|
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."
Part Three
ABORTION MANDATES AND FEDERAL
SUBSIDIES 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 important elements that would
greatly impact the ability of patients to
receive unrationed medical care.
David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., NRLC
executive director:
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 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. There are 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. NRLC will continue
to review the bill and provide further analysis.
Part
One
Part Two |
