Posted on 03/05/2010 9:45:24 AM PST by jeffq73
Abortion and the Health Bill There is no middle ground. Either taxpayers will fund it or they won't. by Charmaine Yoest It's now becoming clear that Barack Obama is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding for abortion. Last September, the president promised that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." Yet the legislation most likely to move forward in Congress would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
[...]
When confronted by House Minority Leader John Boehner about abortion funding during the health-care summit last week, the president dropped his head and looked down at the table. How revealing.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It’s ALWAYS about abortion with these people. They’re obsessed with it.
One of the core goals of a liberal is to bear no responsibility for one's choices. Abortion is perhaps the ultimate expression of that value.
Here is proof that the liberals are looney. They will sponsor a plan that requires the taxes of millions of U.S. citizens to pay for it. And then prevent the existence of millions of future U.S. citizens.
don’t forget- it’s a personal choice...a personal choice they want everyone else to pay for....
Would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973.Your tax dollars at work Obama&Co. gives you the finger.
By now surely everyone realizes that Obama,Pelosi, and Reid are lying through their teeth about most things they have said about this awful bill?
The Far Left uses the language to call things what they are not! Just a few minutes ago, Congressman Weiner (NY) insisted that the reason he supports the bill is that he and Democrats want Americans to have "choice."
He said that, knowing full well the fallacy of such reasoning.
They claim to be for "choice," except when American citizens "choose" things that do not fit their coercive agenda for "change."
A "woman's right to choose," is a delightful and high-sounding phrase, until one "chooses," as Sarah Palin did, to give birth to a Down's Syndrome child. "A woman's right to choose" sounds great, until women "choose" to advocate "choice" in the education of their children.
The "health care" bill is a misnomer. It is, in fact, an "increaes the size and power of government" bill.
Those who call tyranny by the sweet name of liberty must be exposed and called to account for their use of language to enslave their neighbors.
It’s not just the Unborn they target, granny, gramps, and the disabled are next on their list.
OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!
PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.
Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!
OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts
Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html
Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors
Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html
SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464538/posts
MILITARY & Retired MILITARY
Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Yesterday on Fox and Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. made a passing statement about abortion funding in the Senate/Obama health care bill. He said something about a mandate that requires $1.00 a month, from every "new policy", to go to federal reproduction services.
My God! Dems puff out their chests and brag that 30 million people will be added to the insurance rolls. So, does that mean $30 million + dollars a month ($360 million a year!!!)will go to "federal reproduction services"? Let me guess who will develop and run these "community health centers". ACORN? SEIU? PLANNED PARENTHOOD?
Please, does anyone have specific info on this "surcharge" to fund abortion.
Abortion Tax and other Problems in President’s Proposal (Same as the Senate Health Care Reform Bill)
by Legal Staff on February 22, 2010[edit]
February 22, 2010 Update
On Monday morning, February 22, 2010, President Obama unveiled a “new” health care reform proposal. The White House proposal is a modification of the Senate-passed bill. However, the White House failed to remove the anti-life language. Therefore, all of AUL’s concerns about the bill’s abortion-related provisions, conscience provision, and end-of-life provisions remain. Further, the White House proposal dramatically increases funding – by 11 billion dollars – for “community health centers” which will include Planned Parenthood abortion centers. Because the proposal lacks a blanket prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortions, these new funds could be used to directly pay for abortions.
December 24, 2009 Update
Majority Leader Reid’s Manager’s Amendment is part of the Senate health care reform bill that passed the Senate on December 24,2009 by a vote of 60-39.
December 20, 2009
Apologists for Majority Leader Reid’s amendment to his health care reform bill will argue that it allows individuals to choose whether they purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage or not. Such apologists are likely to also argue that no individual will be forced to pay for anyone else’s abortion. However, the reality is much different.
First, let us be clear, Majority Leader Reid’s amendment does not change the fact that the government will subsidize insurance plans that cover elective abortions. In departure from longstanding federal policy, section 1303(b)(1)(A) allows a “qualified health plan” – one that participates in an Exchange and is available to individuals who receive tax credits to cover part of their insurance premiums – to include abortion coverage. Therefore, insurance plans that cover elective abortions will receive these federal subsidies.
Second, while it is true that the amendment provides that federally funded subsidies cannot directly pay for those abortions that currently cannot be paid for by federal funds under the Hyde amendment (all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother), that separation will be rendered meaningless if the Hyde amendment, which must be added to an appropriations bill every year, is ever eliminated. Section 1303(b)(2)(A). Pro-abortion lawmakers are committed to getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, and it is perhaps not cynical to see this as the first step in a two-step plan to do that. If they succeed in getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, these new federal subsidies will directly pay for any and all abortions.
Finally, there is an additional limitation on choice in Majority Leader Reid’s amendment that has been largely ignored, and for the first time in U.S. history imposes an abortion tax on unwilling Americans. Under Majority Leader Reid’s amendment, ALL individuals who participate in plans in the Exchange that include elective abortion coverage, even if they do so unwittingly, will directly pay part of their own premiums into an account that pays for nothing but elective abortions. The amendment provides that each and every enrollee in such a plan (or their employer on their behalf) must write a separate check for elective abortion coverage, even if that enrollee never intends to have an abortion. That amount cannot be less than $12.00 per year. Sections 1303(b)(2)(B)-(D). In an apparent attempt to hide this abortion tax, the language prohibits insurance plans from emphasizing this requirement to prospective enrollees. Section 1303(b)(3)(B).
Again, apologists for this amendment will reply that individuals who do not want to pay for abortion coverage can choose an insurance plan that does not include it. However, it is not that simple. If John Doe works for XYZ, a small business, and XYZ decides to enroll John and the rest of its employees in an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage in an exchange, John and his coworkers will be forced to pay this abortion tax. Furthermore, under the Mikulski Amendment which is already added to the Health Care Reform Bill, an administrative agency may determine that abortion is “preventive care” and then require all insurance companies to cover abortion. If that happens, there will truly be no opportunities for pro-life Americans to avoid paying for others’ abortions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.