Universal Health Care for America

[Guest NRLC]

The bill is riddled with provisions that predictably will result in federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortion (some of which will be administered directly by the federal government), direct federal funding of abortion through Community Health Centers, and pro-abortion federal administrative mandates. The sum of these provisions makes H.R. 3590 the most abortion-expansive piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives.

 

In recent weeks, some organizations and individuals have insisted that various clauses in the Senate bill would prevent these pro-abortion policy effects. Some of these assurances have been offered by surrogates for President Obama – who opposed all limits on abortion and public funding of abortion throughout his years in legislative office, and who pledged in 2007 that abortion coverage would be “at the heart” of his health care legislation. Some other commentators, well intended but not well versed on the legal and regulatory terrain, have naively relied upon such assurances and on superficial readings of the Senate bill language.

 

In reality, however, the purported protections in the Senate bill are all very narrow, riddled with loopholes, and/or rigged to expire. There is nothing in the Senate bill remotely resembling the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, added to H.R. 3962 by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009, which was an effective, bill-wide, permanent prohibition on subsidies for abortion under the programs authorized by the bill. Following that House vote, if President Obama had endorsed the House’s action and prevailed upon the Senate Majority Leader to put the Stupak-Pitts language into the base Senate bill, it would have remained in the bill. Regrettably, the President instead lamented the House vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and he collaborated in blocking the language in the Senate. As a result, when you vote on H.R. 3590, you are voting on whether to approve a panoply of provisions that will be employed in the future to expand access to abortion on demand.

 

Pro-life citizens across America know that this is a pro-abortion bill. They know, and they will be reminded again and again, which members of the House deserve the gratitude of the pro-life movement for standing strong on this historic vote.

 

A vote to approve H.R. 3590 – whether through adoption of a self-executing Rule or otherwise – is a vote for the following abortion-related policies:

 

(1) Direct funding of abortion through the Community Health Centers program. The Senate bill directly appropriates $7 billion for Community Health Centers (CHCs), unconnected to any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion. In recent days, some backers of H.R. 3590 have asserted that none of the 1,250 federally funded CHCs provide abortions — but a few minutes on the

 

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, ABORTION PROVISIONS, 2

 

website of the Reproductive Health Access Project should suffice to cast great doubt on that claim:

 

http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm

 

Also, an internal Health and Human Services memo has asserted that a federal regulation would prohibit any CHC from using the new funds, appropriated by H.R. 3590, for abortions. This assertion cannot be relied upon; it rests on a circular argument. The cited regulation is based on the Hyde Amendment, which applies only to funds that flow through the regular annual HHS appropriations bill. But the Senate language quite deliberately creates a new direct-appropriation funding pipeline outside of the annual appropriations process, and therefore untouched by the Hyde Amendment. Any lawmaker who does not want to read in the future that CHCs are providing abortions, with federal funds appropriated through the new funding pipeline created by this bill, must insist that the pro-life policy be written in (which is what the House did when it adopted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment). NRLC has posted a more detailed analysis of the CHC issue, including rebuttal to those who claim that this is not a legitimate concern, here:

 

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html

 

(2) Other direct appropriations not covered by abortion restrictions. The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants and loans for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180). Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, can ensure that none of the vast amounts of federal money authorized and appropriated through the Senate bill are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion.

 

(3) Federally administered abortion plans. The Senate-passed bill would create a new program under which the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more national (“multi-state”) insurance plans. (See Section 1334.) The bill provides that “at least one” such plan would be subject to limitations on abortion coverage, implying that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. This is a sharp break from longstanding federal policy, adopted by Congress, under which plans that participate in the OPM-administered Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program are prohibited from covering elective abortions. Also, even the purported requirement (pages 2087-2088) that the OPM program offer one pro-life plan is rigged to expire each year; this requirement will remain in force only if pro-life forces prevail annually in preserving pro-life language on an unrelated annual appropriations bill.

 

(4) Federally subsidized abortion plans. The Senate bill (Section 1303, page 2069) contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy, but every enrollee in such a plan would find himself or herself subject to a requirement that he or she make a separate payment into a fund used exclusively for elective abortions – an abortion surcharge. This requirement would apply to anyone who enrolls in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions, which would surely include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling, but who would have no choice other than to pay the abortion surcharge or see their entire health coverage lapse. In contrast, under the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a citizen who takes advantage of the new premium-subsidy program would not be required to help pay for anyone else’s abortions, which is the approach consistent with the principles that govern current federal health programs, such as Medicaid and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, ABORTION PROVISIONS, P. 3

 

(5) Authorities for pro-abortion mandates. The Senate bill contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters. (One analyst recently wrote that the Senate bill “contains more than 2,500 references to powers and responsibilities of the secretary of health and human services,” to say nothing of other federal authorities.) Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as authority for pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it. For example, under the Mikulski Amendment (Section 1001, pp. 20-21), adopted by the Senate on December 3, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services could force every private health plan to cover elective abortions merely by placing abortion on a list of “preventive” services – as Senator Ben Nelson pointed out in a statement in the December 3 Congressional Record, explaining his vote against the Mikulski Amendment, in which he also noted that Senator Mikulski had declined to accept a suggested revision to exclude abortion from the scope of this authority. While the Senate bill does contain some anti-mandate provisions, our analysis finds that these clauses are worded in such a way that they control only specific provisions of the bill (e.g., the reference to “essential health benefits” on page 2070), or are ambiguous in their scope.

 

(6) Open door to future abortion funding in Indian health programs. Both the House-passed and Senate-passed health bills revamp and reauthorize all Indian health programs. In the House bill, these programs are permanently barred from providing elective abortions (by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment). In the Senate bill, there is no such prohibition, but merely a policy-neutral clause (Section 10221, pp. 2175-2176) that “punts” the abortion policy, requiring that it be set annually on an appropriations bill. The Senate omitted the necessary pro-life language even though a permanent Hyde Amendment had won approval by the Senate the last time that the Indian health reauthorization (S. 1200) was on the Senate floor in amendable form (the Vitter Amendment, adopted February 26, 2008). (The House never acted on S. 1200.)

 

(7) Missing abortion nondiscrimination (conscience) language. The House-passed bill contained a codification of the “Hyde-Weldon” language (H.R. 3962, Section 259), which would prevent government actors from penalizing health care providers who refuse to participate in providing abortions. This language was not controversial in the House – indeed, Speaker Pelosi had included it in H.R. 3962 even before the House added the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. But pro-abortion senators blocked its inclusion in the Senate bill. The so-called conscience protections in

 

H.R. 3590 (e.g., on page 2076) are exceedingly narrow.

 

In conclusion: A vote for the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590) is a vote for the most expansively pro-abortion legislation ever to come before the House of Representatives, since Roe v. Wade, and will be accurately so described in the NRLC congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress. We respectfully urge that you vote against this legislation and against any measure or procedure that might be employed in an attempt to move it towards the President’s desk. We thank you for your consideration of our acute concerns on this critical issue.

[Guest NRLC]

Then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, in his own words, promising abortion as part of a public health care plan.

[Guest Literati]

The House will hold three votes tomorrow, one on the rule setting terms for the debate, one on the Senate bill and one on compromise legislation that amends provisions of the Senate-passed bill that House Democrats don’t like.

[Guest LAW]

They reconvened at 9:40 p.m. tonight.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Nearly $1 Billion in Last-Minute Deals Conveniently Benefit Wavering Democrats

Saturday, March 20, 2010

 

Apparently still short on votes for their health care overhaul, Democrat Congressional leaders have loaded up their latest health bill with hundreds of millions of dollars in NEW special deals to wavering Democrat members.

 

Last minute changes to their health package include a $400 million slush fund, found in Section 1109 of the Democrats’ amended reconciliation bill, to provide higher Medicare payment rates to certain hospitals.

 

But the Democrats didn’t stop there. Section 1108 of the same bill provides a $400 million boost to Medicare reimbursements to physicians who practice in certain areas. The Democrats may be surprised to learn this provision will cause seniors’ Part B premiums to increase by $100 million. Additionally, seniors living in the affected areas will be responsible for paying a 20% copayment on the higher reimbursements rates.

 

These special deals were created to shore up support for the Democrats’ health bill, by responding to Democrat demands that Medicare geographic payment differences be dealt with if Speaker Pelosi wanted their vote. For example:

 

* Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) threatened to withhold his vote if he didn’t get this special deal: "If they need my vote, they can address it...." he said. "We can shovel money into Louisiana, but our fix is gone.” DeFazio concluded, “I will oppose the bill unless they fix geographic disparity.” On Saturday, it was revealed that Rep. DeFazio got his deal, which he said also benefits Reps. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Ron Kind (D-WI) and which supporters claimed will bring another 3 to 10 Democrats into the “yes” column.

 

* Rep. Braley (D-IA) was so happy about the inclusion of his special deal that he issued a press release touting his role in securing the reported $800 million kickback, claiming the secret deal also benefits Reps. David Loebsack (D-IA) and Leonard Boswell (D-IA).

 

When will the Democrats’ game of “Let’s Make a Deal” end? Stay tuned…

[Guest HUMAN]

The Democrats are going to HAVE TO give away the farm and just about everything else to get this "Bill" passed.

 

The Economy for this year, and the next is bye bye for certain.

 

It's going to be a real snails pace recovery with this "Bill" passed; not to mention how Medicare, and Social Security will be fixed in the long term, and on top of it with the debt.

 

Talk/Type about running into a Brick Wall?

[Guest Robert]

Rep. Stupak announced in a news conference that he is changing his vote from a no to a yes. That makes it certain the bill will pass.

[Guest Canuck]

Wake up people! Only the rich should be worried. Now they will have to share the best medical services in the world with the average Joe in America.

[Guest Fedup]

Rep. Stupak announced in a news conference that he is changing his vote from a no to a yes. That makes it certain the bill will pass.

 

That is because President Obama pledged to sign an executive order reaffirming a longstanding ban on government funding for elective abortions.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, made the following remarks today on Fox News about the recent Executive Order abortion deal by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI):

 

 

"It is disappointing to see Members of Congress exchange 30 years of pro-life law for a piece of paper from the most pro-abortion president in American history. We'll stay in this fight, we really believe the American people know now there is public funding for abortion in this bill. I would cite my colleague, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who said on television today, ‘an Executive Order cannot change the law,' and I don't think the American people will be fooled by this and the fact the President is signing a piece of paper, Executive Order that, would be thrown out by the courts, if it contradicted the statutory language of the law. I don't think the American people will be fooled. The way we can prevent public funding of abortion is by rejecting the legislation and starting over, immediately with the kind of legislation that will respect the common sense and the common values of the American people."

[Guest Spartan]

He was just holding out for a bribe. I love how Democrats can just deal out taxpayer dollars like it is funny money.

 

U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

 

"This federal funding will help these airports better provide critical services to communities in northern Michigan,” Stupak said. “I am pleased the FAA has made this investment in our local airports and the individuals and businesses they serve.”

 

Alpena County Regional Airport received a grant of $85,500 to acquire friction measuring equipment, specifically a decelermeter and tow vehicle, to replace equipment that has worn out.

 

Delta County Airport in Escanaba received a grant of $179,209 to install a 10 foot perimeter fence to enhance security and prevent wildlife from entering the airport.

 

The Chippewa County International Airport near Sault Ste. Marie received a grant of $461,700 to install lighted signs on Runway 16/34 and make repairs to the pavement to meet marking requirements and maintain structural integrity.

[Guest Tea Party Patriot]

Congressman Ron Paul and Stuart Varney discuss the problems with the healthcare reform bill. An Executive Order will not trump a law. All funds are fungible.

 

[Guest The White House]

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

 

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

 

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

 

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

 

A text of the pending executive order follows:

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

- - - - - - -

 

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

 

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

 

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

 

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

 

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

 

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

 

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

 

Section 4. General Provisions.

( a ) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

( b ) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

( c ) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

[Guest Athena]

To all Repugs/Grand Obstructionist Party/TeaBagCarriers:

 

Health Care Reform 2010 is here! DEAL WITH IT!

 

One love,

[Guest Athena]

It takes great COURGAGE to LEAD in the FACE of ADVERSITY!

 

What an awesome leader!

Thank you, Mr. President!

One love!

[Guest HUMAN]

Now it Begins; The Battle for this Countrys Soul.

 

As a friend of mine once said "You do not have the power, it has you".

 

Took me a long time to understand what that really meant.

 

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

Congressman Ron Paul and Stuart Varney discuss the problems with the healthcare reform bill. An Executive Order will not trump a law. All funds are fungible.

[Guest YES REFORM]

The giant insurance companies have failed.

[Guest Sasha G.]

This bill will help millions of Americans afford health care.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

This bill will help millions of Americans afford health care.

 

This bill does nothing for health reform. It just pours money into an already broken system.

[Guest American Citizen]

Taxes will grow, premiums will grow, the debt will grow.

[Guest GOP Leader]

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY): “We save money, it’s CBO scored. Everybody wins with this bill…”

 

GOP Leader Response: The Democrats’ government takeover of health care actually increases the deficit and piles more debt on our kids and grandkids.

 

By The Numbers:

 

* 0 - The amount by which Democrats’ government takeover of health care reduces the deficit without budget gimmicks.

* $260 billion - That’s the amount by which Democrats’ government takeover of health care will most likely increase federal deficits over the next 10 years, according to a CBO analysis. The CBO analysis shows that deficits will increase by at least $59 billion under the Democrats’ bill. (NOTE: These charts put together by Budget Committee Republican Paul Ryan expose the true cost of Democrats’ health care bill.)

* $1.2 trillion - The total cost of the bill between 2010 and 2020, including $940 billion in coverage subsidies, $144.2 billion in additional mandatory spending, $70 billion in discretionary spending in the Senate bill, and $41.6 billion in unrelated education spending.

* 10 - Number of years of tax hikes to pay for six years of spending.

* $1.55 trillion - The projected FY 2010 deficit; 11 times the ten year “savings” Democrats claim the bill will produce by spending more than $1 trillion for this government takeover of health care.

 

Key Quotes:

 

* CBO: “Healthcare Bill Would Add Billions To The Country’s Debt.” “The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the healthcare bill would add billions to the country’s debt if lawmakers ignore the bill’s cost constraints, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expects them to do. Under the scenario painted by Ryan, CBO said the healthcare bill’s $138 billion in savings over 10 years would disappear because the government would: extend the current Medicare doctor payment rate instead of allowing it to expire; allow health insurance subsidies to grow at a sustained rate; and fail to implement a tax on high-cost health plans and an independent Medicare advisory board, two measures aimed at constraining federal health costs.” (The Hill, 3/19/10)

* Politifact: “In fact, the CBO has said a year-by-year projection of the bill’s budget effect beyond the first 10 years would ‘not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great.’ It’s natural to want to translate the CBO’s GDP projection into actual dollars (Who can get their head around a half a percent of GDP 10 to 20 years from now?). And the GDP projections used to extrapolate the $1.2 trillion figure may be perfectly reasonable, if highly speculative.” (3/18/10)

 

Better Solutions:The Republican health care bill reduces the deficit by implementing smart, common-sense reforms with no accounting gimmicks attached. Families and small businesses will see their premiums reduced under the GOP plan by up to 10 percent, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

This bill is the start of the American Socialist Republic. The IRS will be hiring thousands of new taxmen to enforce this bill.

[Guest A Friend of Dusty]

America lets do the right thing and stop patient abuse. Pass the bill tonight.

[Guest Joy Yearout]

Taxes will grow, premiums will grow, the debt will grow.

 

Section 1001 will save families $7000 per year. Stops 1201 stops kickbacks. Finally the bill will save 1.2 trillion dollars.

[Guest HUMAN]

ALWAYS RED, American Citizen, GOP Leader ; At least you understand reality.

What is there for the democrats to dance about? When all they have really done "In a one size fits all approach" kills the economy.