause? Republicans have been using it for years to regulate things that don't need regulating.

Now your dog has bit you, and you're pissed.