Questions about the “Affordable Care Act”

Doctors Guns IIFirst, a misnomer: the “Affordable Care Act” ISN’T, particularly for the American Taxpayers who are FUNDING it.

[An aside: you know, honest to God, I really do conjure that the bulk of what Rush Limbaugh terms “Low Information Voters” believe that the government is the source, the fount, of all income — and not the Mark I, Model I American Taxpayer.  America has, sadly, become Brain-Glazingly Ignorant within the past few generations.  Too many alleged Americans believe that their governmental Free Cheese grows on trees.]

I ruminate because of Old NFO‘s recent blogpost involving “My Medical Appointment.”

Please read it before continuing.

With that in mind, in re doctors now apparently asking patients about their firearms during a medical consultation that has and should have nothing to do with firearms, I posit a few questions for my ever-intelligent readers:

1. Are you or have you been posed any questions about firearms during a recent medical visit?
2. What was your answer?
3. Are these questions lawful?
4. Are you legally required to answer them?
5. What statutes are involved?  Provide citations.

Because, up to this point, much has been written that I suspect is hearsay, unsupported and/or otherwise anecdotal from other sites.

Please, I ask, if you have answers to the above questions, kindly provide situations and citations and statutes.

BZ

P.S.
Excellent Forbes.com article about the issue, here.

Doctors Guns I

 

Bob Woodward: Obama has a “kind of madness”

And I most certainly agree.

I already wrote here that I believe Mr Obama has NPD, which is Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  You can hear it every day, over and over and over, in his speeches.  He loves the sound of his voice, and every tenth word is “I.”  Because, after all, it’s all about him.

Here, Woodward takes Mr Obama to task.  Things have gotten so bad in DC that historic Liberals are starting to stutter-step:

Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision “a kind of madness.”

Woodward: “Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”

Mr Obama wants you to hurt.  He wants you to feel pain.  He wants you to feel the shock and agony that he allegedly feels by those evil sequestration cuts.

First, he’s releasing illegal Mexicans and then kicking Janet Napolitano to the curb via Jay Carney, because Mr Obama lacks the balls to do the job himself.

Mr Obama wants to make you hurt.  Because he is being defied — and he cannot possibly countenance defiance.  He wants everything and everyone and every issue held at arms’ length from him.  He absolves himself of all responsibility, culpability, capacity, charge, burden, duty or obligation.  A bit like salesmen who must be “always closing,” Mr Obama is always campaigning.  And he never is actually governing.

Mr Obama’s minions are already claiming that teachers are receiving pink slips.  Another LIE.

It’s just one massive shell game of DC lies and — I completely concur this time with Woodward — naked madness.

BZ

P.S.
New word, now, is that a “senior staffer” at the White House called Woodward and threatened him, saying that Woodward would “regret” his words about Obama.

Perfectly in keeping with the dirty tactics, lies and corruption in the Obaka Regime.

The continuance of “Chicago Politics,” anyone?