Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs

This administration is pure EVIL folks. We have to push for the repeal of Government controlled health care called, Obamaevilcare

SNIP:
by Andrew Bair | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/1/12 8:04 PM

PrintEmailNational 691
ShareAt a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the fears of many pro-life advocates who worry that the recent HHS mandate requiring all insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of an employer’s moral objection, is just the beginning.

The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.

In an exchange with pro-life Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA), Sebelius claimed, “The reduction in a number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.” To which Murphy responded, “So you’re saying by not having babies born, we’re going to save money on healthcare?” The exchange becomes just another example of the Obama Administration’s willingness to trample on basic rights of conscience in order to pay for the massive 2010 federal healthcare law and expand abortion.

read it all here.
Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs | LifeNews.com

 

People don't get born, they don't get sick, no need to treat their illnesses.


Hey presto, healthcare becomes free when there is no one to demand doctor's care.


Of course, no babies means later on no workers to pay the taxes to do the health care on all the old folks. But they will save that problem with either morphine or strategically placed pillows.

 

actually if you wanna cut health care costs, the easiest way to stop proving expensive end of life care. it sounds cruel, but look at what the health care costs are for the last 1-2 months of a persons life.
(fyi im not advocating this, i am simply point out the fact that this is where a large portion of health care dollars are spent)

"Last year, Medicare paid $50 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives - that's more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education.
And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenditures may have had no meaningful impact. "

Can Health Care Costs Be Reduced by Limiting Intensive Care at the End of Life?
The Cost of Dying - CBS News

 

well to be fair, shes late the party, the eco-saviors I believe surfaced the idea that we should stop having children ( no not Margaret Sanger either) because they are consumption factories.....

 

Yes then a smaller group of folks can supplement everyone's SS, Medicare and debt service.

 

You must be really young or really stupid.

 

It sounds cruel because it IS cruel. And inhumane, cold-blooded and dehumanizing to the max. It absolutely devalues human life. Yeah, when you turn over health care to government, the primary concern is no longer how to improve LIFE -it is all about how to save money. Doesn't take the government "geniuses" long to figure out the best way to save money is by refusing to treat people who actually need it the most. Even if it means forcing them to a premature death and even if it means imposing a miserable quality of life for their remaining days and even if it means imposing the most miserable, depressing life on them as a result. Can't wait to see your mom denied a hip replacement and forced to live out the rest of her life stripped of her mobility and forced into a wheelchair, depressed and forced to be dependent on others for the rest of her life? They are already doing that in the UK where they too figured out the best way to save MONEY instead of improve life -is by refusing medical treatment to people who actually need it. THAT is how you really reduce the amount spent on hip replacements -just refuse to let people have one and fuck 'em. If you want a system where the primary concern is about how to save MONEY instead of about how to improve life - then by all means demand government take it over because government geniuses always figure the best way to reduce health care costs is by refusing to treat those who actually need it the most.

That's why it is always a loser to turn it over to government. In the private sector the primary concern is how to improve the quality of life for the individual. Under a government run system it becomes entirely about how to save MONEY. And they look to see where most of the money goes and target that group to be weeded out. Really they should just change the name of the system to reflect the primary concern of government which hasn't a fucking thing to do with "care". Funny thing is Medicare was started because people said the elderly, after having spent a lifetime as productive citizens, deserved better than they were getting and even though treatment existed to improve the quality of their lives, they didn't necessarily have the means to pay for it and our country would be doing the just, moral and humane thing by insuring they had the best quality of life possible for their remaining time. Now just a few decades later, we are already trying to figure out how to fuck 'em over so they hurry up and die. Progress, huh.

 

did you forget the part of my post where i said im not advocating for this, but it would be a way to cut costs since so much money is spent on end of life care. i guess you forgot that part of the conversation, but anyways.....

explain to me why then every other industrialized nation has universal government provided health care at a fraction of the cost the we provide it? the free market can not simply provide us with lower costs. this has been proven. look at what the free market did to health care costs between 1990 and 2008.
U.S. Health Care Costs: Issue Modules, Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
they sky rocketed, in comparison to the rest of the world. during those year there was not government intervention on any level. Hillary tried to get the US to adopt universal health care and the GOP shut it down. hence health care costs went unchecked and unregulated for the better part of the next 15 years.

tell me how and when the free market has ever driven the cost of health care down in the last 30 years?

and in the private sector the main concern is not about patient quality of life, the reality is that their biggest concern is about making money and providing positive growth so their stock value increases. the health care industry is the 2nd or 3rd most profitable industry in the US. that is the primary mission of any business health care or otherwise. the only companies that fall outside this model are the non-profits such as Kaiser. (although im not aware of any other non profit health care providers at this time)

 

You say you don't advocate it but you did say it, as if it was a workable solution.

 

bigreb forgot hes on ignore....