The Attack on Women in Health Control Rationing

Honestly, how did you think coverage was going to be extended to millions while maintaining the facade of low up-front cost? “Editing” or rationing services is the only way. Of course, they still haven’t found a way to actually fund the IRS to do what the bill says and they’ve also forgotten our children with this bill. Let’s go for three.

From Big Government:

In September, the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin “off-label.”  Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer.  Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.

But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration.  We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and in September, women with breast cancer will be its first victims.


… this year they changed the mammography standard from 40 to 50, which could result in millions of women going undiagnosed.

Where is the outrage? Where are the feminists on this one?

BREAKING: Prop C Upheld

Excellent news for those seeking to make their own medical decisions with their own bodies:

(Jefferson City, MO) — A Cole County judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop an Aug. 3 ballot issue vote offering Missourians a chance to express their position on the nation’s new health care act.

Judge Paul C. Wilson ruled late Friday against Jefferson City attorney Chip Gentry’s argument that the ballot issue exceeds its original purpose and does not contain a clear title focused on a single subject.


Patrick Tuohey of Missourians for Health Care Freedom said he was happy Missouri would be the first state to hold a referendum on the broad-based federal health care reforms of 2010.

“This is really the first time that any citizen in the country has had the opportunity to express their view directly,” Tuohey said. “This is an opportunity for Missourians to express their views on the health care plan that came out of Washington.”

Yes on Prop C August 3rd.

What Happened to “Pro-Choice?” Insurers Cutting Choice, Cost to Comply with Obamacare

Well you knew this would happen. You didn’t think that you could make your fellow man pay everyone’s way, extend health care for all, and not have to cut corners to mind cost, did you? Because if you did I have some money in a Sudanese account that I need to transfer to you, the sum of $2,978,543.02.

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

I feel bad for the young adults getting screwed in this, folks who are otherwise healthy, who chose to take out a catastrophic plan and pay for everything else out of pocket, keeping in the vein with how insurance is really to operate.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances fromPresident Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.

“What we’re seeing is a definite uptick in interest because, quite frankly, affordability is the most pressing agenda item,” said Dr. Sam Ho, the chief medical officer for UnitedHealth’s health-care plans.

Yes, affordability, as opposed to quality care and choice for all. Now everyone can afford … mediocrity and you’re penalized with higher prices if you chose to wander off the government reservation.

*Uh oh. Apparently the IRS wasn’t told how to fund the implementation of the plan. Hey, you gotta pass it to find out what’s in it:

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance “as required by law” and collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will “involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

How the admin is getting around the unConstitutional mandate: “it’s a tax.”

About That Tea Party History Stuff

There’s been a lot said about where the Tea Party came from and how closely the modern day Tea Partiers associate themselves with the original Boston Tea Party Patriots.  Needless to say, the views on the origin are as varied as the millions of Americans who view themselves as Tea Party supporters and members – but the basic principle of freedom is the binding agent.

This post on the origins of the Boston Tea Party points out the original furor over the Tea Party was caused by a tax cut, not tax raises.  This is true, if you want to parse words, but the colonists didn’t dump tea in the harbor because it was going to cost them less – it’s because they say the Townshend duties for what they really were – big government attempting to buy them off to favor the politically connected. The British East India Tea Company was able to get tea to the colonists cheaply, but at the price of being the only supplier.  Small businesses and entrepreneurs would have been wiped out, and the monopoly pricing that at first seemed cheap would later be raised on the whims of the same government that wiped out the competition.

This scenario is exactly the scam run by the Left when it comes to healthcare and “tax cuts.”

Continue reading