Well, Songwronger, it appears to me that the U.N. didn't think carefully enough about the wording in their definition of genocide. They forgot to word it so as to permit birth control in a nation in connection with what occurs in a tax-related program.

Does this matter?

Why don't you write the people at the U.N. and advise them to get the specific wording changed so that Mr Obama won't be technically violating the complex terms they have set out (by strict legal interpretation of the wording). They probably didn't think of an ordinary tax situation when they were talking about "imposed measure". All taxes, after all, are imposed by the government which passes them, but I doubt that the U.N. had that in mind in regards to a ruling on genocide! ;-) I mean, get serious...!

My real question is...well, no, I have 2 real questions. ;-D

1. Why do you care about this in the first place? It's trivial.

2. And...why are all the furious posters here bothering to react in such an apoplectic manner to what you've said about it?

Because...this is something that doesn't matter. Why should anyone care? It's nitpicking about legal language, not a real problem of any kind.

There are definitely things to object to concerning Obamacare, serious things, but this thing you've brought up is utterly trivial and irrelevant.