Manhattan Right to Life:
ObamaCare -- and you
Tragically, the Obama-backed health bill squeaked through the U. S. House of Representatives, 219-212. Thus, the House gave approval to Obama's massive -- pro-abortion -- health care restructuring bill, H.R. 3590, which was strongly opposed by National Right to Life.
To review and survey events, Click here.
A brief overview of developments follows below; stressing these areas:
abortion
rationing health services
taxpayers' money
Check out the facts!
Abortion
With no – exactly zero – votes to spare, Harry Reid’s 2,074-page health care bill squeaked past its first procedural hurdle on November 21, 2009 to begin Senate debate. Surprising no one, Barack Hussein Obama once again is pushing this legislation. [Check out MRLC's blog for the latest.]
This comes after Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid strode out of the proverbial back room with the Senate health bill, on November 18th. At 2,074 pages, his bill is even larger than House Speaker Pelosi's.
Pointedly, Reid has included abortion funding. Section 1303, “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” of Reid's bill, provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This is federal funding of abortion, period. Complete with a monthly abortion premium.
National Right to Life promptly responded, noting:
The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.
This was echoed by the Heritage Foundation which put it bluntly: The Senate Health Bill: Taxpayer Funded Abortions. The Heritage Foundation has also provided an initial analysis The five major flaws of both the Pelosi and Reid Bills.
To the surprise of virtually no one, Barack Hussein Obama is supporting Reid's bill, the usual pro-abortion crowd is also, predictably, pleased.
Pitts-Stupak Amendment Passes the House.
On November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives supported the principle of no public funding for abortions or public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions. This was approved by a vote of 240-194.
This crucial pro-life addition to the Administration health bill was sponsored by a colaition of Republican and Democratic Representatives, including Christopher Smith, from the NY metropolitan area.
The vote came about only after substantial pressure had been brought to bear in its favor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had refused to allow an up-or-down vote on this amendment – until she saw defeat looming for the overall measure.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had announced the arrival of this House health care bill, early in November.
Running to 1,990 pages, the bill was assigned a new number,
H.R.3962, and given the ironic title of Affordable Health Care for America.
Analysis of the proposal shows it included every objectionable feature being pushed by the Obama Administration. This bill had included abortion, and still excludes a conscience clause. It includes so-called Comparative Effectiveness Research, and the notorious "Advanced Care Planning," to ration health care for seniors.
The Heritage Foundation provides an analysis and tells us, point blank, that "The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you."
Next, the "Wall Street Journal" provides a no-holds-barred disection of this bill, which it describes as "The Worst Bill Ever -- Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all." [For "The WSJ Guide to ObamaCare" -- click here.]
As background, on September 30th, Sen. Max Baucus's Senate Committee on Finance voted down the Hatch amendment, which would have banned the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. If Obama and Baucus do not plan to fund abortion, why would this amendment be a problem?
Then, this committee also voted down a conscience clause, to protect those with moral objections to abortion. Clearly, Obama and Baucus feel that taxpayers should be required to pay for abortions and that medical professionals should be required to perform abortions regardless of their moral and religious beliefs.
This is completely consistent with Obama's record of being far more radically pro-abortion than any other White House occupant.
Taxpayers
Obama claims that his "reform" will save the taxpayers money. On October 11, America’s Health Insurance Plans released the results of its study, showing that ObamaCare would more than double premium costs. This study was undertaken by one of the world's largest professional services firms, and 'big-four' accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers. This report has to have more credibility than that of a partisan Obama think-tank.
Then, the Associated Press, in an article headed Health insurance bills could be hardship for many, tells us that under "the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income [a tax increase of nearly $7,000!] for health insurance" -- not a comforting thought and not an improvement on what we have now.
The "Wall Street Journal" takes apart the Obama pretense that those who are happy with the insurance they have now can keep it, asking the rhetorical question: When government 'competes,' guess who always wins? See what the "Journal" has to say -- about what Obama has planned for YOU.
This is an ever changing situation, in which National Right to Life stays up to date and summarizes what's going on for you.
More importantly, NRLC shows what YOU can do to help.
Check in frequently!
Through all this, Barack Hussein Obama's catch-all bill, HR 3200, remains in play. This bill has gone through many iterations. It has been amended by committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is still a work in progress.
The text of the bill now runs to over a thousand pages, clearly not easy reading. Various groups, however, have begun to provide analysis and input.
One of the first was the American Medical Association, the AMA. This group has indicated a desire "work with members [of Congress] to improve the bill," this is as there are "provisions that we [the AMA] want to see changed.”
An overview is provided by The Health Care Blog, which points out this bill is unlikely to achieve its stated objective, and will see "the Medicare Trust Fund exhausted by 2017."
Liberty Counsel provides a provision by provision overview, showing how particular provisions will affect you. A duo of pundits then takes a look at how ObamaCare could be putting Planned Parenthood in to your child's class room. This same duo provides a salient overview of the ObamaCare big picture, rationing, bureaucratic control, and lack of accountability, for starters.
Another blogger analyzes how the impact of ObamaCare on the insurance industry will actually impact on your ability to keep your present health insurance. Will this bill "kill the private insurance industry and force people onto the government plan?"