Royaakbari Health

Posts Tagged ‘bill’

For almost 35 years, the law of the land has been an explicit prohibition against federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions, known as the Hyde amendment, after the late great Illinois congressman. This is a policy supported by the majority of the American people.

In fact, this hard-fought explicit ban was included in the health care bill that passed the House last year. Regrettably, the Senate did not follow suit and instead passed a bill that would allow hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortion. That is a simple fact. Unfortunately, in a mad rush to secure enough votes, leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.

Just this week, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying, “Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. “

First, the Senate bill allows elective abortions to be offered through the newly-created individual state health insurance exchanges and multi-state health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and through federally-subsidized plans in already-existing community health centers.

Second, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any of these programs to live up to both the spirit and letter of the Hyde amendment that Congress has included each year in spending bills that fund the government. This not only prevents federal funding of elective abortions, but also erects an iron-clad firewall against any private money for abortion being mixed with any federal or state health program receiving federal dollars. This applies, for example, to Medicaid, a health program for the economically disadvantaged that is funded by both federal and state governments. If any resources are used for elective abortions that money must be kept completely separate from Medicaid. This is sound policy that must be maintained.

Regrettably, the Senate-passed bill doesn’t include this firewall. Anyone who doesn’t earn enough money would qualify for a federal subsidy to help pay for their health plan in the state exchanges, including plans offering elective abortion coverage. Some argue that under the Senate-passed bill, federal funding would be “segregated” so no federal money would pay for abortions. But this is a violation of the Hyde amendment, which also prevents the federal funding of insurance that covers elective abortion.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that there would only be one health plan in any given state that does not include elective abortion. And even if you are opposed, you may well be railroaded into choosing a plan that covers it, because you might be looking for the best plan to treat a sick child or your own health condition.

What’s more, passing a new state law is the only way an individual state could truly ensure that elective abortions are not included in the plans offered through a state insurance exchange. That would be easier in some states than in others, but that’s unfair to those who are morally opposed to federal funding of abortion and happen to live in states where passing such a law would be extremely difficult.

Lastly, under this proposal, community health centers would receive a dedicated stream of money outside the annual congressional process to fund the government which is where the Hyde prohibition is maintained. So that means that for the first time federal money could be used to fund abortion at a community health center.

Those are the facts, and anyone who thinks the Senate abortion language is strong enough should think again. That is because, regardless of one’s position on this controversial issue, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a person who is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion should not have to sanction its use with their hard-earned tax payer dollars.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander released a statement this morning saying the Senate-approved health care bill is riddled with “sweetheart deals” that will increase taxes and damage education.

Fellow Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, said the bill is “fundamentally flawed” and called for bipartisanship.

The bill, approved on a 60-39 vote, must still be merged with legislation passed by the House.

“The Senate health bill will prove to be an historic mistake if this or anything like it is ultimately signed by the president,” said Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

“Congress set out to reduce health care costs to Americans and Democrats have managed to do the exact opposite. Their written-in-secret bill will increase health insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare and dump millions of Americans into Medicaid.

“For Tennessee, Medicaid’s expansion and the bill’s ‘sweetheart deals’ would cost our state more than $750 million over five years when fully implemented, forcing tax increases or damaging higher education—or both.

“Instead, we should start over and move step-by-step to reduce health care costs using the steps that Republicans have repeatedly proposed: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention. ”

Corker said in his statement, “I’ve spent almost three years and countless hours in bipartisan meetings working toward reforms that would enable all Americans to access affordable, private health insurance.

“I wanted a bipartisan health care reform bill that would stand the test of time. Instead, we were forced to vote on a 2,000-plus page, fundamentally flawed, partisan bill that expands Medicaid by sending $25 billion in unfunded mandates to states, takes $464 billion away from Medicare and leverages it to create a new entitlement, uses budget gimmickry to hide its true cost; increases federal costs, and actually causes Americans to face increased taxes and premiums.

“It’s my sincere hope that Congress returns in 2010 more willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, and my work on financial regulatory reform gives me hope that that’s possible. ”

Most Americans are aware that buried somewhere in the 2,000-page health care reform bill are provisions for cutting the already- strapped Medicare program by billions of dollars. Few are aware that the bill also cuts expenditures on county hospitals currently serving the poor.

In Chicago, for example, those without health insurance go to the county hospital where they are treated without regard to whether they have health insurance. If the bill is passed, however, many of these county hospitals will either have to close their doors or deny treatment to those without health insurance.

Although the bill passed by the Senate has been depicted as using coercive means to require those currently uninsured to buy insurance they cannot afford, or as imposing additional new taxes on the American working man and family, that bill is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how the health care needs of the nation’s poor are currently served.

The desperately poor, many of them unemployed, are not equipped to deal with complicated insurance programs, deductibles, co-pays and all the other accoutrements of the typical health care policy. They are poor, they are unemployed, they are sick, they need a place to go to be treated without red tape and procedural obstacles.

County hospitals across the country that have provided that place are now threatened with a cut-off of funding and in many cases with extinction by the current health care reform bill passed by the Senate.

A number of proposals for making health care affordable for all Americans have been put forward by those who have sought to be heard during the legislative process. All these proposals have been rejected by a Congress determined to impose government control of health care.

Among these rejected proposals is to allow people to buy health insurance they can afford. Currently, government mandates require a single man to buy maternity coverage he will never use, or to pay inflated premiums to insure against going insane. It would be similar to a government mandate requiring every person to buy a Rolls Royce instead of a Ford. And then when people can’t afford to buy the Rolls Royce, they’re without any car at all.

Another rejected proposal is to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines, thus increasing the competitive pressure to provide affordable insurance. Proposals for modest curbs on the multimillion-dollar malpractice suits that divert billions of dollars away from health care and into the pockets of high-rolling trial attorneys have also been rejected.

Even proposals for limited but cost-effective catastrophic government insurance have been rejected by those determined to have government take over health care across the board.

Last week, Democratic leaders in the Senate caved to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s demands and stripped away some major provisions from their health reform legislation, including the public option and a plan that would have allowed middle-age Americans to “buy in” to Medicare. With Connecticut independent Lieberman’s support seemingly secured — for the time being — the president announced that Congress was “on the precipice” of passing comprehensive reform.

But even without these controversial components, the Democrats’ bill would still put government in charge of nearly all Americans’ health care. Patients would have fewer choices in the insurance marketplace, and taxpayers would be on the hook for a multibillion-dollar expansion of the public health care system.

Ultimately, these moves will dramatically drive up the cost and worsen the quality of health care in America.

A key element of the Democrats’ reform bill is an individual mandate, which would legally require people to purchase insurance. Starting in 2013, everyone would have to own a plan that met government specifications or pay a fine.

Proponents of such a mandate claim that it will broaden the insurance risk pool to include those who may not currently have insurance, which would eventually lead to lower premiums for everyone. Previously uninsured younger, healthy Americans would effectively subsidize older and less healthy patients.

Mandating everyone to dive into the insurance pool may seem like a good idea, but it represents a profound assault on individual freedom.

The federal government will decide what constitutes an acceptable benefit plan and what people pay for it. Government will also control how doctors are paid by insurance companies and, ultimately, how they practice medicine.

Congress does not legally force Americans to spend their own money on any other particular good or service — why should health insurance be any different?

In fact, for some Americans, health insurance isn’t a wise use of funds. Young people and health fanatics, for instance, might well shell out premiums for medical services they likely won’t use.

And those premiums can be hugely expensive. The average premium for family coverage is a whopping $12,300 a year. That rate is only going to go up if the Democrats’ plan passes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that individual insurance premiums under reform would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher by 2016 than they would in the absence of reform. In certain states, the increase in premiums would be even higher.

In California, for instance, the average healthy 25-year-old man would see his premiums rise 106 percent thanks to the Democrats’ reform plan. Premiums for a typical Virginia family with two children would increase 82 percent.

Some folks might be best served by paying for routine health expenses out of their own pockets rather than relying on expensive and inconsistent insurance policies.

These increases in the cost of insurance are largely the result of the reform plan’s array of new controls on insurers. Paramount among these controls is a requirement that insurers issue a policy to any customer who requests one, regardless of one’s medical history or health status.

In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.

In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.

The Democrats’ reform package would also install a national “community rating” ordinance, which would restrict insurers’ ability to charge different prices to different enrollees according to their health status. It would also impose new limits on out-of-pocket spending and require all insurance plans to include certain benefits, like maternity leave and newborn care, even if a patient didn’t want them.

These rules are meant to make health coverage more affordable and robust for more Americans. But they’ll do just the opposite.

Mandated benefits can increase the cost of a basic insurance policy by up to 50 percent. And by forcing insurers to charge both the sick and the healthy similar rates, community-rating regulations virtually guarantee that everyone pays more.

Instead, we need low-cost, pragmatic policies that drive down health prices without impinging on individual freedoms.

A great first step in that direction would be for Congress to allow people to buy insurance policies across state lines.

States regulate insurance differently. Some require policies to cover a long list of procedures. Others effectively prevent competition among carriers. As a result, the price of a basic insurance plan varies dramatically from state to state.

For instance, a 25-year-old male in New Jersey has to shell out about $5,600 for a basic insurance policy. His counterpart in Kentucky can get a similar policy for just $1,000.

Currently, Americans can only purchase policies approved for sale in the state where they live. Allowing them to shop around for the best deal would instill competition and drive down prices.

Lawmakers could take a second step in the right direction by enacting major medical malpractice reform. One in eight doctors gets sued for malpractice every year.

These suits cost about $100,000 on average to defend, even though doctors are found innocent 90 percent of the time.

To avoid getting dragged into expensive legal proceedings, many doctors engage in “defensive medicine,” ordering more tests and procedures than necessary. This practice added $124 billion to national health costs in 2006 and drove more than 3 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.

Implementing some commonsense tort reforms — like a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages — could reduce these costs without compromising patient care.

Congressional Democrats have been forced to trim some of their more grandiose ambitions for health reform. But the bill remains a bloated, big-government monstrosity. American taxpayers and patients alike simply can’t afford the Democrats’ vision for health reform.