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

a reply to: CranialSponge

Look it all boils down to one simple thing:

It ALL boils down to one thing. True.

LEFTIST's keep writing checks they KNOW they can't cash.

Did the government just mandate abortions????

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: neo96

Look it all boils down to one simple thing:

If you want to run your own show, then stop accepting handouts from the very people whom you're refusing to provide services for.

Otherwise if you accept those federal funds, then you accept the rules that go with said funds.

Don't like the rules ? Then rip up the paycheque.


It's as simple as that.

The problem is that the Feds steal the money from the people then blackmail them to get their own money back. It is criminal what this Federal Government does.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

ya know, you can go back and click on the link I provided to the actual wording of the law, but I am pretty sure it have the words medically necessary. usually if someone decides they want an abortion, they just go to a clinic and have it done, they don't go to the hospital er for it! if a person had abortion in a hospital, it probably is for a danged good reason! and right now, there are many hospitals in this country where you could wind up in having a miscarriage and end up laying in agony for days on end because they will refuse to abort the fetus, even if your water has broken, and they know danged well the child has no chance of survival. you will have to wait till the heartbeat stops, and this will increase the risk of infection, hemorrhaging, and other life threatening complications. and I doubt if this law will have any effect on that situation since they are catholic hospitals with their sincerely held constitutionally protected beliefs that are the problem.

I am having a hard time understanding why on earth tax money should be spent alleviating a mothers worries about her kids runny nose but for some reason, but shouldn't be used to treat women with what is basically seen as the best course of action when they have these types of complications.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Teikiatsu

A person standing in line at a soup kitchen doesn't get to demand that they be provided with their own rooftop service fully stocked with a private waiter, violinist, and champagne on ice.

You either accept the way the free handout works or f*** off and go make your own soup.

Ummm, no.

You see the hospitals apply for federal funding based on set guidelines. Mandating new guidelines while already inside the "contract" is just bullying and overreaching.

What would you say if your mortgage company sent you a letter saying that you had to bake them cookies every week now along with your payment.?They funded your house.

a reply to: In4ormant

What would you say if your mortgage company sent you a letter saying that you had to bake them cookies every week now along with your payment.?They funded your house.

Then I guess I'd have to run out and buy more cookie sheets.

When you've signed your John Hancock on the dotted line accepting somebody else's financing, they own you.

Blackmail or not, they own you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So if a woman comes in and demands an abortion for convenience, not because it's ectopic or life-threatening in any way, the old conscience protections should no longer apply?

a reply to: CranialSponge

No they dont. You can't change the rules mid stream.

Buy more cookie sheets---really?

That's a little spineless bro

I'm still trying to figure out how the federal government contributes to my life in any way.

The boys/girls in uniform are welcome to my tax money, all the rest of it can take a damn hike.

a reply to: In4ormant

No they dont. You can't change the rules mid stream.

Buy more cookie sheets---really?

That's a little spineless bro

They can change whatever the hell they want, they made the terms and conditions of the agreement with an important little stipulation at the bottom... they assume the right to change the terms of the agreement within reason at any time they see fit. They also assume the right to cancel said agreement at any time they see fit too.

So at that point you have a choice:

You can either accept the contract changes and continue to live in your house, or you can hand over the keys and walk away.

Your choice.


Nothing to do with spinelessness and everything to do contractual agreements and the accepted obligations of both parties.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

So if a woman comes in and demands an abortion for convenience, not because it's ectopic or life-threatening in any way, the old conscience protections should no longer apply?

Tough question.

I hate the abortion topic because I hate abortion, but it is legal, and if a hospital does provide them, then she could get one.

If a hospital isn't equipped to provide abortions or sex changes, then they cannot be mandated. It takes a lot more than a mandate from the government. Equipment, OR's, trained doctors, trained staff also need to already exist.

Basically, I'd side on the rights of the individual. If it isn't infringing on anyone else's rights then it should be allowed.

Abortion argument aside.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Your assumption that all contracts have stipulations that allow 1 party to change the rules at anytime is false. Sounds like your making stuff up to fit your position at this point.

You used the word obligations. Obligations would only exist within the predetermined guidelines of the agreed upon contract. If either party had the ability to change their mind on following said guidelines or changing them on a whim then it would ceased to exist as a contract in the first place.

a reply to: In4ormant

Is Obama demanding that hospitals sign a new contract agreement in order to continue receiving federal funds ?

Or is Obama demanding that these hospitals continue to fulfill their obligations already agreed upon in the terms and conditions of receiving federal funds ?

a reply to: CranialSponge

Your advocating their position, don't you know?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: In4ormant

Is Obama demanding that hospitals sign a new contract agreement in order to continue receiving federal funds ?

Or is Obama demanding that these hospitals continue to fulfill their obligations already agreed upon in the terms and conditions of receiving federal funds ?

Here's a hint

"The Obama administration claims its new rule “builds on” prior federal civil rights laws to prohibit sex discrimination in health care."

See the word NEW. ....

a reply to: In4ormant

Changes happen to contracts all the time.

Both parties have to agree to the changes. If one party does not agree to the changes, then that party has the right to walk away from the contract with no repercussions because any changes/addendums are considered a new contract, therefore the opposing party has no more obligation to fulfill under the old agreement.

Or they can take it to court and fight it.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I thought you had to go buy more cookie sheets, which one is it?

Did you even read the article?

a reply to: In4ormant

"The Obama administration claims its new rule “builds on” prior federal civil rights laws to prohibit sex discrimination in health care."

See the word NEW. ....

Well then, perhaps these hospitals might have grounds to take it to court.

OR

They can just simply choose to walk away from the agreement altogether, which means no more federal funds.


I guess the individual hospitals will decide which path they choose to take.

Some folks will see it as blackmailing, some folks will see it as a civil rights issue.



It's a shame medical science has decided to jump into the political ring.... nobody wins in that game.

a reply to: In4ormant

I thought you had to go buy more cookie sheets, which one is it?

It's all of the above.

If I were in that position, I'd have three choices to make:

1) Run out and buy more cookie sheets
2) Shop around for a new creditor and tell the old ones to shove it
3) Hand over the keys to my their house

There's actually a fourth choice as well:

4) Take it to court and fight over it


I guess it would depend on how badly I wanted to hang on to the house in question.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: In4ormant

"The Obama administration claims its new rule “builds on” prior federal civil rights laws to prohibit sex discrimination in health care."

See the word NEW. ....

Well then, perhaps these hospitals might have grounds to take it to court.

OR

They can just simply choose to walk away from the agreement altogether, which means no more federal funds.


I guess the individual hospitals will decide which path they choose to take.

Some folks will see it as blackmailing, some folks will see it as a civil rights issue.



It's a shame medical science has decided to jump into the political ring.... nobody wins in that game.

"The final rule applies to "any health program or activity" that receives funding through the HHS, including hospitals or doctors accepting payments through taxpayer-subsidized programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, or Obamacare marketplaces. "

And saying it's government money is rediculous. See the terms used up there. Medicare, Medicaid etc.

How are those programs funded? My tax money, your tax money.

On top of that, doctors are being forced to do things against their ethics.

So the government makes them accept all patients, insured or not. Makes them accept Medicaid/medicare/obamacare cards as insurance (which we fund) and then says...."Hey! All those things we already force you to do, we are gonna add some more to it or stop paying you when you accept the insurance we force you to accept"