The Obama administration's argument that mandating birth control coverage reduces unintended pregnancies and has health benefits for women is based upon faulty reasoning and flawed research, the Beverly LaHaye Institute argues in an Amicus, or "friend of the court" brief for a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the case Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby, which the Supreme Court will hear in March, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are suing the Obama administration over its mandate to cover birth control, including some drugs that can be abortifacients. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, Christian-owned companies, argue that the mandate violates their owners' religious beliefs.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Obama administration must show that the mandate furthers a "compelling governmental interest" that outweighs the religious freedom concerns of Hobby Lobby. That "compelling governmental interest," the administration is arguing, is promoting women's health, preventing unintended pregnancies, and promoting gender equity. more >>
A 54-year-old man who went to the Lake Norman Regional Medical Center in North Carolina to treat a snake bite last summer said he was left in shock after the hospital sent him a bill of more than $89,000 after an 18-hour stay.
Eric Ferguson of Mooresville, N.C., told the Charlotte Observer that one evening last August while he was taking out the trash he felt what he thought was a bee sting. He quickly realized that he had been bitten by a snake when he looked down and saw fang marks on his foot. He said he drove himself to the hospital 15 miles away where he was treated with anti-venom medicine.
He was later shocked to discover that his time at the hospital cost $89,227, according to a bill the hospital issued and more than $81,000 of that amount was for a four-vial dose of anti-venom. more >>
Trust in our government was a mere 19 percent in 2013 according to Pew Research Center. Not surprisingly, 56 per cent of Americans think it is not the government's responsibility to provide a healthcare system. Waivers, favors, off-the-cuff rule changes, and the bungled launch of the Affordable Care Act website validate that distrust. Bureaucratic incompetence and cronyism are not the only reasons we should be wary of government involvement in our medical care.
The federal government has a checkered history when it comes to medical judgments. We now cringe at the words of the revered Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1927 case, Buck v Bell upholding Virginia's sterilization law for the institutionalized "feeble-minded." "[Carrie Bell's] welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . .Three generations of imbeciles are enough." In fact, Carrie's mother was a prostitute, but not feeble-minded. After Carrie's release she maintained a job as a domestic worker and became an avid reader. Her "feeble-minded" daughter was on her school's honor roll.
Let's recall the appalling Tuskegee Syphilis Study lasting from 1932 to 1972. The U.S. Public Health Service used 400 hundred mainly poor, illiterate black sharecroppers with syphilis as lab animals. They were told they had "bad blood," but not that they were actually suffering from a serious but treatable disease. All subjects succumbed to untreated syphilis so our government could track the natural progression of the disease. more >>
Last week, Moody's rating agency lowered the outlook for health insurers from stable to negative, blaming Obamacare. Few Americans will shed tears for insurance companies. But the Moody's announcement is a warning sign to taxpayers. They'll be getting clobbered. Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act forces taxpayers to make insurers whole for most of the losses incurred selling Obamacare exchange plans through 2016. The bailout is designed to conceal the failure of the president's signature health law until he is out of office.
No one in the Obama administration talked up the advantages of bailing out insurers. It was kept under wraps until the fall of 2013. That's when five to six million health plans were cancelled because they didn't comply with Obamacare's one-size- fits all coverage requirements effective January 1, 2014. . Insurers developed new plans, as the health law required, set premiums (generally higher) and sent out notices cancelling the old plans.
That caused public outrage. Trying to quell it, the president ignored his own law and told insurance companies on November 14 they could keep selling the old plans. Insurers were caught off guard. They predicted there would be less demand for their new plans, and they'd lose money. more >>
No one in modern America has done more than President Obama to bring about inequality. His modern utopia is turning into a queuetopia. Under ObamaCare, Americans have to queue up even to sign up for health care.
We will of course have to stand in ever lengthening lines to get his "navigators" to direct us to a real physician. It's a queuetopia when the best he can offer in his State of the Union Address is a longer period of time to stand in the unemployment lines. Few of those who have to wait in those lines would prefer a government check to a real job.
Queuetopia was Winston Churchill's word to describe what the Socialists in Britain had brought to that once-proud island. Churchill also described the difference between free market economies and socialist centrally planned economies: "Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." As more and more Americans find their health insurance plans being cancelled, plans that 85 percent of us were satisfied with, our trust in Mr. Obama's word has dissolved. Now, 63 percent of Americans tell pollsters they do not trust this president to make the right decisions for our country. more >>
The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of 18 drugs for farm animals, even though an internal review found the drugs present a "high risk" of exposing humans to "super-bacteria" that are resistant to antibiotics.
The review was not announced to the public but came to light after the Natural Resources Defense Council obtained the information with a Freedom of Information Act request. An NRDC analysis of the obtained documents, "Playing Chicken with Antibiotics: Previously Undisclosed FDA Documents Show Antibiotic Additives Don't meet the Agency's Own Safety Standards," is available on the NRDC website.
Some farmers routinely add antibiotics to their animal feed, even when their animals are not sick. Farmers do this for convenience and cost-effectiveness. more >>