Healthcare Bill doesn't cover Abortion. We been lied too

[Mannyfit75]

I was digging deeper and I found out that the Healthcare Bill that was recently passed does not fund abortion.

The AP states the following:

Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system for President Barack Obama’s signature. Here are some of the features of the legislation.

HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.

COST: $938 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine, which takes effect in 2014. There is an exemption for low-income people.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.

MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.

If the Senate approves a package of changes this week, a special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity would be eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.

TAXES: To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent. If the Senate follows through, it would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans above the threshold of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the “doughnut hole” coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare’s catastrophic coverage kicks in.

EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: Employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers’ coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company’s entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement.

SUBSIDIES: The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.

ABORTION: The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.

GOP HEALTH CARE SUMMIT IDEAS: Following a bipartisan health care summit last month, Obama announced he was open to incorporating several Republican ideas into his legislation. But two of the principle ones — hiring investigators to pose as patients and search for fraud at hospitals and increasing spending for medical malpractice reform initiatives — did not make it into the legislation. The legislation incorporates only one, an increase in payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid, an idea mentioned by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I was digging deeper and I found out that the Health care Bill that was recently passed does not fund abortion.

The AP states the following:

The question revolves largely around an amendment to the House health care bill that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday. The amendment prohibits federal funds from explicitly subsidizing abortion in the private health care plans to be offered through the health insurance exchange (read it here). But it doesn’t prevent “the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage” of abortion.

That means the public health care option could cover abortions that the government is currently barred from funding by way of the Hyde amendment, a rider to the annual health and human services appropriations bill that keeps Medicaid from funding abortion except in rare circumstances. But Democrats say the entire health care bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, meaning that public funds are still barred from covering abortions, so long as the amendment continues to be reauthorized annually.

(As found here… onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=745436)

The new laws just allow someone else to pull the trigger… and even if you apply to Hyde amendment and “Assume” it is actually being used the language in the Bill, by itself, has no guarantee’s. Why not put them in? Do you think maybe it was so that IF/WHEN the Hyde is not renewed then it will really kick in Sanger’s Serenade?

 

[VinceSumoski]

Over the years since Roe v. Wade, many have stated that they are against abortion unless it’s for the health of the mother. This exception is common when legislation concerning abortion is debated. What does “health of the mother” really mean? In the case of Doe v. Bolton in 1973, the Supreme Court issued their opinion about it. In this companion case to Roe v. Wade, the Court stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her “health.” The Court defined “health” as:

“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, “an abortion is necessary” is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”*

In other words, the “woman’s health” aspect could cover **almost any reason **for abortion. A woman could say that her child would cause her stress, or she is not ready to have a family, and that would be sufficient.

prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/08/the_health_of_t.php

 

[magdelaine]

Please. What about the millions that will go into funding “community health centers”? So what if it says somewhere in the bill that this money “shouldn’t” be used for abortions? Since when did Planned Parenthood become law abiding?

Heck, I’m not even sure the bill says that.

Let me ask you a question: If HC won’t fund abortions, why aren’t PP, NARAL, and other pro-death institutions up in arms against it? Why is it that all you hear from their direction is crickets chirping?

 

[mary_bobo]

Please. What about the millions that will go into funding “community health centers”? So what if it says somewhere in the bill that this money “shouldn’t” be used for abortions? Since when did Planned Parenthood become law abiding?

Heck, I’m not even sure the bill says that.

Let me ask you a question: If HC won’t fund abortions, why aren’t PP, NARAL, and other pro-death institutions up in arms against it? Why is it that all you hear from their direction is crickets chirping?

Good points. If one wants to quench their thirst in the well of Kool=Aid, they can have the bill cover and mean anything they want, just like the change we were promised could be construed to mean anything we wanted it to.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

If you say the bill doesn’t cover abortion, then why do you think that all pro-life organizations (with the exeption of Democrats For Life) and the USCCB were still against it even up to the last minute before the vote? The bishops insisted that the bill was anti-life and that the executive order deal that Stupak struck with the President wouldn’t do enough to help. The only way it could have been a pro-life bill was to add the Stupak amendment, which did not happen.

And by the way, Stupak is the biggest $@^$*%#$ I’ve ever seen. What a traitor. Did anyone else watch him as he accused the Republicans of trying to derail the bill and politicize life with the Stupak amendment? As far as I’m concerned, he is the one who politicized life, doing all he did to try and make people think he’s pro-life and then stabbing all the pro-lifers in the back by voting for the bill that the bishops insist will cover abortions.

 

[djeter]

Cardinal George’s take on the Stupak vote or how ObamaCare will impact Abortion:

“The Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute.

Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.”

For some comments on Bartman2 (Bartman1 was Steve Bartman – talk to a Cubbies fan if the name doesn’t ring a bell…) Bartman2 is our own Bart Stupak. Couple of interesting minute long clips – one where the Bartman falls all over himself explaining his amendment and defense of the unborn to a Michigan Pro-life group – they boo & hiss him BTW. Another clip is El Rushbo commenting on the Bartman taking on Big Pharma.

You can find it all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/03/22/bartman-ii-saves-the-children/

Please Please take the opportunity to email the Bartman’s Bishop to request a private chat on the role of Catholics as public officials and undermining Church teachings in the public square.

dj

 

[djeter]

And by the way, Stupak is the biggest $@^$*%#$ I’ve ever seen. What a traitor. Did anyone else watch him as he accused the Republicans of trying to derail the bill and politicize life with the Stupak amendment? As far as I’m concerned, he is the one who politicized life, doing all he did to try and make people think he’s pro-life and then stabbing all the pro-lifers in the back by voting for the bill that the bishops insist will cover abortions.

Did you catch Bartman2 accusing the pro-life group he originally voted with and who supported his amendment of “disingenuousness.” Whatta sleazeball. Write his bishop – see my post above.

dj

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Putting one’s head in the sand has resulted in Deathcare being shoved down our unwilling throats.

Your ancestors shed their blood to give you the precious right to vote, although I believe that right may soon be rescinded.

Our current leaders refuse to acknowledge that ALL rights come from God.

And yet I realize this current president was correct when he stated that America is no longer a Christian nation.

We have become earth-worshipping, socialist pagans.

We could not prevent the state from taking the life of the innocent Terri Schiavo. We could not prevent the state from flouting the very Constitution on which it was founded.

We have Endangered Species acts, but think that ‘health care’ means using our tax dollars to destroy unborn babies.

When one party includes abortion-on-demand in its very platform, how can a Catholic continue supporting that party?

Unless the word ‘Catholic’ has also lost its meaning. And that is why this is now a pagan nation.

 

[Newbie2]

If you say the bill doesn’t cover abortion, then why do you think that all pro-life organizations (with the exeption of Democrats For Life) and the USCCB were still against it even up to the last minute before the vote? The bishops insisted that the bill was anti-life and that the executive order deal that Stupak struck with the President wouldn’t do enough to help. The only way it could have been a pro-life bill was to add the Stupak amendment, which did not happen.

And by the way, Stupak is the biggest $@^$*%#$ I’ve ever seen. What a traitor. Did anyone else watch him as he accused the Republicans of trying to derail the bill and politicize life with the Stupak amendment? As far as I’m concerned, he is the one who politicized life, doing all he did to try and make people think he’s pro-life and then stabbing all the pro-lifers in the back by voting for the bill that the bishops insist will cover abortions.

He had the chance to really do some good pro-life work here, and sold out. He’ll pay at the ballot box and quite possibly in the afterlife.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

He had the chance to really do some good pro-life work here, and sold out. He’ll pay at the ballot box and quite possibly in the afterlife.

Back in OCTOBER, Stupak said he would vote for the bill even if it funded abortion.

 

[Newbie2]

Back in OCTOBER, Stupak said he would vote for the bill even if it funded abortion.

A Democrat is a Democrat…

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Putting one’s head in the sand has resulted in Deathcare being shoved down our unwilling throats.

Your ancestors shed their blood to give you the precious right to vote, although I believe that right may soon be rescinded.

Our current leaders refuse to acknowledge that ALL rights come from God.

And yet I realize this current president was correct when he stated that America is no longer a Christian nation.

We have become earth-worshipping, socialist pagans.

We could not prevent the state from taking the life of the innocent Terri Schiavo. We could not prevent the state from flouting the very Constitution on which it was founded.

We have Endangered Species acts, but think that ‘health care’ means using our tax dollars to destroy unborn babies.

When one party includes abortion-on-demand in its very platform, how can a Catholic continue supporting that party?

Unless the word ‘Catholic’ has also lost its meaning. And that is why this is now a pagan nation.

You’re nuts

 

[Convert66]

You’re right that we were lied to, but you have the wrong defendant.

Simply put, we were continuously assured that there was no provision to allow federal funds to go to support abortion procedures, right? Now you say that you agree and that those who said otherwise were lying to us. If that is the case, please explain why the President had to offer an executive order to “fix” the language that would allow for abortions if, as you say, such language was never there in the first place?

Yes, we were lied to, by the President and his apologists.

Also, we all know that a simple legal challenge of his promised executive order in front of a friendly Clinton-appointee, filed by, oh, let’s say, NARAL or NOW, and that executive order is overturned; thus, recusing the President of blame. How’s that for an “inconvenient truth?”

We are being lied to, indeed.

 

[peary]

I was digging deeper and I found out that the Healthcare Bill that was recently passed does not fund abortion.

I don’t think you dug deep enough. Consider these points:

The Senate language that supposedly bans abortion funding relies on a segregation of funds model that will at best free up resources for the funding of abortion and at worst be a total sham. This is not the approach taken under current law to denying federally subsidized abortion coverage to military personnel and federal employees. At the very least, the plan directly subsidizes insurance that covers abortion.

The Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide ban on public funding of abortion. It is a rider attached to a particular appropriation. Not only could a future Congress fail to extend the Hyde Amendment, but this health care bill creates funding streams that are not covered by Hyde.

Unlike the Stupak regulations, the Nelson regulations do not even cover the $11 billion that is to go to community health centers who also maintain reproductive services. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits any of this money to be used for abortion.

Courts have ruled that where there is no specific statutory prohibition, public health programs must fund abortions. Based on these rulings, Medicaid originally paid for about 300,000 abortions a year. That is why the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976. Other public health programs that were not covered by Hyde Amendment-like provisions, like the Indian Health Services Program, eventually subsidized abortions. Specific congressional action was required to stop it. These community health centers are not required to report abortions.

A basic rule of thumb is that if you don’t want public funding of abortion, the legislature has to specifically forbid it. Where there is no ban, there will eventually be abortion funding. Where the ban relies on accounting gimmicks, it invites abortion funding.

 

[magdelaine]

You’re nuts

Geez, are all you capable of is ad-hominem attacks? In the last 24 hours I’ve seen you write “sick”, “teabagger”, “nuts”, and “pharisee” in referencing people you don’t agree with rather than actually providing an argument.

If you are a professor, you need to go back to school.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Does the fact that Rep. Neugebauer yelled “baby killer” about the bill imply anything?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

You’re nuts

And it can’t happen here, right?

 

[jdnation]

I have not been keeping up with this current state of affairs in the US. Can anyone be so kind as to briefly explain to me precisely what’s going over this?

From what I can gather, this bill supposedly tries to present itself as offering no abortion funding, but is so vaguely worded that abortion funding can still get through by other channels?

 

[dmelosi]

I have not been keeping up with this current state of affairs in the US. Can anyone be so kind as to briefly explain to me precisely what’s going over this?

From what I can gather, this bill supposedly tries to present itself as offering no abortion funding, but is so vaguely worded that abortion funding can still get through by other channels?

It really is that vague. I called my congressman to ask what the bill actually meant and how it affected people immediatly. He told me that nobody knows for sure yet.