You just know that on day one of Obamacare’s roll-out, CNN’s senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, was thinking that she would immediately log onto the government’s healthcare website; enroll in Obamacare; and, file a glowing report about how wonderful and majestic the government run healthcare system was.
Well, two weeks later, she’s been at it every single day and the reality of just how much of a failure the Obamacare roll-out is seems to be finally sinking in…
Enjoy!:
Welcome to Libtardsville, New York, where you can’t even freakin’ supersize your soda or carry a gun for protection, but your daughters are encouraged and assisted by the city in the killing of innocent babies without your knowledge or permission:
NYC schools giving out tens of thousands of doses of the ‘morning-after pill’
By SUSAN EDELMAN – NYPost
Plan B has become Plan A in the Bloomberg administration’s stealth war on teen pregnancy.
Handouts of the “morning-after pill” to sexually active students have skyrocketed under an unpublicized project in which health centers in public schools offer girls a full menu of free birth-control drugs and devices, records obtained by The Post show.
Last September, the city revealed it had started giving out Plan B and other birth control in the nurses’ offices of 13 high schools. At the time, officials said 567 girls had gotten Plan B.
But the birth-control blitz was much bigger than the city had acknowledged. About 40 separate “school-based health centers” doled out 12,721 doses of Plan B in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10, according to the newly released data.
About 22,400 students sought reproductive care from January 2009 through last school year, records show. Under state law, minors don’t need parental OKs to get contraceptives.
The revelations stunned Mona Davids, president of the NYC Parents Union, whose 14-year-old attends a Manhattan high school.
“I’m in shock,” she said. “What gives the mayor the right to decide, without adequate notice, to give our children drugs that will impact their bodies and their psyches? He has purposely kept the public and parents in the dark with his agenda.”
Davids, who is black, noted that most school-based health centers are in poor neighborhoods.
“This was population control on blacks and Latinos without our knowledge,” she said.
I don’t know what to say, here…
Our sincerest condolences go out to Chris Kyle’s family and friends.
He was a true American Patriot and will sorely be missed by all of us:
Author of “American Sniper” among the dead at Rough Creek
Sara Vanden Berge – YourStephenvilleTX.com
A former Tarleton State University student who wrote the best-selling book, “American Sniper,” was one of two victims shot and killed at Rough Creek Lodge Saturday.
Chris Kyle, 38, and another man were found dead at Rough Creek’s shooting range between 3:30 and 4 p.m. Saturday, according to Sheriff Tommy Bryant.
Eddie Ray Routh, an Iraqi war veteran, was arrested hours later after a manhunt led authorities to Lancaster where Routh was taken into custody just before 9 p.m. Saturday.
Routh, 25, is expected to be charged with capital murder.
Investigators had not released the name of the second victim at press time, but reports indicate he may have been Routh’s neighbor.
Bryant said the three men were at the shooting range Saturday when Routh shot the victims at point-blank range before fleeing in Kyle’s truck .
Kyle was a former Navy SEAL who served four tours of duty in Iraq, where he was given the nickname “The Devil of Ramadi” by insurgents.
In 2008, he made his longest successful shot after he spotted an insurgent with a rocket launcher near a U.S. Army convoy at a range of 2,100 yards (1.2 miles).
[…]
I’m experiencing ague. The flu bug has me wiped out. Hopefully, Ronin can jump in and post something. If not, leave any interesting links you come across in the comments section of this post.
Cheers and God Bless,
Dr. Bulldog
All I can say is that Obama best stay away from our house ‘cuz our dogs are already pissed off enough at him for eating one of their peeps.
And now, this!:
Obamacare May Hike Your Pet’s Health Care Bills
Lachlan Markay – Heritage.org
American health care consumers aren’t the only ones who will be hit by slated Obamacare tax hikes. Medical bills for their pets may go up as well.
According to a rule published Friday by the Internal Revenue Service, some medical devices used in veterinary practices will be hit by Obamacare’s 2.3 percent device tax. Many of their manufacturers are expected to hike prices, meaning higher veterinary costs for the nation’s pet owners.
The tax will not hit devices that are used exclusively for veterinary purposes. But a host of such devices are manufactured for use in both human health care and veterinary practices. Those devices’ manufacturers will have to pay the tax.
The IRS rule states:
Section 4191 [of the Internal Revenue Code] limits the definition of a taxable medical device to devices described in section 201(h) of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] that are intended for humans, but does not provide that the device must be intended exclusively for humans. Under existing [Food and Drug Administration] regulations, a device intended for use exclusively in veterinary medicine is not required to be listed as a device with the FDA, whereas a device intended for use in human medicine is required to be listed as a device with the FDA even if the device may also be used in veterinary medicine.
According to the FDA, common “dual use” medical devices are “examination gloves, sterile catheters, infusion pumps, etc.”
The device tax is expected to raise costs for consumers. A recent survey of 181 manufacturers found that a 52.5 percent majority plan to “pass along some or all of the increased cost [of the tax] to our consumers.” Among North American manufacturers, the portion who said they would raise prices was an even higher 58 percent.
“Across the board there is bigger inclination among firms to raise prices and pass on costs to customers as a way to deal with the US tax,” the survey found.
Pet owners already spend more than $12 billion on veterinary care annually. Obamacare may make it even more expensive to care for your pet.
Just ghastly!
Where is the outrage? Move along, nothing to see here. Pay no attention to Agenda 21:
UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor
Gethin Chamberlain – The Guardian/Observer UK
Money from the Department for International Development has helped pay for a controversial programme that has led to miscarriages and even deaths after botched operations.
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.
The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country’s burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.
[…]
Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.
[…]
Human rights campaigner Devika Biswas told the court that “inhuman sterilisations, particularly in rural areas, continue with reckless disregard for the lives of poor women”. Biswas said 53 poor and low-caste women were rounded up and sterilised in operations carried out by torchlight that left three bleeding profusely and led to one woman who was three months pregnant miscarrying. “After the surgeries, all 53 women were crying out in pain. Though they were in desperate need of medical care, no one came to assist them,” she said.
[…]
For a dose of reality to the squalor in which these forced sterilizations are being performed in, CLICK HERE.
Somewhere, Joseph Mengele is applauding:
Obama Admin OKs Using Aborted Babies’ Brains in Lab Tests
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com
The Obama administration is getting grief from a pro-life group for approving an experiment using the remains of the bodies of unborn children victimized in abortion for research continues in U.S. laboratories.
Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life uncovered the information showing a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.
In its press release announcing the clinical trial, StemCells Inc. was careful to refer to the fetal brain material as “purified human neural stem cell product” or HuCNS-SC cells, rather than “fresh human fetal brain tissue,” a description which can be found elsewhere on its website.
“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”
In the press announcement, StemCells Inc. calls the use of the brains from babies killed in abortions “truly unique.”
“With the approval of this trial, we have accomplished something truly unique in the stem cell field, which is the extension of clinical testing of our proprietary human neural stem cell platform to all three elements of the central nervous system: the brain, spinal cord and eye,” said Martin McGlynn, President and CEO of StemCells, Inc. “The preclinical data supporting our IND is particularly compelling and we look forward to getting this trial underway.”
Fischbach said the dehumanization of nascent human life, applied to human embryos in order to justify the exploitation of embryonic stem cells, is now being applied to the harvesting of brain tissue from more developed unborn babies with functioning brains.
When one plays God, incongruously divining right from wrong, the konzentrationslagern surely loom on the horizon:
Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’
Liz Klimas – The Blaze
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.
The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
[…]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
But, you can’t tell that to Moochelle Obama; she’s absolutely convinced that it’s the fault of the schools for not providing “healthier” foods for kids. Truth be told, inactivity is the main culprit and the solution to the obesity epidemic starts in the home. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and get rid of that dang-blasted infernal Xbox and do what our parents did to us when we were kids – kick the kids out the door for a few hours every day to play:
Study suggests junk food in schools doesn’t cause weight gain among children
Contact: Daniel Fowler
pubinfo@asanet.org
202-527-7885
American Sociological Association
WASHINGTON, DC, January 17, 2012 — While the percentage of obese children in the United States tripled between the early 1970s and the late 2000s, a new study suggests that—at least for middle school students—weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food they can purchase at school.
“We were really surprised by that result and, in fact, we held back from publishing our study for roughly two years because we kept looking for a connection that just wasn’t there,” said Jennifer Van Hook, a Professor of Sociology and Demography at Pennsylvania State University and lead author of the study, which appears in the January issue of Sociology of Education.
How quaint; Just long enough to allow Moochelle the time she needed to cram her “healthy foods initiative” down the throats of schoolchildren everywhere…
The study relies on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, which follows a nationally representative sample of students from the fall of kindergarten through the spring of eighth grade (the 1998-1999 through 2006-2007 schools years). Van Hook and her coauthor Claire E. Altman, a sociology and demography doctoral student at Pennsylvania State University, used a subsample of 19,450 children who attended school in the same county in both fifth and eighth grades (the 2003-2004 and the 2006-2007 school years).
The authors found that 59.2 percent of fifth graders and 86.3 percent of eighth graders in their study attended schools that sold junk food. But, while there was a significant increase in the percentage of students who attended schools that sold junk food between fifth and eighth grades, there was no rise in the percentage of students who were overweight or obese. In fact, despite the increased availability of junk food, the percentage of students who were overweight or obese actually decreased from fifth grade to eighth grade, from 39.1 percent to 35.4 percent.
“There has been a great deal of focus in the media on how schools make a lot of money from the sale of junk food to students, and on how schools have the ability to help reduce childhood obesity,” Van Hook said. “In that light, we expected to find a definitive connection between the sale of junk food in middle schools and weight gain among children between fifth and eighth grades. But, our study suggests that—when it comes to weight issues—we need to be looking far beyond schools and, more specifically, junk food sales in schools, to make a difference.”
According to Van Hook, policies that aim to reduce childhood obesity and prevent unhealthy weight gain need to concentrate more on the home and family environments as well as the broader environments outside of school.
“Schools only represent a small portion of children’s food environment,” Van Hook said. “They can get food at home, they can get food in their neighborhoods, and they can go across the street from the school to buy food. Additionally, kids are actually very busy at school. When they’re not in class, they have to get from one class to another and they have certain fixed times when they can eat. So, there really isn’t a lot of opportunity for children to eat while they’re in school, or at least eat endlessly, compared to when they’re at home. As a result, whether or not junk food is available to them at school may not have much bearing on how much junk food they eat.”
The study results also intimate that when it comes to combating childhood obesity and weight issues, policymakers should put more emphasis on younger children, Van Hook said. “There has been a lot of research showing that many children develop eating habits and tastes for certain types of foods when they are of preschool age, and that those habits and tastes may stay with them for their whole lives,” Van Hook said. “So, their middle school environments might not matter a lot.”
– END –
Well, there you have it; junk food in schools does not increase the obesity rates in children. No wonder the kids were booing Moochelle Obama the other day:
Kids ‘boo’ Michelle Obama over healthy lunches
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer – Washington Examiner
13 January 2012
First Lady Michelle Obama seemed to delight middle schoolers in Virginia when she attended a special screening of her appearance on a Nickelodeon show, but the audience showed some displeasure, booing when she told them about the healthy food initiative that changes their school lunch menu.
“Booo,” cried the students who heard Mrs. Obama report that “my husband and the Congress passed a legislation to make sure we could put more nutritious foods into the schools. So you should be seeing more vegetables, more fruit, more healthy foods,” she explained, according to the event transcript.
The disc jockey helping with the event commented, “Uh-oh. They’re turning,” but the First Lady stayed on message. “I know, they’re turning. It happens,” she replied. “But this is for you all, because we want you to be the next leaders out there,” Michelle Obama told the children. “And let me tell you that something I know the cast will tell you, that it’s hard to do what you do if you’re not healthy and you’re not eating right, and you’re not putting good foods in your body, you’re not getting exercise. And so we care very much that you start learning those habits early. And schools are going to be stepping up.”
The First Lady also revealed, during the question and answer session, that if she could have any superpower, it would be the power of flight.
Yeah, to get the hell out Dodge!
File under “Jobs Deleted and/or Graved”:
Mich. company plans Obamacare layoffs
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer – Washington Examiner
Stryker Corporation, a Michigan-based medical device company with operations around the world, is laying off five percent of its employees in order to offset the cost of a tax passed as part of Obamacare in 2009 and scheduled to take effect in 2013.
“The targeted [employee] reductions and other restructuring activities are being initiated to provide efficiencies and realign resources in advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax scheduled to begin in 2013,” Stryker announced in a November 10 press release, “as well as to allow for continued investment in strategic areas and drive growth despite the ongoing challenging economic environment and market slowdown in elective procedures.”
Industry executives believe that the 2.3 percent tax will cost $20 billion in revenue over ten years. “If this tax is implemented in 2013, it will undermine our industry’s ability to create and maintain good jobs in the U.S., and worse, will lead to higher costs for patients, undercutting one of the primary goals of health care reform,” the head of a major medical device industry trade group warned in July.
Stryker CEO Stephen MacMillan hinted at such a response to the Obamacare provision in September. “There is no doubt that we’re already starting to think about actions that offset that additional tax,” he said at a conference, according to MassDevice.com. “”Here we are, one of the greatest industries in the country, and we’re staring down on January 1st, 2013 and the addition of a 2.3 percent excise tax, while meanwhile on the other side all the discussion in Washington is about creating jobs,” he added.
AWARDS:
Fearless Blogger Award
To subscribe to our RSS Feed, Click on the above Image
Reuters Fox News Breitbart WND – US
doctorbulldog
Ronin
Doctor Bulldog & Ronin 
Opinionated Infidels