Making Hyde Amendment into law a new priority (and possibility) thanks to Obamacare
There has been a lot of chatter about the Hyde Amendment since Obamacare was introduced and passed.
Since 1976 the Hyde Amendment has banned federal taxpayer funding of most abortions. It is named after its original sponsor, pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde, pictured right. But Hyde isn’t a law; it must be approved every year. Nor did Hyde cover Obamacare.
The Stupak Amendment would have codified the Hyde Amendment into Obamacare, but we all know that ended up on the Democrat cutting room floor.
For years there has been neither the political will nor ability to codify the Hyde Amendment into permanent law – until now. Kathryn Lopez wrote at National Review Online August 9:
House Republicans went back to their districts at the end of July with a draft agenda for the fall campaign and priorities for a 112th Congress that they hope will be in their care.
Included in it, in the health-care section, is this, a commitment to permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion: “Congress should codify the Hyde Amendment and explicitly prohibit all federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.”….
[In addition] Republican congressman Chris Smith of NJ and brave Democrat Dan Lipinski of IL introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” right before they left DC for the summer recess. It would do exactly what the House Republican leadership promises to do if they are in the majority next time around: codify the Hyde Amendment across the board….
H.R. 5939, the aforementioned No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, has 159 bipartisan cosponsors – 20 Democrats and 141 Republicans. Read the current list here, and if you don’t see your representative on it, call and ask him or her to sign on.
There are some interesting omissions on the list, particularly a certain MI Democrat:
Democrats who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment who have not cosponsored HR 5939 are: Altmire, Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop, Boccieri, Cardoza, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis (AL), Doyle, Driehaus, Etheridge, Gordon, Hill, Holden, Kaptur, Kildee, Langevin, Lynch, Matheson, Melancon, Michaud, Mollohan, Neal, Obey, Perriello, Pomeroy, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ryan (OH), Salazar, Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak, Tanner, Teague.
Republicans who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment who have not cosponsored HR 5939 are: Biggert, Bilbray, Bono Mack, Capito, Castle, Chaffetz, Dent, Dreier, Flake, Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Hastings, Heller, Kirk, Lance, Lewis (CA), LoBiondo, Lucas, Mack (FL), Miller (FL), Nunes, Paul (TX), Petri, Putnam, Reichert, Rohrabacher, Rooney, Royce, Simpson, Walden, Young (FL), Young (AK).
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thanks for this info can you list the states and the districts of these Dems and
Rep. so we can contact these U.S Reps about this?
The problem with this type of law is that it singles out one surgical procedure as “undesirable”, in this case abortion, however if this gets passed into law while the republicans are in charge of congress you may very well see its powers extended under the direction “political campaign contributions” of the insurance industry. This would be disastrous for consumers “especially lower income” as any procedure not covered by Obama-care would then have to be covered by private insurance, which would have one of two effects. 1 Insurance premiums would rise sharply or 2 the insurance companies will follow suit with the federal government and start deciding which procedures they will pay for and which ones they won’t indiscriminately.
The term “Universal Health Care” means all health care to all people. We cannot pick and choose which medical procedures someone else cannot have. There is a reason this has yet to make it into law. It would infringe on people’s right to confidential medical treatment. You are trying to infringe on people’s right to privacy which is the main hurdle in the anti-choice argument and the one that has kept abortion legal for almost 40 years.
I know you guys see this law as a possible win for the anti-choice side of the argument but it would set a prescient that could come back and bite us all on issues that have nothing to do with abortion.
As for PP they will be just fine, if passed they will simply change the routing of funds. They will put 100% of government grants to disease treatment and prevention as well as sex education, which will free up lots of donor cash to help keep the price of abortions low. The money will simply switch accounts and it will have no effect on women access to or paying for abortion services.
To me this seems a big waste of time that I think will get lost in red tape anyway…
Abortion is not health care. It’s an elective surgery that ends the life of a human being, and no one should be compelled to pay for someone else’s abortion. Period.
I know you guys see this law as a possible win for the anti-choice side of the argument but it would set a prescient that could come back and bite us all on issues that have nothing to do with abortion. As for PP they will be just fine, if passed they will simply change the routing of funds. They will put 100% of government grants to disease treatment and prevention as well as sex education, which will free up lots of donor cash to help keep the price of abortions low. The money will simply switch accounts and it will have no effect on women access to or paying for abortion services. To me this seems a big waste of time that I think will get lost in red tape anyway…
Ooh, a concern troll! Run along now.
Marauder – Yes it is that’s why it has to be performed by a trained medical professional at the same place you go for all the rest of your healthcare… Denial of the truth does not make it go away.
Austin – What a well prepared and researched comment. Your grasp of literary nuances is very apparent in your writing. Thank you for enlightening us all with your wisdom and bringing real insight to our discussion. Run along now!
Biggz
August 11th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“The problem with this type of law is that it singles out one surgical procedure as ‘undesirable’, in this case abortion…”
Can someone (other than Biggz) explain to me how this somehow isn’t the point pro-lifers have been trying to make since day one?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Biggz –
It does create a bit of a slippery slope when you start allowing legislation to get in between people and their doctors. If congress finds that they can ban whatever they want, well, who knows what else could be banned?
If this does end up happening, the pro-life side massively blew it – if we had a government run plan, and that plan couldn’t have abortion in it – over time as more people shifted to the plan, abortion would be covered less and less.
The odd thing is, the far right seems to be really upset about their tax dollars possibly going to pay for an abortion, while their insurance premiums probably have been doing that for years (or at least with other plans from their insurance company).
Biggz – Let me add though that I think it makes sense that something that has been threatened and thrown around should actually become more than a guideline.I mean, it has been around since the mid 70’s, and just stayed a guideline through what, 22 years of GOP presidencies?
Okay, all you poor-choicers are whining over this amendment because you don’t think that people have a right to say what procedures a person can and can’t have done. However, that is NOT the case here. They can have it done, but they cannot use OUR money for it! Similarly, they can’t use our money for penile enlargement, breast enlargement, face-lifts, vaginal rejuvenation, sexual reassignment, or any other form of medical treatment that is not absolutely, positively needed for a malady, of which pregnancy is not.
Furthermore, it is a MORTAL SIN for us Catholics to have ANY part in procuring, or helping another person procure, an abortion. Therefore, it is EXTREME religious discrimination to make us pay for it!
Why don’t you all get that?!
We’re not talking about a surgical procedure. Or a medical procedure. The nice, clinical terms do not disguise the truth. We’re talking about killing a baby.
Abortion is not health care. It does not serve the woman’s health, and it certainly, obviously does not serve the child’s health. The pro-aborts cannot insist that this is all about their “choice” and then demand that I and everyone else foot the bill for their “choice.” I choose not to have my tax dollars used to kill babies. Yet, of course, that’s not an acceptable choice for the pro-aborts so my choice doesn’t count.
Jennifer/Amy –
My only question is this –
If a person is morally obligated against war, should their tax dollars have to go to pay for the war(s)?
Amy – also, if you are on private (employer) insurance, have you called to see if the company you are paying covers any of those things in their plans?
Ex-GOP Voter August 11th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
“The odd thing is, the far right seems to be really upset about their tax dollars possibly going to pay for an abortion, while their insurance premiums probably have been doing that for years (or at least with other plans from their insurance company).”
RINO,
I, ME, MYSELF, choose which insurance company with whom I do business.
That is the beauty of a free market place.
When the federal government TAKES my money in the form of a ‘payroll deduction’ before I ever actually receive it from my employer, then I have no opportunity to exercise a choice before, during or after the fact.
Now the federal government is requiring me to purchase health insurance and it is still taking my money and spending it on things the constitution has never authorized.
I am sure if the liberal/progressive/humanists have their way insurance companies will be required to cover elective abortion or face loosing the oportunity to do business in the USA.
Using my wealth to subsidize organizations that are subverting our culture and our government is not too far removed from the offenses perpetrated by the king of England, which led to our separation from the monarchy and the establishment of a government of, by and for the people.
The insult in addition to the injury is that liberal/progressive/humanists are using my wealth to deliberately target a segment of our population for destruction.
Health care is not an entiltement or even a right. It is a commodity which each individual is responsible for providing for himself/herself and his family however she/he chooses to do it.
Elective abortion is NOT health care. It treats no disease or physical abnormality or injury.
I’m just fine with health insurance and/or universal health care not paying for any elective procedure.
I just finished reading a very interesting little e-novel entitled “The Lincoln Conversations” by L. Paul Brehm, who happens to be a good friend of mine. But that’s not what make his e-book so intriguing. The senior character in the book, a 90-year-old concentration camp liberator named Jack Ehrlich, talks about abortion’s long steady trek from legalization to our mainline hospitals. It reminds him of the concentration camp system throughout Germany during WWII. Jack blames the encroachment of evil on our growing indifference as a society to what is right and what is wrong. It is an electrifying little book about the chilling effect of abortion on individuals and family life in Main Line Philadelphia. I picked it up on amazon. It’s a captivating take on contemporary American culture and its tension.
I just finished reading a very interesting little e-novel entitled The Lincoln Conversations by L. Paul Brehm, who happens to be a good friend of mine. But that’s not what make his e-book so intriguing. The senior character in the book, a 90-year-old concentration camp liberator named Jack Ehrlich, talks about abortion’s long steady trek from legalization to our mainline hospitals. It reminds him of the concentration camp system throughout Germany during WWII. Jack blames the encroachment of evil on our growing indifference as a society to what is right and what is wrong. It is an electrifying little book about the chilling effect of abortion on individuals and family life in Main Line Philadelphia. I picked it up on amazon. It’s a captivating take on contemporary American culture and its tension.
RINO,
Whatever the GOP has or has not done to reduce the number of elective abortions, the democRATs have done less and, in fact, have labored to make elective abortions more easily accessible.
You seem intent on ignoring or excusing the democRATs culpability, but ever ready to point out every flaw, real or imagined, on the part of the GOP.
When the GOP is wrong I have no problem in point it out.
While you are entirely correct in pointing out that the GOP did little or nothing to end elelctive abortion while they were in the majority in both houses of congress and had a republican in the White House, you convienently ignore the democRATs using whatever means they had at their disposal to thwart any efforts to do so.
Nor can you point to any pro-life legislation introduced and passed by democRATs.
We are seeing how completely unconcerned the democRATs are with what the people want even when they are facing losing their majoritys in both houses of congress.
This is not about doing the ‘prinicipled thing’. It is about shear arrogance. They democRATs do what they do for the same reason an old hound dog licks his tender most parts, because they can.
Many of the incumbent republicans have much for which to answer for not doing the right thing and not fighting hard enough against the wrong thing. Some have already been shown the door and more will soon follow.
Happiness to me is RINO leaving office with a democRAT under each arm.
Biggz wrote:
I know you guys see this law as a possible win for the anti-choice side of the argument but it would set a prescient [sic]
I think you meant “precedent”?
that could come back and bite us all on issues that have nothing to do with abortion.
“…bite US…”? My, how we’ve grown in solidarity! I’d no idea you joined the pro-life side! :)
But seriously… your comment here makes very little sense! How would a law, restricting the use of taxpayer funds to support abortion, set any relevant “precedent”? This is legislation we’re referencing, not case law as established by court decisions (which set “precedents” which other courts are–at least in theory–supposed to respect and consider when making their own decisions)! The next president and/or congress could wipe it out with the collective stroke of a pen, with nary a twinge of red tape, and not so much as the batting of an eye over any alleged “precedent”.
As for PP they will be just fine, if passed they will simply change the routing of funds. They will put 100% of government grants to disease treatment and prevention as well as sex education,
You’re aware that they claim to do that *now*, right? No one has suggested that a Hyde “Law” would wipe PP off the map; how could it, since the Hyde Amendment and PP have coexisted for decades?
Ex-GOP Voter
August 12th, 2010 at 6:15 am
“Jennifer/Amy –
My only question is this –
If a person is morally obligated against war, should their tax dollars have to go to pay for the war(s)?”
I love this question. Love it.
So, the thing about war is that it has a public benefit. A soldier doesn’t just fight for the rights of people who support him, he fights for the rights of people who don’t. She protects the liberties of the entire nation every time she’s called up. So, yes, using tax money, even from pacifists, makes perfect sense.
By contrast, the pro-choice battle cry is–and has been for years–“My body, my choice.” Which means, “Your responsibility, your money.” Pro-choicers have invested a lot of energy into making abortion into a personal decision that no one else can be involved in. Which means that it has no public benefit whatsoever, even by their own arguments.
It is, therefore, totally illogical and completely inconsistent to use public funds to pay for a private procedure. Abortion does not and can not have a public benefit, so there’s no justification for using tax money to pay for it.
“I’m just fine with health insurance and/or universal health care not paying for any elective procedure.”
My mom just had a deviated septum corrected so she’d stop waking up gasping for breath in the middle of the night, and our insurance didn’t pay for that because it wasn’t strictly necessary. Given that, why should we, or anyone else, have to pay for someone’s abortion?
“”My body, my choice.” Which means, “Your responsibility, your money.” Pro-choicers have invested a lot of energy into making abortion into a personal decision that no one else can be involved in. Which means that it has no public benefit whatsoever, even by their own arguments.”
Exactly.
Personhood Now!
If you’re in Colorado, vote yes on Amendment 62 so every baby can live!
“It does create a bit of a slippery slope when you start allowing legislation to get in between people and their doctors. If congress finds that they can ban whatever they want, well, who knows what else could be banned?”– Ex-GOP Voter
ROFL. An Obamacare supporter claims concern about legislators getting “between people and their doctors?” Under PPACA it isn’t congress who “ban[s] whatever they want.” It’s unelected bureacrats and appointees who decide what is and isn’t covered under private plans and government-sponsored plans. Under PPACA, providers are subject to penalities for providing or referring for specialized types of care for specific types of patients. Your concern about government interference seems pretty selective.
“if we had a government run plan … ”
Ummm, under PPACA all plans are government run. That’s why we’re debating abortion funding. But we could just as easily be talking about expensive medications or high-tech treatments. When the feds determine what a private insurance plan must cover, it’s a government-run plan. When the feds determine who can enroll in a private plan vs a public plan and what cost is assessed to the enrollee, everyone becomes subject to a government-run plan.
“The odd thing is, the far right seems to be really upset about their tax dollars possibly going to pay for an abortion, while their insurance premiums probably have been doing that for years …”
Didn’t Sebellius say that most private plans don’t cover abortion except under a few restricted circumstances? Was she dishonest or do you have information not available to her? Last time I checked, at least 15 states had restrictions on private insurance coverage for abortion. As I recall, some restrictions applied only to public employees’ insurance plans, but some also applied more generally to private coverage in the state.
“…(or at least with other plans from their insurance company).”
Gee, if we had interstate competition among insurance companies, and if so many people weren’t tied to plans selected by their employers, it wouldn’t be nearly such an issue, would it?
Keli Hu, I love it. We must use this for a pro-life response.
My body, My choice
Your responsibility, Your money
I am not a poet but with you prolifers help maybe we could come up with something like:
If it’s Your body and your choice honey
Then pay-to-play, with your own money
God bless you Keli Hu.
Keli –
Good response.
Thoughts on if the war is considered unjust to Christians or society as a whole? Can war ever be unjustifiable enough to be on par – or do we always have to agree with the government on it?
Also, if the government helps nation build in another country, and builds a Mosque – that seems to fit your definition nicely – thoughts?
Just picking your brain.
Fedup – you are smart enough to know the difference between a true government run plan and one that has some regulatory oversight – so lets not even spend time there.
In regards to insurance companies and abortions – here’s a link: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
The numbers are hard to pin down exactly – here they are saying 46% on the low end, high 80’s on the high end.
you are smart enough to know the difference between a true government run plan and one that has some regulatory oversight
Thank you. Apparently, though, I’m not smart enough to determine what benefits my policy should cover. Or from whom I can purchase those benefits. Or how much I can afford in premiums or deductibles. PPACA takes away my ability to decide those things for myself.
so lets not even spend time there
Why not? This is exactly what “we the people” have every right to discuss and debate. PPACA goes beyond “regulatory oversight.” It is government usurpation of my autonomy as a citizen to make the above-mentioned decisions for myself.
Doesn’t matter whether it’s the Dems or the GOP, no party should have that kind of control over me or any other citizen. Health care shouldn’t be politicized by subjecting it to the whims of bureaucrats and appointees who do the bidding of whomever happens to occupy the White House.
PS- I hope your wife is feeling well. How much longer until EGV, Jr is due?
Ex-GOP Voter
August 12th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Keli –
Good response.
Thoughts on if the war is considered unjust to Christians or society as a whole? Can war ever be unjustifiable enough to be on par – or do we always have to agree with the government on it?
Also, if the government helps nation build in another country, and builds a Mosque – that seems to fit your definition nicely – thoughts?
Just picking your brain.
Obviously war is a bad thing, and–I feel–should only be engaged in as a last resort. I do think there are situations which make war necessary and justified. If there’s reason to believe that a war will save more lives in the long run, for example. And obviously there’s no reason (or possibility) that everyone should agree on which war is justified and which isn’t. We’re pro-life. Opposing things that are unjust but the government is supporting anyway is what we’re all about. :) So, no, nobody has to agree with the government on it. Nor should people who disagree be prevented from protesting what they feel is wrong.
As to the mosque thing…arguably that might violate the separation of Church and State, but that’s a different issue. But if you mean that the mosque would have a public benefit, therefore it’s reasonable to use public money to fund it…sort of. Why would you use American tax dollars to fund things that won’t have a public benefit in America? It’s not the responsibility of the United States to take care of the public needs of other nations. Aside from that incongruity, though, presuming we had some leftover cash or something (hahaha), I don’t have any moral problem with the US government funding construction of a mosque.
FedUp –
Thanks for asking – it means a lot that you asked, and can separate the disagreements from actual life! She’s doing great – we have about 6 weeks left – end of September. Used up favorite girl names on our first two girls – so struggling with this one.
In regards to your post – the problem is, the alternative to the government (regulating services) is letting insurance companies, which have concern for the bottom line profits over everything else (as an actual business, they really have the responsibility to put profit over everything). So while you rant about the government getting in the middle of your own autonomy – the flipside option (unless you are a millionaire – if so, you are exempt) is that you are at the whim of your insurance company. We’ve seen how that works out!
Of course, there is no easy answer. While reform won’t fix everything, it was clear status quo was fixing nothing on its own.
Keli – understand I’m not picking on you – I just liked your original response – but quite frankly, don’t see a big difference. The government spends a lot of money on a lot of different things, and certainly, some of those things are going to offend people.
I like putting it into law simply because government needs to put money where its mouth is. I think if they have strong guidelines, make them rules. I think if they threaten filibuster, make them speak for 24 hours straight. Move from talk to action – that’s what I say!
Anyways, I don’t have an issue with saying taxes shouldn’t cover abortion. I do have an issue that for years, many, many insurance plans (including the GOP’s up until about a year ago) covered abortion – and those insurance plans are essentially tax subsidized – and nobody has said a word. All of the sudden, somebody wants to give insurance to the poor and sick (two crowds Jesus seemed to care about!) and all of the sudden, abortion funding is the massive issue Christians hid behind. I know, I’m taking some liberty with my argument here – but the whole debate seemed like a race for religious people to find reasons not to like anything Obama said because he was on the left. Health care is a very moral thing in my mind, so it was disappointing to see how it all played out (and I had several non-Christian co-workers comment about that as well).
Thanks for asking – it means a lot that you asked, and can separate the disagreements from actual life!
While I find your comments about PPACA misguided, I don’t hold any personal animosity toward you. I wish you nothing but the best, and I mean that! Your comment confused me a little. Are you and your wife having a little girl, or are you uncertain about a name if you have another daughter?
the problem is, the alternative to the government (regulating services) is letting insurance companies, which have concern for the bottom line profits over everything else
Increasing rather than inhibiting competition would go a long way to address that problem. If the issue you cite was foremost in legislators’ minds, they would have addressed ERISA loopholes. That they didn’t speaks volumes, at least from my perspective.
So while you rant about the government getting in the middle of your own autonomy – the flipside option (unless you are a millionaire – if so, you are exempt) is that you are at the whim of your insurance company.
The problem with your argument, EGV, is that someone dissatisfied with his/her insurance company could, before the implementation of PPACA, switch policies or companies. After the implementation of PPACA, switching companies becomes meaningless because all will be required to offer essentially the same policies at the same premium.
A better reform package would have empowered people with more flexible policy options instead of restricting them to cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all policies. Those who are unable to afford the premium/deductible determined by the feds as appropriate for their income level will have no option to shop for a policy which excludes benefits they don’t need and which would be more affordable. Their only option will be to forego coverage, pay the fine for doing so, and pay out of pocket for expenses as best they can.
For these people, PPACA is more punitive than the status quo. Prior to PPACA’s implementation, “greedy” insurance companies don’t have the power to bar anyone from doing business with another company at whatever premium and benefit package they mutually agree upon. After PPACA, the feds gain the authority to prevent these transactions, essentially outlawing the purchase of more affordable coverage. Are these people any better off with the feds running the show? I think not.
While reform won’t fix everything, it was clear status quo was fixing nothing on its own.
Very few people suggested status quo. Opposition to PPACA isn’t opposition to reform; it’s opposition to that version of reform, as you well know :) The other problem with your position is that PPACA breaks and disrupts as much or more than it “fixes.” Congress could and should have done better. Hopefully the next Congress repeals or defunds PPACA and rolls up its sleeves to enact reform that puts patients–not bureaucrats and special interests–first.
All of the sudden, somebody wants to give insurance to the poor and sick (two crowds Jesus seemed to care about!) and all of the sudden, abortion funding is the massive issue Christians hid behind.
What an enormous smoke screen! You really haven’t been listening to a thing anyone said about the health care bill, have you?
One, it’s a bad bill. Like, awful. As that bill stands, the government is not paying for anybody’s health care. You know what they are doing? Penalizing people who don’t have health care with a yearly fee. Which means that not only are those poor people you claim to be so concerned for still not going to be able to afford insurance, they are–in essence–being penalized for being too poor to do so. (BTW, since I am one of those uninsured poor people, this makes me absolutely furious.)
Two, during that debate, everybody liked to claim that 44,000 people a year died due to lack of insurance. Okay, but given that we know there are 3000-4000 abortions per day in the US, that means 44,000 people die from abortion alone in less than two weeks!
Forgive me if I find your supposed concern for “the poor and the sick” so incredibly misplaced as to be actively harmful. Stop pretending to be concerned with saving human lives when you are clearly, in this particular debate, just conerned with not supporting anything those icky Republicans like.
FedUp –
We are having another girl.
With the income level guidelines such as they are, I think we’re talking a pretty small amount of people that would not have insurance through work, but make enough money to hit those guidelines. Regardless, there are some legit concerns at those levels. My guess is over the next few years, some of that stuff will get repackaged and worked on.
Simply allowing more competition without regulation (the right wing) would be a disaster. You’d end up with a state or two with much less regulation, so the young and healthy would flock to those plans, leaving a smaller, worse pool behind where rates will continue to fly. Haven’t we learned anything about deregulation from the financial markets and oil drilling?
A repeal and redo won’t happen. The GOP wouldn’t be able to make a plan that isn’t budget neutral without an individual mandate. No way, no how – it can’t be done without allowing for high numbers of uninsured still. Maybe they try to repeal and just go back to how it has been – but that is getting more dangerous poll wise (under 65 years, majority wants reform – strong against reform is the over 65 club which, oddly enough, is on government healthcare…)
Keli –
So you make enough money to pass the threshold but not qualify for subsidies? You say the government isn’t helping – only penalizing – but that simply isn’t true – there are subsidies for certain income limits, and certain limits can waiver out all together. And what’s the great alternative to it – simply not have insurance at all?
On your second point – so you are saying we should let people die, and maybe even expand the numbers because until abortion is fixed, it doesn’t matter anyways? I think that is what you are saying.
Third – that’s not true – I like a lot of GOP plans in other areas – I especially liked the privatization of social security (SS reform) years ago. The problem with health care is nobody on the right has come up with a workable plan. Sure, Ryan had his plan, but he skipped grading the tax cut portion of it so really, it is just a pie in the sky type scenario anyways without many hard decisions being made.
We are having another girl.
Congrats!!
With the income level guidelines such as they are, I think we’re talking a pretty small amount of people that would not have insurance through work, but make enough money to hit those guidelines.
I’m not so sure the number is inconsequential, EGV, especially when you factor in the number of sole proprietorships that will be impacted. Whether the number is small or large, I don’t think it’s acceptable to throw people who could afford policies without all the bells and whistles under the bus because they can’t afford a policy they didn’t need in the first place!
My guess is over the next few years, some of that stuff will get repackaged and worked on.
Yep, it’s called REPEAL :)
Simply allowing more competition without regulation (the right wing) would be a disaster.
Another straw man, EGV. I didn’t say reform should neglect to address issues related to insurance companies.
A repeal and redo won’t happen. The GOP wouldn’t be able to make a plan that isn’t budget neutral without an individual mandate. No way, no how – it can’t be done without allowing for high numbers of uninsured still.
We’ll see. PPACA leaves millions uninsured, and if you are honest, you will admit that nearly any reform package will.
strong against reform is the over 65 club which, oddly enough, is on government healthcare…
Perhaps the pro-rationing advisors on the president’s staff have something to do with their concerns about PPACA?
So you make enough money to pass the threshold but not qualify for subsidies? You say the government isn’t helping – only penalizing – but that simply isn’t true …
Subsidies don’t solve all the problems. Depending on the situation, out-of-pocket expenses may still be prohibitive. Then there’s the employment issue. Because PPACA penalizes employers for hiring or maintaining staff who accept a subsidy or have a member of their household who accepts a subsidy, finding/keeping a job becomes even more difficult.
Kelil nailed it.
Here is the most workable plan for health care:
My body, my choice, = my responsibility, my money.
Keep It Simple Stupid; The KISS rule rocks again.
“There are some interesting omissions on the list, particularly a certain MI Democrat:
Democrats who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment who have not cosponsored HR 5939 are:…Stupak…”
===========================================================
“The Stupak–Pitts amendment was an amendment made to the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), before the bill was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2009. It was written by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania.
I would not want mr. Bart Stupak to get lost in the crowd.”
Why would Stupak co-sponsor a bill that in his estimation has to be redundant, even if he had co-sponsored such a bill many times in the past?
Stupak would point out that b o signed an executive order prohibiting just this thing. [Careful everyone. Don’t step in the ‘oompah’.]
And we all know that Congresspersons, GOP and democRAT alike, never do anything that would be considered inefficient, wasteful or even redundant.
“There are some interesting omissions on the list, particularly a certain MI Democrat:
Democrats who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment who have not cosponsored HR 5939 are:…Stupak…”===========================================================
“The Stupak–Pitts amendment was an amendment made to the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), before the bill was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2009. It was written by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania.”
I would not want mr. Bart Stupak to get lost in the crowd.”
Why would Stupak co-sponsor a bill that in his estimation has to be redundant, even if he had co-sponsored such a bill many times in the past?
Stupak would point out that b o signed an executive order prohibiting just this thing. [Careful everyone. Don’t step in the ‘oompah’.]
And we all know that Congresspersons, GOP and democRAT alike, never do anything that would be considered inefficient, wasteful or even redundant.
On your second point – so you are saying we should let people die, and maybe even expand the numbers because until abortion is fixed, it doesn’t matter anyways? I think that is what you are saying.
You know, for a minute there you were being so reasonable I almost forgot you were a troll. Deliberately misrepresenting the point I was making to this degree, though? Well, thanks anyways for reminding me.
Keli – beautiful comeback. If you can’t logically hit it, dismiss the person and move on! Thanks. If I was misrepresenting your point, I apologize – but it seemed to me that you said healthcare for the poor didn’t matter because more people die from abortions anyways.
Ken – Then lets just get rid of insurance all together. Go to the animal care model (which some have speculated would do quite nicely).
FedUp – when the heritage foundation pitched the individual mandate years back, it was from the angle of personal responsibility. You talk about people who don’t need a plan. Does anyone not need insurance? If a 20 year old gets cancer, who pays for it? All of us – the taxpayers. Is there no responsibility for people to have coverage?
Another point – every plan that comes out, people scream “rationing”. I saw it with an analysis of Ryan’s plan in an article a couple of days back. I think we need to move past the argument and start asking if, in some cases, health care should be rationed? Right now, Medicare will pay for anything. In a society with limited resources, should we spend every effort and dollar available to save a 95 year old? Just throwing it out there.
On some of your questions, I didn’t answer – and I’ll admit I don’t know the answer, and probably won’t until years after the law comes into affect. Like the Patriot Act, the Medicare expansion – all of those weren’t fully known until they really got going and the unintended consequences and benefits start rearing their heads.
when the heritage foundation pitched the individual mandate years back, it was from the angle of personal responsibility
And your point is …? Just because Heritage recommended something doesn’t mean I agree with it.
You talk about people who don’t need a plan.
Huh? I talk about people having the FREEDOM to choose what benefits their plan will cover. Many people don’t need the “bells and whistles” plans. I do not believe they should be forced into these plans and the associated higher premiums that go with them.
Does anyone not need insurance?
I guess I’ll pull a Bill Clinton and ask what “need” means. Sure, insurance is desirable for everyone. I do not believe it’s desirable or necessary for everyone to have identical “essential benefits” in their policies as PPACA requires. For example, many people do not need maternity, substance abuse, or pediatric coverage. Yet they’ll be forced into higher-premium plans with these benefits that are not “essential” to them but required under PPACA anyway.
If a 20 year old gets cancer, who pays for it? All of us – the taxpayers. Is there no responsibility for people to have coverage?
Responsibility and forced purchase of a product over which you have no right to negotiate the terms of sale or product options and price are two different matters. The courts will have to resolve it.
I think we need to move past the argument and start asking if, in some cases, health care should be rationed?
I am not willing to debate whether we should have merit-based access to health care. I do not endorse any reform, including PPACA, which imposes or makes such a system possible.
Right now, Medicare will pay for anything.
That is blatantly untrue, EGV! I make numerous safety net referrals for Medicare patients, just as I do for uninsured patients. There are many, many things Medicare doesn’t cover, although you’re correct that it doesn’t prohibit life-saving treatment for people considered “unworthy” by some to have it. Not yet, anyway.
In a society with limited resources, should we spend every effort and dollar available to save a 95 year old? Just throwing it out there.
Where’s the cut off point, EGV? Is it all 95 year olds, or just the most frail and/or confused? Should someone who’s frail and confused at the age of 55 be denied access to resources? Or the 20 year old with a brain injury that will never be employable and will require care for the rest of her life? Who gets to decide whether patients are “valuable” enough to access to health care resources?
all of those weren’t fully known until they really got going and the unintended consequences and benefits start rearing their heads.
Doesn’t mean we should put our heads in the sand and ignore the obvious negative consequences of PPACA staring us in the face.