Archive for Obama Care

Silence from Sebelius – HHS mandate architect on Hobby Lobby SCOTUS win!

Posted in Kathleen Sebelius with tags , , , on June 30, 2014 by saynsumthn

Hours after the Supreme Court knocked down Obama’s contraception mandate with regard to Hobby Lobby and other small business owners, there seems to be silence from the architect of this mandate, former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The last post on her twitter is from June 9th – so far she has not tweeted anything about this today:

Sebelius

But she did give an interview to Al Jazeera prior to the decision:

In April Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced she was stepping down and Obama later replaced her with Sylvia Burwell.

The Movement To Put An RFID Chip Into Every Living Person

Posted in Big Brother, Health Care, RFID, Veri-Chip with tags , , , , , , , on April 6, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Movement To Put An RFID Chip Into Every Liv…, posted with vodpod

Obamacare: Impact on the Family

Posted in Abortion, Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2010 by saynsumthn

Published on April 12, 2010 by Chuck Donovan ; Heritage Foundation

Families have good reason to be concerned about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010[1] will affect them. While the law will deliver a health insurance entitlement to millions of individuals and families, many of its provisions weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor children’s health care decisions, penalize the decision to marry, and undercut family values in health care.

    More Families Covered but Less Family Choice


Millions of families gain an entitlement to health insurance under the mandates on individuals and employers in PPACA. The law’s creation of new affordability tax credits will ease the purchase of health insurance for middle-income Americans.

But the new credits go hand in hand with increased regulation of private health plans. Moreover, families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines.[2] The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.

    Undermining the Role of Parents

PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new “Personal Responsibility Education” (PRE)[3] program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.

First, PPACA creates a new $50 million per year appropriation for school-based health centers, many of which either offer contraception on site or refer for contraception and even abortion. The law states that the recipient clinics must honor “parental consent and notification laws that are not inconsistent with Federal law.”[4] However, the federal Medicaid and Title X (Public Health Service Act) laws stipulate that the confidentiality of teens obtaining services must be respected, nullifying any state or local parental notice or consent policies.[5]

Second, the new PRE program provides $75 million per year for grants to help states reduce pregnancies and births to teenagers. Unlike the 1996 welfare reform, however, the new program does not incentivize states to reach these goals without increasing their abortion rates.

    Penalizing Marriage


Another disturbing feature of PPACA is the fact that it imposes—across a broad range of income and age—significant financial penalties on the decision to marry.

The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples.[6] This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises.

Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a “divorce of convenience.”

For example, a 60-year-old couple, each with an income of $15,000 per year and purchasing insurance in the non-group market, would gain $4,212 in tax savings if they obtained a sham divorce and bought insurance separately. A similar couple, each making $30,000, per year would realize $10,425 in tax savings if they divorce and cohabit rather than remain married.

    Undercutting Freedom of Conscience


As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring “that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.”[7] A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion.[8]

    Conscience Protections

. PPACA does make clear that no qualified health care plan can be required to cover abortion as an “essential” benefit. It also ensures that no health care plan that participates in the state-based exchanges may discriminate against a health care facility or provider because of its unwillingness “to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.”[9]

The law does not, however, prevent the federal and state governments from practicing this same discrimination. An effort to add such an amendment to the bill failed in a Senate committee in September 2009. While there is an annual appropriations rider to this effect on the bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services, it lacks permanent force, and regulations to implement it were suspended by President Obama in March 2009 as a step toward its likely rescission.

    Abortion Funding

. Currently, every health care plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program may not as a matter of law include coverage of elective abortion. Under PPACA, health care plans that cover elective abortion may participate in the state-based exchanges provided they require each enrollee to pay a separate premium of not less than $12 per year for elective abortion coverage.[10]

    The Executive Order

. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.[11]

    Reason for Disappointment


Advocates of family values in health care reform have reason to be deeply disappointed with the overall impact of PPACA. The passage of legislation that increases parental control and choice regarding health care insurance, avoids marriage penalties, guarantees conscience protections, and limits taxpayer support for controversial practices like abortion must await a future Congress.

Chuck Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Fascism, Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2009 by saynsumthn

Health Care vs. the Value of Human Life

December 7, 2009 – by Sarah Durand
Posted on the blog: Pajamas Media

Don’t believe the left would cut medical costs by rationing care? Check out their formulas to calculate your life’s value.

Under the Democrats’ proposed health care reform legislation, we know that the government will have to determine some sort of rationing system in order to control costs. We are aware that part of the rationing will be absorbed in the discrimination that the bill inflicts upon the elderly; we know that it cuts $500 billion from Medicare [1]. What has remained puzzling is how exactly this rationing will be determined for the rest of us.

Similarly elusive is how the new Health Benefits Advisory Committee will decide whether or not you get certain medical treatments, regardless of the opinion of your doctor. After all, how do you put a dollar value on a human life?

If you think there is no answer to that question, you are way behind the progressives. In fact, most countries with socialized medicine, including Britain, are already using a mathematical formula that expresses the numerical value of one year of a human life in a measurement called the QALY [2], or “quality-adjusted life year.” In terms of determining medical care, the mathematical formula of the QALY is based on both how much a treatment may lengthen your lifespan and the quality of the life you will be living.

Basically, if you are in optimal health, the QALY of one year of your life is 1.0. But if you have any underlying conditions, like asthma or muscular dystrophy, your QALY is much lower.

Under the QALY system, the blind are worth less than those with sight, as those who can walk are worth more than those in wheelchairs. Sound like discrimination against persons with disabilities? It gets worse.

In a paper entitled “Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination [3],” the director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School, Dan Brock [4], argues “prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons.”

He says that type of system not only “implies that disabled persons’ lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons,but it also “conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.”

The “double jeopardy [5]” scenario that describes how the disabled are not only already suffering with an illness or disability, but are also given a lower priority of health care treatments to preserve or improve the quality of their lives, has been widely debated in countries with universal health care. It does little good to pass health care reform that restricts denying insurance to those with underlying conditions when treatment is still withheld from these individuals as an inherent flaw within the system.

As if that’s not bad enough, the health advisor to the president, Ezekiel Emanuel [6], is proposing a system even more deleterious. His system, similar to the QALY, is “the complete lives system [7],” which not only allows for discrimination against the elderly and disabled, but also targets the very young, i.e., our children.

Emanuel says of his system: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Leave it to American progressives to take the QALY one step further by defining quality of life as how useful you are to society — that is, how likely you are to increase the government’s tax revenue, hence the emphasis on those between ages 15 and 40. Health care gets a lot cheaper by rationing care to all non-taxpayers.

According to Emanuel [8], “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl.” I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.

And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes [9] “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason,” once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.

Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/health-care-vs-the-value-of-human-life/

URLs in this post:

[1] $500 billion from Medicare: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare15-2009nov15,0,5095885.story
[2] QALY: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/features/measuringeffectivenessandcosteffectivenesstheqaly.jsp
[3] Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination: http://philpapers.org/rec/BROCAD-2
[4] Dan Brock: http://peh.harvard.edu/brock.html
[5] double jeopardy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1376689/
[6] Ezekiel Emanuel: http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/people/emanuel-bio.shtml
[7] the complete lives system: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CtQpt9HM7aoJ:www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf+principles+of+allocation+and+scarce+emanuel&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgHB7lEq0Tv1_FWjZVbzIjZKz665qaxADu3NXyGwJBgtPd1d–aytlpznG-DJKn43SWhTZv8lWL65qwppjfzGiQI6TYZR326d8a6AvGl0ezxGxI7_soaWMTv64S5wXPlvN74_1p&sig=AHIEtbSJ_7bTAwb8abvp6lKGCq6DLB-R0w
[8] According to Emanuel: http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-angel-of-death-death-panel-czar.html
[9] believes: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Ezekiel_Emanuel_Hastings_Center_1996_Where_Civic_Republicanism.pdf

READ: Death Panels? H1N1 shots refused to people over 64 years old ?