It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Rule Forces Hospitals, Doctors Accepting Federal Funds to .......

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
.... Provide Gender Transition Services and Abortions

More coming from the Obama Administration that indicates Authoritarianism by threats is the name of the game.

This time it's some new HHS rules that affect hospitals and doctors.

If they are getting any kind of Federal money, they must comply or else.

This will be triggering more legal actions and non-compliance.

I imagine some discrimination exists, but knowing how Obama over-reacts and amplifies issues, maybe it never was as bad as he claims.

The social issues may have merit, but Obama is the issue, and he might not be as "meritable" as he would have you think.

What will they be doing with the giant databases they are creating?

Obama Admin Rule Forces Hospitals, Doctors Accepting Federal Funds to Provide Gender Transition Services and Abortions


The Obama administration is capping off a week of forcing Americans to accept gender ideology as normal with a final rule on Obamacare’s nondiscrimination policies in healthcare.

The rule will require physicians, hospitals, insurers, and other healthcare entities that receive federal funds — such as Medicare and Medicaid — to include gender transition treatments and even abortion among their services for the alleged sake of “equity.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the final rule on Obamacare’s (Affordable Care Act’s) Section 1557 Friday, stating it will “help to advance equity and reduce health disparities by protecting some of the populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination in the health care context.”





+4 more 
posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Good for them.

If a hospital is going to provide services for all people. They should be able to provide services for all people.

The hospital has a choice, though. Don't take federal funds if they do not want to provide those services.


+32 more 
posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Gender transition is cosmetic surgery.

There is nothing life threatening about this, therefore it should not be covered by insurance.

I guess Obama admin is bigoted against fat people, since lyposuction is NOT COVERED UNDER obama Care.

Disgusting.

When do the thought police arrive?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hospitals should be the one place where medical treatment knows no limits, biases.

Sorry, xuen, but I have to side with Obama on this one.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Gender re-assignment is an elective surgery with little to no physical gain for the individual or society as a whole. By that, I mean it does little other than assuage the psychological state of the person with regards to their gender identity.

Beyond that, I have no issues with someone who wants to go through the procedures on their own dime, or if their private health care funds it.


edit on 14-5-2016 by paradoxious because: spelling



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Gender transition is now a medically necessary procedure?

I agree with the abortions part, as it is medically necessary, even life saving at times.
edit on 14-5-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So is it possible for a hospital to survive without the handouts?

If not it's a bit like if they banned drugs from Pfizer because they want to help people, not kill them.

A bit sinister if that's what he's doing.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

Agreed!

The abortion issue would probably be better placed in hospitals, rather than PP. I guess this means the end of funding for PP, since hospitals will now all be required to perform abortions; but will they be mandatory for those who do not meet the required socioeconomic status to take care of the child?

This whole issue is not about people's rights, it's about sustainability. A multi-pronged approach to depopulation.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

I don't think this law says anything about insurance paying for it or who fits the bill.

It just says that hospitals that take federal funds can't deny anyone that service. Not who has to pay for any of it, but just that they can't refuse to offer those services.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy

Gender transition is now a medically necessary procedure?

I agree with the abortions part, as it is medically necessary, even life saving at times.


If someone wants the surgery and has funding/insurance to pay for it, then why shouldn't they have the freedom to have it?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So it would cause more inflation in the healthcare industry, causing insurance prices to soar even more.

Hospitals can't refuse, but someone can refuse to pay.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
Of course they can refuse to offer those services. Hospitals can decide which services to offer. Many hospitals no longer offer maternity services due to the high costs of the malpractice insurance they must purchase.
I really don't understand this issue---sex is biological while gender is psychological. A doc would have to treat patients as the sex presented by their biological profile, not their gender identity. That is science. You would think that all these folks who holler constantly about adhering to science would understand that "believing" you are female when science says you are male would be looking for answers to the question of why this "belief" is developing in US children.
How about we spend a bit of money studying why there is so much gender confusion these days? Could the chemicals being fed to our children in their food and water have something to do with this?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

Quit being such a cissy



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think this affects whether insurance covers certain procedures or not, it just means hospitals who receive federal funding can't choose to bypass certain services they don't agree with. I don't see this as a problem.

The issue I do see is that not all hospitals have the necessary personnel available. It's difficult in many places to find abortion providers at all, because not enough people want to risk their lives at the hands of murderous pro-lifers.

The federal government puts pressure on States via the threat of pulling funding for all kinds of things all the time.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I agree. Part of the problems is cartoons showing reversed gender roles on tv for so long. Disney and nickelodeon are guilty of this today, but the biggest offender IMO is cartoon network. They can produce some wickedly vile crap and then market it towards children.

It is time the country, both states and the private industry stop taking Federal money and tell them where to shove it.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Hospitals should be the one place where medical treatment knows no limits, biases.

Sorry, xuen, but I have to side with Obama on this one.


Would you still side with Obama if there was a 100% link to Pope Francis's Jesuit Order agenda?

The agenda being force pervision on American citizens?

Careful with this one.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Yeah well I DON'T support this stupidity.

So not only do I/WE have to pay for the MURDER of a person since that is what ABORTION is.

Now I/WE have to pay for 'certain' people to have their snips cut off. and other 'procedures', and pay for an endless supply of big pharmaceuticals.

Abortion is most certainly life threatening as in a person will never be born in to this world, and one day might be confused to have a procedure to mutilate themselves.

Federal funds should be going to neither.

It doesn't cost a thing for people to keep their flies zipped.

And it sure doesn't cost a thing to be happy with WHO, and WHAT one is.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Hospitals should be the one place where medical treatment knows no limits, biases.

Sorry, xuen, but I have to side with Obama on this one.


Would you still side with Obama if there was a 100% link to Pope Francis's Jesuit Order agenda?

The agenda being force pervision on American citizens?

Careful with this one.


I don't know what that is.

Will have to look it up.

I'm an individualist. Not left or right.

If an individual wants to have something done and can afford it, then I don't see a problem.

As for your suggestion, will have to read up on it.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Okay...searching now.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
well, I found the section of the law, if anyone wants to help me read through the 362 pg. monster! I highly doubt if it is forcing insurance companies to pay for unnecessary abortions or gender transitions. and, the little bit I have read kind of leads me to believe that their is an exemption on religious grounds.
I just don't buy the assertions that the ops is putting forth.
could it be forcing hospitals and insurance companies to be paying for some abortions or gender transitions, under the right conditions, sure. but, I am pretty sure all those catholic hospitals out there will still be able to get away with leaving nature to just take it's sweet times during miscarriages and more women will develop severe infections because of their religious beliefs.
but basically, I think what it is saying that if a gay person comes in with an ingrown toenail, you can't refuse him treatment because he is guy. you can't charge women more for their insurance, just because they are women. and you have to do your best to accommodate the disabled and non-english speaking communities.

but well, here is the whole 362 pages of the nightmare, if anyone wants to prove me wrong!

s3.amazonaws.com...
edit on 14-5-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join