March 19: Health Care Reform Will Have Us All Paying Surcharge Into Abortion Coverage Fund

My analysis for March 19 2010, as Health Care Reform appraches a decision this weekend: It makes us all pay to make an abortion coverage fund. Thus: federally mandated abortion coverage.

Long story short (read on for more info):
I have analyzed the House’s reconciliation, and find nothing modifying the analysis I have already done regarding abortion coverage…
https://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/march-9-my-analysis-of-reid-mgrs-amendment-to-senate-health-care-reform/
Now: for the lengthy analysis…

The health care reform proposal is complicated to review. Per the congressional budget office, and Washington Post, it seems that the bill consists of three parts, two of which are from the Senate, and one of which is from the House.

Harry Reid’s statement that the impending Sunday vote will be on the Senate bill, with the House revisions:
“up-or-down vote on its adjustments to the bill the Senate already passed would make our good bill even better.”
http://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=323223&

The Senate part is called HR 3590, “Title X [of the Public Health Service Act]: Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans” bill.

The Manager’s Amendment, which is part of this Senate bill, since it was added before the Senate vote, is simply called “amendment;” it doesn’t ot have its own name or bill number because it is simply more of the 3590 bill. Mgr’s Amendment was added Dec 19th, and Senate voted on Dec 24th.

The amendment is still here:
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

As that has stood, the manager’s amendment has called for anyone getting a heath insurance plan through the federally mandated and coordinated state-level “health insurance exchanges” WOULD be paying a specific, additional fee, along with their premium, to go into a fund of money for sustaining abortion coverage for those who choose to get abortion coverage. ALL would pay this fee, NOT just a woman who CHOSE to buy an abortion service coverage policy along with her separate health insurance policy. [this is in my earlier post.]

This has NOT been reported accurately ANYWHERE that I can tell.

Please post a clear note if you believe, technically or legally, that my analysis is not accurate regarding what is getting mandated legally. This means: quote me chapter and verse of legislation, NOT someone opinion. I must have chapter and verse regarding my mis-interpretation of one of these three pieces of legislation in order to modify my opinion.

To me the Manager’s amendment is clear:

In the section of the manager’s amendment concerning abortion coverage, section 1303 (at 1303(b)(2)(B)(i)), it declares: plans will “collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following:”

“REGARDLESS OF SEX.” Quote, End-Quote. People: what more do you need to read to figure out that this is NOT a separate “rider” that will be paid for ONLY by women opting IN, with ALL money kept totally separate from federal funds, as has been portrayed?

So: if the March 18 House reconciliation CHANGES section 1303 (“special rules”) of the manager’s amendment of HR3590, then the picture of abortion coverage changes; and if the reconciliation DOES NOT change section 1303 of the manager’s amendment of HR3590, then this federally mandated universal tax to fund an abortion-coverage pool is still in play.

The new, as-yet-unseen, parts to digest are the parts in the House’s “Reconciliation” bill, “H.R. 4872,” called “THE HEALTH CARE & EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT of 2010.”
It is here, along with summary/commentary…
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1738-Health-Care-Reconciliation-Bill-Summary

This has JUST been made available, within the last 24 hours. So, we all have THREE DAYS to digest this before deciding whether to vote for or against a federally mandated tax on all buyers of health insurance to build an abortion-policy fund, regardless of your personal family plans and configuration, and regardless of your sex.

I have searched to see if the House reconciliation bill modifies the Seante bill at all regarding this abortion coverage law…
OK: the opencongress summary / review has NOTHING about the Section 1303 abortion fund mandate.

So, we can look at the entire Reconciliation bill; it is here…
http://www.opencongress.org/house_reconciliation

I looked through the table of contents. I have not seen anything that would directly lead me to info regarding any adjustment of the status quo abortion coverage of the mgr’s amendment of 3940.

I searched the text for “abortion.” Nothing comes up.

I searched for “exchange.” A fair amount comes up, since this new state-level “exchange” mechanism is a big component in health care reform.

Nothing.

Title 1 covers the coverage issue. I thoroughly browsed “subtitle A,” “coverage. Nothing about abortion funding at all.

Subtitle E: nothing looks relevant, except, possibly, “sec 1406, health insruance providers.” So I look: Nothing relevant to abortion funding or coverage.

“Title II, subtitle B–Health”–
“Sec. 2301: insurance reforms: Nothing relevant to abortion funding or coverage.

Therefore, my analysis is that the status quo for abortion coverage in the Senate-approved health insurance reform bill is unchanged by the House Reconciliation Act HR 4872, of March 18, 2010.

Therefore, my previous assessment stands: health reform will include a federal mandate that buyers of health insurance plans, if they buy through a health insurance exchange, will contribute a separate fee or tax into a separate fund to support abortion coverage health care coverage policies. This includes men, who are explicitly noted to NOT be exempt from this, thus making it very clear that this is NOT simply a separate channel of money for females interested in this insurance to contibute to its funding and buy if they want. “Democrats” may present it that way, but I believe they are either mistaken or misleading or flat-out lying. Personally, I believe that Reid, Sebelius, Pelosi, Obama are lying. Intentionally. but that is just my opinion.

I am not sure how the Democratic party leaders are having special closed-door meeting with various congresspersons to “review” the language of the bill.

For those Pro-Life dems wavering, or that are question-marks, NONE have commented on this Section 1303. None. None say: “section 1303 called for this, but I know see that it is dead.” None.

Nowhere else do I see that the Manager’s Amendment Section 1303 is no longer in play. Nowhere.

YOU ARE FREE TO FOLLOW THE LINKS AND GO LOOK THIS STUFF UP YOURSELF. THIS IS NOT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.

Thank you, Opencongress.org, for supplying actual text to counterbalance the high-level lying from congress.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “March 19: Health Care Reform Will Have Us All Paying Surcharge Into Abortion Coverage Fund

  1. I think you may have missed a few nuances. First, when you hear people talking about an “abortion rider”, that is a reference to the Stupak language, which would replace the allocation accounts created in the manager’s amendment with riders that must be purchased separately.

    Second, when I look at the manager’s amendment and the section discussing the abortion allocation accounts, I see the following:

    (B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.—In the case of a plan to which sub paragraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall—
    ‘‘(i) collect from each enrollee in the
    plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following:

    Note the text in bold — this section only applies to plans described in the previous sub-paragraph:

    (A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the 11 following for purposes of paying for such services:

    And paragraph (1)(B)(i) says:

    (B) ABORTION SERVICES.— ‘‘(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

    Thus, the allocation accounts are ONLY created for plans which include coverage of (elective) abortions that are not eligible for federal funding (which are only in cases of rape, incest, or where it is necessary to save the mother’s life). If you don’t want your premiums to pay for abortions, you can choose a plan that does not cover them and will not have to pay the separate premium. You will be able to choose such a plan because the bills also mandate the inclusion in the exchanges of at least one plan that does not include abortion coverage.

    Does that clarify things?

  2. thelastdemocrat

    That helps. I considerd that interpretation, that the language I assessed would be limited to coverage for cases of “rape, incest, or mother’s life.”

    This conclusion may or may not be the case. If it is the case, then it declares that abortion coverage plans will be part of the health insurance exchange, with funding from health care buyers in general, unless these buyers, or the state in which the buyers buy, tend to opt-out.

    In which case: the fed govt is mandating a mechanism to expand abortion coverage with funds derived from mandated health ins coverage; the recognized “rape, incest, and life of mom” exemption will not only apply to HHS-covered plans, but a much greater range of plans – potentially, all plans across all states operating through the state-level “exchanges.”

    I considered that interpretation of that section, the section noting HHS.

    I also considered another interpretation: another convoluted arrangement that has the language serving to declare that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to these other plans.

    Sebelius never came forawrd to explain that section. She does have the spooky, vague comment about this issue that fits my earlier interpretation.

    Pelosi never came out and explained 1303 either way.

    Reid never came out and explained 1303 either way.

    Obama never came out and explained 1303 either way.

    Who has come out to explain 1303 at all? I am convinced that it plays a role. And no one on either side wants to bring attn to it.

    Beyond my impartial analysis: I believe it was develope craftily to give everyone an “out.”

    Thanks for posting the interpretation / analysis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s