Abortion And The Baucus Health Reform Plan

I'm pro--choice, but money is fungible. No one is fooled by diverting some of the private payments into a separate fund to pay for abortions. If health plans pay for abortions in cash, will they have to dye the money pink before disbursing it?
.
Of course, given my political views, I'd be happiest to have the bill completely silent on the topic of abortion and let the market take care of it. But the same folks who anathemize tinkering with the market in other situations are just dying to legislate this particular *legal* medical procedure out of existence.
.
So who's the biggest hypocrite here?

Michael, how long will the Acorn story boycott last from Time

Why does the media take seriously people's objection to the use of tax dollars to fund abortion but not take seriously people's objection to the use of tax dollars to fund other disagreeable things like war or the DEA?

Baucus is a twit. I want to know - will federal dollars go to pay for viagra?

then they should go to pay for ALL of women's health as well. And that includes abortion if the woman and her doctor agree on the procedure.

Tired of all these fat old white guys.

"...he issue of abortion in health reform has been a hotly contested one."

Contested by who? A bunch of right-wing obstructionists belly-aching is not a dispute, a debate or an argument. Buy a damn dictionary!

Not only is health care reform the new immigration reform, it's the new reversal of roe v. wade too! Sort of a 3 in 1 package.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE:

Baucus bill contains "an array of pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for elective abortion," and provisions that "will gravely endanger the lives of America's senior citizens."

WASHINGTON -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life group comprised of 50 state right-to-life organizations and about 3,000 local chapters, today reacted to the new bill issued by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mt.).

ABORTION MANDATES AND FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

The following statement may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, NRLC legislative director:

The "America's Healthy Future Act," proposed today by Senator Max Baucus (D-Mt.), contains an array of pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for elective abortion. National Right to Life strongly opposes the legislation in its current form. We will work in support of amendments to eliminate the abortion mandates and federal abortion subsidies.

The bill contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion. This would be a drastic break from longstanding federal policy, under which federal funds do not pay for elective abortions or subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions. For example, current law prohibits any of the over 250 private health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program from paying for elective abortions, because these plans receive federal subsidies. These private plans cover over 8 million federal employees and dependents, including members of Congress.

Thus, under the Baucus bill, like the House Democratic leadership bill (H.R. 3200), federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions. In addition, the Baucus bill requires that a specific charge must be included in the premiums paid by those who enroll in such subsidized plans, of at least "$1 per enrollee, per month," which amounts to a surcharge specifically for elective abortions.

These bills are not consistent with President Obama's September 9 claim that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," or with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius's September 13 affirmation that "no public funds would go to fund abortions." Funds spent by federal agencies are, by law, federal funds. The claim that under these bills, a federal agency would use "private funds" to subsidize abortions is absurd on its face -- a political hoax.

In addition, the Baucus bill provides $6 billion in federal funds for the establishment of health insurance cooperatives, without any limitation on the use of these funds to pay for abortions or to subsidize plans that pay for elective abortions.

In addition, the Baucus bill contains language that would allow the federal government to declare abortion to be a "mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package" in any circumstances in which the federal Medicaid program could pay for an abortion. Currently, the federal Medicaid program pays for abortion only in three limited circumstances: to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. But that limitation depends on language, the Hyde Amendment, that expires every September 30, and that must be renewed annually as part of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under the Baucus language, if one house of Congress, and/or the President, blocked renewal of the Hyde Amendment, many private insurance plans could be forced to include abortion on demand as a mandatory benefit in the minimum benefits package. This would be another major departure from the status quo. (Currently, only 13 percent of all abortions are billed directly to private insurance, according to the Guttmacher Institute.)

HEALTH CARE RATIONING

In addition to the abortion funding provisions described above, the bill also contains several elements which would greatly impact the ability of patients to receive unrationed medical care. The following statement may be attributed to Burke J. Balch, J.D., director of NRLC's Powell Center for Medical Ethics:

With respect to rationing, the proposal contains a Medicare provision that, beginning in 2015, would severely financially penalize physicians who are in the top 10% of medical resource use. This provision does not link funding to outcomes or quality; instead, it will force a "race to the bottom" with relentless pressure on doctors to limit health care for their older patients. On top of the significant Medicare cuts in the bill, this will gravely endanger the lives of America's senior citizens.

The bill does contain language that seeks to prevent the use of comparative effectiveness analysis in a manner that would discriminatorily deny treatment because of age, disability, or terminal illness. However, this language would not affect the financial incentive to ration care as described above.

While NRLC continues to review this complex bill, there remain many other places in the bill where the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given discretion to regulate the treatment that healthcare providers can give to their patients. Without the anti-discrimination language contained in Comparative Effectiveness portions, the most vulnerable remain open to denial of treatment.

The National Right to Life Committee is the nation's largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

# # #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael,

Those 46% and 87% numbers of private plans that cover abortion don't add up. It's like using the poll numbers from a political party. Both are from studies from very active Pro-Choice Organizations. The 46% is from Kaiser, the 87% is from Guttmacher, a spinoff of Planned Parenthood. And the Guttmacher 87%, which they freel admit, includes plans that cover abortions only to save the life of the mother - most plans in America cover life-saving emergency care - BUT that is not the issue in this legislation - we are talking about the funding tens of thousands of elective abortions.

Planned Parenthood stated that only 13% of their 300,000+ abortions were paid by insurance last year. Secretary Sebillius said that most plans do not cover abortion in her confirmation hearings and the Insurance trade organization (names escapes me) has said repeatedly that most employers do not cover insurance. Also, don't confuse plans with employers.

The status quo is that most of the privately insured in America do not have abortion coverage. The status quo in America is that the federal government, by separate permanent statutes, doesn't subsidize any private insurance plans that cover abortion for the Military or Indian Health Services. And since 1983 (with the exception of 1993-1996), by annual limitation amendment, the federal government has not subsidized any private insurance plans that cover abortion for its 8 million federal employees, the largest employer in the nation. And, of course, the federal government does not subsidize abortions and private insurance plans that cover abortion for Medicaid enrollees (Hyde annual limitation). All that being said, Hyde may not last and then we will be funding 300,000+ abortions just as we did in 1976 (the President's campaign indicated his oppostion last year). And another important fact is that Guttmacher has consistently put out study after study which conclude 15-30% of woman would have had an abortion if they could afford it. That tells me we are paying for abortion. Think about Rick Pitino - did he pay for the health insurance or the abortion?

Michael Scherer:
.
If we don't cover abortions, will that reduce the annual price tag on health care per person in America from $7000 to something comparable to the rest of the industrialized world, like, say, $4000?
.
Or does it not really matter?

I would like the government not to spend my tax money for war please.

If our government starts paying for the consequenses of citizens actions; what kind of message is this sending to our children??? "Don't worry if you screw up when your older becasue the goverment will fix it for you." If this is the route our goverment wishes to go, I would think then that they not only should pay for abortions; but also, for liver transplants for alcoholics/drug users, gastric by-pass surgery for the obese, etc., etc.....

Alright. I'm pro-life. I think that abortion in many cases stops a beating heart (well...that's true), that many times it's just a way to ditch out on responsibility (often among men...often they will pressure the woman into it), that it's an abomination that partial-birth abortion was allowed for so long, and that liberals often use the few rape/incest instances (less than 2%) to provide cover for the rest of the cases. The one way I differ with many conservatives on this is that, like many other things, I think it should be a states issue.
.
BUT, I think in regards to health care, we just have to ask this- is abortion a legal, accepted procedure in this country? This leads to the next question, should it be covered under a federal program? The answer to both HAS to be the SAME. It's either legal or it's not.
.
Did people who were against the Iraq War have to pay taxes to support it?

[...] This latest bill sets out that federal funding will not be provided for women seeking abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. [...]

[...] Magazine correspondent Michael Scherer discusses the Baucus plan in detail and describes ‘Co-Ops' or “private non-profit [...]