Topic category: Healthy Living & Health Care Issues
Georgetown University Student Slams ObamaCare
In the turmoil over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the term "slut" to characterize a student who spends $3000/year on contraceptives, the "usual suspects" are overlooking testimony by a Georgetown student that, in its essence, slams "ObamaCare" and any other health care system that takes critical health care decisions away from doctor-patient relationships and puts them in the hands of a bureaucracy.
In the turmoil over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the term “slut" to characterize a student who spends $3000/year on contraceptives, the “usual suspects" are overlooking testimony by a Georgetown student that, in its essence, slams “ObamaCare" and any other health care system that takes critical health care decisions away from doctor-patient relationships and puts them in the hands of a bureaucracy.
The Key To This Testimony
To quote this Georgetown student:
"A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries.
"Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy.
"... when you let [others], rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy ..."
This student makes a clear statement of legitimate concern that health care decisions are being taken out of the control of the doctor-patient relationship (“women and their doctors" in this case) and put into the hands of a bureaucracy governed by other issues (e.g., cost, behavior, etc.). It would be hard to find a more convincing denunciation of a “one size fits all" massive national health care bureaucracy (ObamaCare) that puts health care decisions in the hands of distant bureaucrats.
Is this student a member of a Tea Party? Is she a radical right-wing conservative? I really couldn’t say, but I can reveal that the student’s name is Sandra Fluke.
Yes, that’s the same “Sandra Fluke" of Limbaugh’s comments.
The Real Motivation For This Testimony
This student’s testimony was arranged by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., a Democrat operative with close ties to Celinda Lake of Lake Research, a progressive polling operation doing field research for an Obama PAC. By casting this Georgetown student’s testimony as a pitch for “free" contraceptives, the real intent was to deceive and manipulate this student (and women in general) to unwittingly support Obama’s re-election bid and the very thing about which women are most concerned.
By reporting this testimony as just a pitch for "free" contraceptives, the public were deceived and the power of Fluke's testimony was lost in the furor over contraception costs of $250/month! This was never the intent of Fluke's testimony, yet media encapsulated Fluke's testimony as simply a pitch for "free" contraceptives, regardless of the cost, with the clear intent to deceive. Evidently, this is what we can expect of the cheap stunt tactics that will be practiced by Obama’s re-election machine. And it worked. Limbaugh took the bait and Obama’s polling numbers among women voters took a significant positive bump after his solicitous phone call to Fluke.
The Deception And Its Consequences
But far more important to women is the harsh reality that the re-election of President Obama will entrench ObamaCare. Such a consequence is diametrically opposed to the concern raised by Sandra Fluke that by removing health care decisions from the patient and her doctor, women’s health interests will suffer. The harsh reality for women is that Obama’s re-election and the entrenchment of ObamaCare will have devastating consequences for women.
While it is true that the Obama administration has tried to require “free" contraception for women, note how quickly Obama did the politician’s “two-step" to dance around objections raised on the basis that such requirements violate our First Amendment safeguard against government intrusion on the practice of religion.
Obama’s maneuver was a clear attempt to simply dictate an alternate path to the same end. Other presidents can just as easily maneuver by executive fiat a one-size-fits-all national health care system to entirely different ends.
That is the real danger when a nation moves from principled governance (our Constitution) to government by the whims of popular opinion (“Progressivism"). Principles do not change. Opinions do. There is nothing more devastating to political stability than government based on unprincipled whimsical opinion.
Of course, there are many equally significant negative consequences of an Obama re-election to all Americans, including women and Ms. Fluke. Those consequences, in addition to loss of health care choices, include continuation of massive federal deficits, unsustainable federal debt growth, further lowering of US Bond ratings, hyper-inflation, higher taxes (many already hidden in ObamaCare), higher unemployed (already nearing 20% if all unemployed are counted), and the continued erosion of Constitutional safeguards against massive federal government.
Thank you, Sandra Fluke, for making this powerful case against ObamaCare and President Obama's re-election bid.
 "usual suspects": News media deceivers, typified by biased reporting found in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. (ad nauseam).
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.