In the midst of Obama's biggest – and most dangerous – pro-abortion push, via so-called
“health care reform,” his claims and his proposals are coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism
particularly in the areas of:
abortion
rationing health services
taxpayers' money
Here are the facts!
Abortion
With no – exactly zero – votes to spare, Harry Reid’s 2,074-page health care bill squeaked past its first procedural hurdle on November 21, 2009 to begin Senate debate. Surprising no one, Barack Hussein Obama once again is pushing this legislation. [Check out MRLC's blog for the latest.]
This comes after Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid strode out of the proverbial back room with the Senate health bill, on November 18th. At 2,074 pages, his bill is even larger than House Speaker Pelosi's.
Pointedly, Reid has included abortion funding. Section 1303, “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” of Reid's bill, provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This is federal funding of abortion, period. Complete with a monthly abortion premium.
National Right to Life promptly responded, noting:
The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.
This was echoed by the Heritage Foundation which put it bluntly: The Senate Health Bill: Taxpayer Funded Abortions. The Heritage Foundation has also provided an initial analysis The five major flaws of both the Pelosi and Reid Bills.
To the surprise of virtually no one, Barack Hussein Obama is supporting Reid's bill, the usual pro-abortion crowd is also, predictably, pleased.
Stupak-Pitts Amendment Passes.
On November 7, 2009, Rep. Bart Stupak stood up in the House of Representatives and urged: "Let us stand together on principle — no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions."
The House of Representatives then proceeded to approve the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment by a vote of 240-194.
This crucial pro-life addition to the Administration health bill was named for Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, and Republican Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania. The other sponsors of the amendment were Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Marcy Kaptur, Daniel Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper and Christopher Smith.
The vote came about only after substantial pressure had been brought to bear in its favor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had refused to allow an up-or-down vote on this amendment – until she saw defeat looming for the overall measure.
This Administration proposal has now gone to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had announced the arrival of this House health care bill, early in November.
Running to 1,990 pages, the bill was assigned a new number,
H.R.3962, and given the ironic title of Affordable Health Care for America.
Analysis of the proposal shows it included every objectionable feature being pushed by the Obama Administration. This bill had included abortion, and still excludes a conscience clause. It includes so-called Comparative Effectiveness Research, and the notorious "Advanced Care Planning," to ration health care for seniors.
The Heritage Foundation provides an analysis and tells us, point blank, that "The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you."
Next, the "Wall Street Journal" provides a no-holds-barred disection of this bill, which it describes as "The Worst Bill Ever -- Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all." [For "The WSJ Guide to ObamaCare" -- click here.]
As background, on September 30th, Sen. Max Baucus's Senate Committee on Finance voted down the Hatch amendment, which would have banned the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. If Obama and Baucus do not plan to fund abortion, why would this amendment be a problem?
Then, this committee also voted down a conscience clause, to protect those with moral objections to abortion. Clearly, Obama and Baucus feel that taxpayers should be required to pay for abortions and that medical professionals should be required to perform abortions regardless of their moral and religious beliefs.
This is completely consistent with Obama's record of being far more radically pro-abortion than any other White House occupant.
Rationing
Additionally, Baucus's committee went further and voted to retain the incentives for rationing of health care. We can see the rationing rationale at work in the recent media buzz over the Obama administration's proposal on mammograms: NONE before 50 ONE every two years after that. The " Wall Street Journal " noted that:
The flap over breast cancer screening has provided a fascinating insight into the political future of ObamaCare. Specifically, the political left supports such medical rationing even as it disavows that any such thing is happening.
This article ends up by telling us that:What's really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn't want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Then it will begin the campaign to instruct the rest of us that we must follow the guidance of Princeton professors about what medical care we can receive. Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice is that patients and their doctors must bow to the superior wisdom of HHS task forces.
The Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics gives a focused overview of the rationioning of health care, issue by issue.
Beyond that, this Senate proposal also includes a provision requiring, for a five year minimum, doctors who authorize patient treatments in the top 10% of per capita cost will lose 5% of their Medicare reimbursements. This means that all doctors treating older people will always be pushed to order the least to avoid being in that top percentage.
This problem is given a solid analysis by the "Wall Street Journal," in the article 'The War on Specialists'. The Journal notes -- rather to the point -- that: "Since there will always be a missing chair when the music stops, every year one of 10 physicians will be punished if he orders too many tests, performs too many procedures or prescribes too many drugs—whether or not the treatments result in better patient outcomes. The 5% fine is substantial given that Medicare's price controls already pay only 83 cents on the private dollar."
Taking this annual punishment of one in ten physicians as a starting point, the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics gives the on-the-money on-going update in this depraved area.
Taxpayers
Obama claims that his "reform" will save the taxpayers money. On October 11, America’s Health Insurance Plans released the results of its study, showing that ObamaCare would more than double premium costs. This study was undertaken by one of the world's largest professional services firms, and 'big-four' accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers. This report has to have more credibility than that of a partisan Obama think-tank.
Then, the Associated Press, in an article headed Health insurance bills could be hardship for many, tells us that under "the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income [a tax increase of nearly $7,000!] for health insurance" -- not a comforting thought and not an improvement on what we have now.
The "Wall Street Journal" takes apart the Obama pretense that those who are happy with the insurance they have now can keep it, asking the rhetorical question: When government 'competes,' guess who always wins? See what the "Journal" has to say -- about what Obama has planned for YOU.
This is an ever changing situation, in which National Right to Life stays up to date and summarizes what's going on for you.
More importantly, NRLC shows what YOU can do to help.
Check in frequently!
Through all this, Barack Hussein Obama's catch-all bill, HR 3200, remains in play. This bill has gone through many iterations. It has been amended by committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is still a work in progress.
The text of the bill now runs to over a thousand pages, clearly not easy reading. Various groups, however, have begun to provide analysis and input.
One of the first was the American Medical Association, the AMA. This group has indicated a desire "work with members [of Congress] to improve the bill," this is as there are "provisions that we [the AMA] want to see changed.”
An overview is provided by The Health Care Blog, which points out this bill is unlikely to achieve its stated objective, and will see "the Medicare Trust Fund exhausted by 2017."
Liberty Counsel provides a provision by provision overview, showing how particular provisions will affect you. A duo of pundits then takes a look at how ObamaCare could be putting Planned Parenthood in to your child's class room. This same duo provides a salient overview of the ObamaCare big picture, rationing, bureaucratic control, and lack of accountability, for starters.
Another blogger analyzes how the impact of ObamaCare on the insurance industry will actually impact on your ability to keep your present health insurance. Will this bill "kill the private insurance industry and force people onto the government plan?"