Health Care Plus Nothing

Well, frumps, it’s been a week now since Congress passed HR 3200 the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the House version of a health care reform bill, complete with Stupak-Pitt amendment. For those of you who are so sick of hearing about health care reform that you could shriek, I’ll give you the sketchiest of sketches on what that means.

Last Saturday, against all odds, the House passed a bill outlining health care reforms that it backs. That bill, as it stood, could be better (as is true of most human products) but it’s not bad for a start. It would eliminate a lot of the insurance industry abuses that have made our medical expenses unsustainable and that routinely bankrupt American families and small businesses. Some of those widespread abuses include: denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions; capping lifetime benefits; denial of individual claims for covered benefits; and defining such things as prior “problem” pregnancies and spousal abuse as “pre-existing” conditions to deny coverage.

Throughout the yearlong reform debate the question of abortion coverage has risen to the top many times and been effectively dealt with by invoking the 33-year-old Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services i.e., Medicaid. Hyde has always been controversial, itself, because it can be argued that it discriminates against the low-income recipients of Medicaid. To settle some of the gray areas surrounding the application of Hyde to the new reforms, along came Lois Capps who, in an effort to create a compromise that would move the legislation, offered an amendment – the Capps Amendment – that would explicitly continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion.

Despite the fact that the Capps Amendment was instantly dissected by her fellow politicians and pundits eager to find or manufacture flaws in it, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that the amendment preserves the status quo in federal abortion policy -no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions that are not allowed by current law (the Hyde Amendment, makes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman).

The amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services. The Capps Amendment also ensures that in each region of the country, there is at least one plan in the Health Exchange that offers abortions services but also one plan in the Health Exchange that does not offer abortion services. This actually gives consumers who object to participating in a plan that covers abortion and are getting coverage through the Exchange a choice of insurance coverage greater than what most Americans have in the current employer-based health insurance market. Today, nearly 90 percent of employer-sponsored private health insurance plans cover abortion services.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16740

Now back in August while the town halls were ablaze, Catholics United, a huge Pro-Life entity, was tickled pink with the Capps Amendment. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, released this statement in the beginning of August:

“The inclusion of the Capps Amendment represents a positive step toward health care reform that preserves existing policies prohibiting federal funding for abortion services and ensuring conscience protections for health care providers,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United.

“While some questions do remain, we are confident that health care reform legislation, when finalized, will represent a workable common ground solution that can find broad support from across the spectrum of the abortion debate.”

Now clearly, Catholics United is all for health care reform, just not abortion coverage, so the sent a message in their statement distancing themselves from fellow pro-lifers from the Family Research Council, saying:

“despite last week’s developments, the Family Research Council has refused to discontinue a misleading television advertising campaign intended to scare viewers into opposing the health reform package. Incredibly, the Family Research Council went as far as to denounce the Capps Amendment as evidence that the current legislative proposal will fund abortions.”

Then the Catholics threw down the gauntlet with this one:

“The Family Research Council’s continued effort to distort the facts leads one to wonder whether the group’s true intent is to derail health care reform.

That one must have scored a direct hit because FRC President, Tony Perkins sailed back with this one, basically accusing the Catholics of being a little, well – stupid:

“contrary to what Catholics United asserts, the Capps amendment would actually specifically include abortion in the health care legislation, solidifying the radical pro-abortion nature of this bill.”

“It has been clear to many that the health bills moving through Congress would fund abortion services and mandate coverage for abortion, jumping well beyond the current law which prohibits the funding or subsidizing of abortion. The current health care bill is one huge abortion edict.”

Now how do you read a statement like “The current health care bill one huge abortion edict.” Sounds to me like Perkins thinks we’re all (women, of course) going to be forced to have abortions whether we want them or not.

As early as August, while all of this was raging we had the principals of the Stupak-Pitt Amendment weighing in predictably:

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI.), a Catholic by the way, sent the message via his press secretary that the Capps amendment is a “phony compromise.” At the same time, Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA.) said in a statement that the amendment “would still allow for taxpayer funding to pay for plans that cover abortion. This is a fig leaf, designed to lure votes from Members who want cover on the issue. The American people will not be fooled. We want an explicit exclusion in the bill to prevent any taxpayer funding from paying for abortions. Anything else is wrong, and contrary to overwhelming popular opinion.”

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, reminded voters that Lois Capps’ pro-life vote-scorecard is 0 for 74. Interestingly enough, before all of this became a red hot issue, Rep. Stupak’s 2007 scorecard was 50 for NARAL Pro-Choice America and 71 for National Right To Life. (According to Project Vote Smart and based on a point system (0 to 100), with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to those two interest groups).

Which places Stupak firmly “on the fence,” in my humble opinion.

Now if you look at Stupak’s partner in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, you’ll find no such fence-sitting. Pitts has been a 100%-er for National Pro-Life forever – which lends credence to the notion that Stupak is actually Pitts’ point man on this to deliver support from his fellow Democratic fence-sitters to make this look solidly bipartisan. (But that, and the C Street Family Ties between Stupak and Pitts are another story for another day).

So, we’ve had a week now to digest the fact that a small wedge-shaped contingent of legislators representing a small wedge-shaped portion of the American electorate are succeeding in turning our health care reform into a Morality Play.

We’ve gotten to see Michael Steele flying around the room backwards when he discovered that for the last eighteen years the RNC’s health insurance plan has covered elective abortions. Steele gave this his usual rant first, think later treatment:

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration.” Too late, Michael, your administration is already a year old and if some lefty-indy bloggers hadn’t pointed out this easily accessible fact you’d still be covered for abortion.

All Steele has to do is open his mouth and half-baked stuff pours out. Clearly he believes, or pretends to believe, that every donor to the RNC is an anti-abortion advocate. And then there’s “Consider this issue settled.” Not so fast there, Buckaroo.

Have you ever tried to change insurance carriers? And don’t tell me that you’re just going to “opt out” of abortion coverage with your current carrier, Cigna, because that doesn’t cut it. Insurance premiums are fungible and therefore, whether your group opts-out or not, if your carrier offers abortion coverage for any of their insureds, you are paying for abortions to be performed for others. The best you can do is switch to a carrier who does not cover abortion, for anyone in the entire plan, and pay the higher overall premiums because, I guarantee, it won’t be a Cigna-type carrier.

I think this revelation about the RNC brings up another interesting point for debate. Chairman Steele feels pretty vehemently that loyal donors money should not be used to provide abortion coverage for RNC staff. By the same token, isn’t it equally reprehensible for Republican Congressmen and Senators to accept donations from insurance companies that provide abortion coverage? Or organizations that represent the insurance industry? After all the Republican platform clearly states that the party considers abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

So why would any Republican accept donations from companies that are in the business of providing abortion coverage? Or, for that matter, from organizations that represent the hospital industry – after all, aren’t some abortions carried out in hospitals? Or the AMA, doesn’t the AMA represent some physicians that provide abortions? Or Pharma companies that provide “morning after” drugs or any drugs used during the course of an abortion and follow-up.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html

Now that the GOP has taken the time to shine a light on this issue, I think there’s only one honorable thing for them to do and that is to return any donations that they have received from outfits having anything to do with abortion. And since current statistics from the Guttmacher Institute show that 87% of typical employer-based insurance policies covered medically necessary or appropriate abortions, I’d be expecting them to give back close to 90% of the money they were given by insurance companies, PACs and lobbyists.

Wouldn’t you?

I could list out figures that would boggle your mind about how much money the healthcare industry has thrown at our Congress to keep things the way they like them – profitable. But better yet, I’ve invited Bill Moyers (who has a lot more “street cred” than I) to tell you in a more memorable way. Maybe if the GOP gives them all of their abortion-tainted donations back, they’ll leave us alone and let us do real health care reform . . .

Well, frumps, it’s been a week now since Congress passed HR 3200 the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the House version of a health care reform bill, complete with Stupak-Pitt Amendment. For those of you who are so sick of hearing about health care reform that you could shriek, I’ll give you the sketchiest of sketches on what that means.

Last Saturday, against all odds, the House passed their bill outlining health care reforms that it backs. That bill, as it stood, could be better (as is true of most human products) but it’s not bad for a start. It would eliminate a lot of the insurance industry abuses that have made our medical expenses unsustainable and that routinely bankrupt American families and small businesses.

Some of those widespread abuses include: denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions; capping lifetime benefits; denial of individual claims for covered benefits; and defining such things as prior “problem” pregnancies and spousal abuse as “pre-existing” conditions to deny coverage.

Throughout the yearlong reform debate, the question of abortion coverage has risen to the top many times and been effectively dealt with by invoking the 33-year-old Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services i.e., Medicaid.

Hyde has always been controversial, itself, because it can be argued that it discriminates against the low-income recipients of Medicaid. To settle some of the gray areas surrounding the application of Hyde to the new reforms, along came Lois Capps who, in an effort to create a compromise that would move the legislation forward, offered an amendment – the Capps Amendment – that would explicitly continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion in the new reform legislation.

The amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services. The Capps Amendment also ensures that in each region of the country, there is at least one plan in the Health Exchange that offers abortions services but also one plan in the Health Exchange that does not offer abortion services.

This actually gives consumers who object to participating in a plan that covers abortion and are getting coverage through the Exchange a choice of insurance coverage greater than what most Americans have in the current employer-based health insurance market. Today, nearly 90 percent of employer-sponsored private health insurance plans cover abortion services.

Enter Catholics United

Now back in August, while the town halls were ablaze, Catholics United, a Pro-Life force to be reckoned with, was tickled pink with the Capps Amendment. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, released this statement in the beginning of August:

“The inclusion of the Capps Amendment represents a positive step toward health care reform that preserves existing policies prohibiting federal funding for abortion services and ensuring conscience protections for health care providers.”

“While some questions do remain, we are confident that health care reform legislation, when finalized, will represent a workable common ground solution that can find broad support from across the spectrum of the abortion debate.”

Now the main difference between Catholic Pro-Lifers and all others, at the time, was that Catholics were pro-health care reform, as long as abortion was not covered by federal funds. Conservative Christian pro-lifers, on the other hand, tend to support a right-wing Republican agenda. Since the GOP position was “kill the bill” that became the Conservative Christian stance too.

Knowing that, Catholics United distanced themselves from fellow pro-lifers from the Family Research Council, saying:

“despite last week’s developments, the Family Research Council has refused to discontinue a misleading television advertising campaign intended to scare viewers into opposing the health reform package. Incredibly, the Family Research Council went as far as to denounce the Capps Amendment as evidence that the current legislative proposal will fund abortions.”

Then the Catholics threw down the gauntlet with this one:

“The Family Research Council’s continued effort to distort the facts leads one to wonder whether the group’s true intent is to derail health care reform.”

That one must have scored a direct hit because FRC President, Tony Perkins, sailed back with this one, basically accusing the Catholics of being a little, well – stupid:

“contrary to what Catholics United asserts, the Capps amendment would actually specifically include abortion in the health care legislation, solidifying the radical pro-abortion nature of this bill.”

“It has been clear to many that the health bills moving through Congress would fund abortion services and mandate coverage for abortion, jumping well beyond the current law which prohibits the funding or subsidizing of abortion. The current health care bill is one huge abortion edict.”

Now how do you read a statement like “The current health care bill is one huge abortion edict” ? Sounds to me like Perkins thinks we’re all (women, of course) going to be forced to have abortions whether we want them or not.

Before this got too far along, though, the politicians had to wade back in and make sure the “pro-life” coalition didn’t break down too much. And it’s no surprise that the politicos that stepped in were emissaries from the C Street Fellowship.

See, this squabbling between Catholics and Protestant pro-lifers runs counter to the Fellowship’s concept of co-belligerency. Which is a notion that people with diametrically opposing views on certain critical issues should nonetheless join together to fight a more treacherous common enemy. The question here: should more Protestant oriented evangelical Christians join forces with Roman Catholics in the cause of ending abortion?

As early as August, while all of this was raging we had the principals of the Stupak-Pitt Amendment weighing in predictably. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI.), a Catholic, sent the message via his press secretary that the Capps amendment is a “phony compromise.” At the same time, Stupak’s buddy Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA.), a Protestant, said slightly more verbosely that the Capps Amendment:

“would still allow for taxpayer funding to pay for plans that cover abortion. This is a fig leaf, designed to lure votes from Members who want cover on the issue. The American people will not be fooled. We want an explicit exclusion in the bill to prevent any taxpayer funding from paying for abortions. Anything else is wrong, and contrary to overwhelming popular opinion.”

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, reminded voters that Lois Capps’ pro-life vote-scorecard is 0 for 74, (but Lois Capps was always upfront about the fact that, despite her pro-choice position, she would provide the pro-life language to move the legislation forward).

Interestingly enough, before all of this became a red hot issue, Rep. Stupak’s 2007 scorecard was 50 for NARAL Pro-Choice America and 71 for National Right To Life. (According to Project Vote Smart and based on a point system (0 to 100), with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to those two interest groups).

Which places Stupak firmly “on the fence,” in my humble opinion.

Now if you look at Stupak’s partner in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, you’ll find no such fence-sitting. Pitts has been a 100%-er for National Pro-Life forever – which lends credence to the notion that Stupak is actually Pitts’ point man – or co-belligerent, if you will – expected to deliver support from any fellow Democratic fence-sitters to make this look solidly bipartisan. (But that, and the C Street Fellowship creed of Jesus Plus Nothing reconstructionism is another story for another day).

And then, of course, despite any populist statements that came from Catholics United, we had the Catholic Bishop’s Association (the political arm) enter right on cue at the eleventh hour. Quite a piece of political theater.

The HR 3200 Morality Play

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration.”

Too late, Michael, your administration is already a year old and if some lefty-indy reporters hadn’t pointed out this easily accessible fact you’d still be covered for abortion.

All Steele has to do is open his mouth and half-baked stuff just pours out. Clearly he believes, or pretends to believe, that every donor to the RNC is a staunch anti-abortion advocate. And then there’s “Consider this issue settled.” Not so fast there, Buckaroo.

Have you ever tried to change insurance carriers? And don’t tell me that you’re just going to “opt out” of abortion coverage with your current carrier, Cigna, because that doesn’t cut it. Insurance premiums are fungible and therefore, whether your group opts-out or not, if your carrier offers abortion coverage for any of their insureds, you are paying for abortions to be performed for others. The best you can do is switch to a carrier who does not cover abortion, period, and pay the higher overall premiums because, I guarantee, it won’t be a Cigna-type carrier.

What’s Good for the Goose . . .

I think this revelation about the RNC brings up another interesting point for debate. Chairman Steele feels pretty vehemently that his loyal donors’ money should not be used to provide abortion coverage for RNC staff. By the same token, isn’t it equally reprehensible for Republican Congressmen and Senators to accept donations from insurance companies that provide abortion coverage to millions? Or organizations that represent the insurance industry as a whole (like AHIP)? After all, the Republican platform clearly states that the party considers abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

So why would any Republican accept donations from companies that are in the business of providing abortion coverage? Or, for that matter, from organizations that represent the hospital industry – aren’t some abortions carried out in hospitals? Or the AMA, doesn’t the AMA represent some physicians that provide abortions? Or Pharma companies that provide “morning after” drugs or any drugs used during the course of an abortion and follow-up.

Now that the GOP has taken the time to shine a light on this issue, I think there’s only one honorable thing for them to do and that is to return any donations that they have received from outfits having anything to do with abortion. And since current statistics from the Guttmacher Institute show that 87% of typical employer-based insurance policies cover medically necessary or appropriate abortions, I’d be expecting them to give back close to 90% of the money they were given by insurance companies, PACs and lobbyists.

Wouldn’t you?

The Big, Fat Bottom Line

I could list out figures that would boggle your mind about how much money the healthcare industry has thrown at our Congress to keep things the way they like them – profitable. But better yet, I’ve invited Bill Moyers (who has a lot more “street cred” than I) to tell you in a more memorable way. Maybe if the GOP gives back all of their abortion-tainted donations their consciences will clear and the health care lobby won’t feel so bad about all that wasted PAC money and they’ll let us get on with real health care reform . . .