/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Americans for Tax Reform issued the following:
On Sunday, in a live, nationally televised interview just prior to the Super Bowl, President Obama made the following claim:
"I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
Let's break down the statement, starting with Obama's "I didn't raise taxes once" claim. This assertion is blatantly false, as President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases:
Feb. 4, 2009 – Obama signs federal tobacco tax hike: Just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco – a hike of 62 cents per pack. Obama's signature on this tax hike was a violation of his central campaign promise – a "firm pledge" that no American making less than $250,000 would see "any form of tax increase." The median income of smokers is just over $36,000.
March 23, 2010 – Obama signs the healthcare bill into law: Obama's signature on the healthcare bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violate his "firm pledge" on taxes), including but not limited to:
* Individual Mandate Excise Tax
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax
* Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
* Surtax on Investment Income
* Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
* Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
* Medicine Cabinet Tax
* HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
* Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka "Special Needs Kids Tax"
* Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
* "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
* Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
* Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
* Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
* Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
* Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
* Tax on Health Insurers
* Biofuel "black liquor" tax hike
* Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"
Now let's turn to the second part of Obama's claim: "I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
* President Obama's entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax relief he has signed into law. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts
* Over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary
* 100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent
* Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion
Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts
Monday, February 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Perkins: Senate Would Rather Mandate Abortion Funding Than Enact 'Health Care Reform'
/PRNewswire/ -- This evening, the Nelson-Hatch abortion anti-funding amendment to the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was "tabled" by a vote of 54-45, thus killing any hope to make the health care bill abortion neutral. The Nelson-Hatch amendment would have prevented government funding for elective abortion in the public option or subsidies for health plans in the government run exchange that cover elective abortion. Of all the concerns in the legislation, abortion is the one issue that the Democrats are afraid to have a straight up-or-down vote on.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, November 5, 2009
RetireSafe Calls AARP's Support of House Bill the Greatest Fraud Against Seniors in the 21st Century
/PRNewswire/ -- In a statement released today, RetireSafe President Thair Phillips calls AARP's endorsement of the House health care bill the greatest fraud against seniors in the 21st century. He said, "AARP, easily the most influential seniors lobby, is using their clout to get a bill passed that will slash Medicare and ration the health care of seniors."
According to Phillips, it's a sham for AARP to throw its weight behind a bill most seniors do not support. He said, "AARP gets the major amount of its revenue from selling insurance and they DO have a dog in this fight. Instead of protecting their insurance coffers, AARP should be protecting the health of seniors, the very ones they are supposed to help."
Phillips contends that backing the 10-year, tax-hiking, $1.2 trillion House bill is a deceptive move for AARP, and its endorsement in today's highly politicized atmosphere will anger many of its members.
RetireSafe represents older Americans who are concerned about cuts in Medicare payments to medical providers. Visiting Congressional offices this week, the seniors' advocacy group is making a last ditch effort to impact the legislation. They met with senior advisors at the White House last month.
In a recent RetireSafe survey in their Listens campaign, over 1,500 older Americans expressed concern about the health care reform bill. Over half of the respondents, 60%, said there are not any groups who represent their interest in Washington; 93% said being able to choose the doctor they want is a top priority; while 64% felt having a public option was their lowest priority. RetireSafe launched the Listens campaign to give seniors across the country a chance to voice their strong opinions.
Phillips encourages older people looking for someone to turn to now, to visit RetireSafe's website at www.retiresafe.org, and get their voice heard and counted in the online survey.
According to Phillips, our leaders should listen to seniors as well as to common sense views of officials like Tennessee Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, who was one of the governors who didn't sign a letter supporting the House bill. A former HMO executive, he has been perhaps the party's sharpest critic in the funding debate.
Said Phillips, "Gov. Bredesen, in an interview this September, called the potential expansion of Medicaid in health care reform 'the mother of all unfunded mandates... We can't print money. We can't borrow money. A lot of staffers in Congress really don't understand this idea of a balanced budget.' RetireSafe agrees."
With the help of AARP, House leaders may have the votes they need before the gavel falls Saturday. Said Phillips, "If so, older Americans are in for the sham of the century."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
According to Phillips, it's a sham for AARP to throw its weight behind a bill most seniors do not support. He said, "AARP gets the major amount of its revenue from selling insurance and they DO have a dog in this fight. Instead of protecting their insurance coffers, AARP should be protecting the health of seniors, the very ones they are supposed to help."
Phillips contends that backing the 10-year, tax-hiking, $1.2 trillion House bill is a deceptive move for AARP, and its endorsement in today's highly politicized atmosphere will anger many of its members.
RetireSafe represents older Americans who are concerned about cuts in Medicare payments to medical providers. Visiting Congressional offices this week, the seniors' advocacy group is making a last ditch effort to impact the legislation. They met with senior advisors at the White House last month.
In a recent RetireSafe survey in their Listens campaign, over 1,500 older Americans expressed concern about the health care reform bill. Over half of the respondents, 60%, said there are not any groups who represent their interest in Washington; 93% said being able to choose the doctor they want is a top priority; while 64% felt having a public option was their lowest priority. RetireSafe launched the Listens campaign to give seniors across the country a chance to voice their strong opinions.
Phillips encourages older people looking for someone to turn to now, to visit RetireSafe's website at www.retiresafe.org, and get their voice heard and counted in the online survey.
According to Phillips, our leaders should listen to seniors as well as to common sense views of officials like Tennessee Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, who was one of the governors who didn't sign a letter supporting the House bill. A former HMO executive, he has been perhaps the party's sharpest critic in the funding debate.
Said Phillips, "Gov. Bredesen, in an interview this September, called the potential expansion of Medicaid in health care reform 'the mother of all unfunded mandates... We can't print money. We can't borrow money. A lot of staffers in Congress really don't understand this idea of a balanced budget.' RetireSafe agrees."
With the help of AARP, House leaders may have the votes they need before the gavel falls Saturday. Said Phillips, "If so, older Americans are in for the sham of the century."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, October 5, 2009
President Obama Mistakenly Invites OPPONENT To Stand Up for Him at White House Today: AAPS Doctors Ask, Is He Having Trouble Finding Supporters?
/PRNewswire/ -- One of the doctors who will NOT be standing behind the President today is one of his most vocal opponents. But he would have been there if the White House had its way.
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Dr. Eric Novack was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.
"They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered," Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.
Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the "once-in-a-lifetime" invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.
"Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?" asked Serkes. "It's looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help."
AAPS SURVEYS REBUT WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS
Serkes also rebuts the White House claims that doctors overwhelmingly support the public plan. A recent poll on the AAPS web site, www.TakeBackMedicine.com shows that 93% of the doctors polled are even more adamantly against the President's plans after his national address to Congress and the country on Sept. 9.
Further, pre-publication results of an AAPS survey show that about 80% of doctors would refuse to VOLUNTARILY take part in a public plan.
So what will Dr. Novack be doing on Monday instead of standing behind the President? "I'll be taking care of patients -- because that's what it's all about."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Votes Against 'Public Option' Make Regulation of Health Insurance Premiums and Rates a Last Chance for Healthy, Competitive Market Under Reform,
Votes Against 'Public Option' Make Regulation of Health Insurance Premiums and Rates a Last Chance for Healthy, Competitive Market Under Reform, Says Consumer Watchdog
/PRNewswire/ -- The defeat of the so-called public insurance option in the Senate Finance Committee's version of health reform makes regulation of insurance premiums and copays even more critical, said Consumer Watchdog. If Americans are forced to buy private insurance policies under national health reform and nothing is done to regulate the prices of policies, consumers will remain trapped in a rising cost spiral enabled by insurers. Rate regulation is far from radical and is also good for the insurance industry, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group.
The nation's toughest regulation of other types of insurance, including auto and homeowner policies, has produced a healthier, more competitive and even more profitable insurance market in California than in other states.
A 2008 study by Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America found that since California passed highly effective regulation of property and casualty insurance in 1998, the state's dysfunctional insurance market has transformed. It is now the nation's fourth most competitive, fewer drivers are thrown into high-risk pools and insurers' average profits, at 10.6%, are well above the national average. Yet consumers also saved $61.8 billion dollars on their premiums over the same period and California insurance prices went from the second most expensive in the nation in 1989 to 20th in 2005 for auto liability premiums.
(see the study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/state_auto_insurance_report.pdf)
Even medical malpractice insurance prices in California dropped sharply after the introduction of regulation, which appears far more effective in cost control than forbidding lawsuits against malpractice.
With health insurance rate regulation, insurers would have good reason to push for better, more effective and less wasteful health care, said Consumer Watchdog, just as auto insurers in California have backed tough auto and driver safety measures and home safety measures, as well as curbing fraud. Without regulation, insurers have no need to become more efficient.
"Mandatory insurance, as proposed in all the major bills in Congress, will turn government into a massive customer delivery system on behalf of a private industry," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Regulation is no more than a balancing force to this great benefit for insurance companies. For the Senate to brush off regulation as too much 'intervention' will leave millions of consumers dangling at the mercy of corporate sharks."
In a recent news report, former California Lieutenant Gov. and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi pinpointed the lack of cost controls without rate regulation. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a key figure in developing the Senate's proposals on health reform, said of regulation:
"That would be a very substantial additional intervention in the marketplace. I just don't think the support would be there for that kind of a change."
(see the L.A. Times story at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-affordability2 -2009sep24,0,2139648,full.story )
Consumer Watchdog said rate regulation is a far lighter intervention than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, and is a familiar presence in the U.S. marketplace.
"The mystery of today's debate is that tough rate regulation is not being seriously considered," said Dugan. "Forcing Americans to buy private insurance is radical, but rate regulation is the opposite of radical. It results in both lower rates and a healthier marketplace."
Here are some of the key points of the 2008 Consumer Federation study of Proposition 103, the 1998 voter initiative that regulates property and casualty insurance:
*An important adjunct to the regulatory framework established by Proposition 103 is its mechanism for public scrutiny and participation in the process of reviewing and approving rates. Proposition 103 grants consumers the right to challenge improper rates and practices before the Department of Insurance as well as the courts.
*A key factor in reducing insurer costs and consumer rates for automobile insurance is the strong financial incentives that the law provides consumers to drive more safely.
*California profits outpaced national insurer profits:
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AUTO INSURER PROFITS
1989 - 2005 Return on Net Worth
(First figure is California returns, second figure is national returns)
Personal Auto Liability 12.9% 7.5%
Personal Auto Physical Damage 15.8% 16.3%
Personal Auto Total 13.5% 9.9%
Homeowners 7.4% -1.2%
All Property/Casualty Lines 13.9% 6.5%
-- California is first among all states in holding down insurance
premiums, with a 12.9 percent increase compared to an average national
increase of 50 percent;
-- California is the fourth most competitive auto insurance market in the
nation; Completely unregulated Illinois ranks 44th.
Other regulations under Proposition 103 that would benefit consumers directly, if applied to health insurance, include:
-- Requirement that insurers be transparent about how rates are
developed;
-- Prohibition on pass-through of excessive costs including unjustifiable
expenses, fines, and excessive executive salaries;
-- Standards that test the assumptions insurers make in setting rates.
It is worth recalling, in response to Sen. Bingaman, that insurance companies warned in 1988 that insurance regulation would be "massive government intervention" and would sharply raise insurance rates.
The result, notes Consumer Watchdog, was the opposite. And regulation was good for the industry as well.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- The defeat of the so-called public insurance option in the Senate Finance Committee's version of health reform makes regulation of insurance premiums and copays even more critical, said Consumer Watchdog. If Americans are forced to buy private insurance policies under national health reform and nothing is done to regulate the prices of policies, consumers will remain trapped in a rising cost spiral enabled by insurers. Rate regulation is far from radical and is also good for the insurance industry, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group.
The nation's toughest regulation of other types of insurance, including auto and homeowner policies, has produced a healthier, more competitive and even more profitable insurance market in California than in other states.
A 2008 study by Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America found that since California passed highly effective regulation of property and casualty insurance in 1998, the state's dysfunctional insurance market has transformed. It is now the nation's fourth most competitive, fewer drivers are thrown into high-risk pools and insurers' average profits, at 10.6%, are well above the national average. Yet consumers also saved $61.8 billion dollars on their premiums over the same period and California insurance prices went from the second most expensive in the nation in 1989 to 20th in 2005 for auto liability premiums.
(see the study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/state_auto_insurance_report.pdf)
Even medical malpractice insurance prices in California dropped sharply after the introduction of regulation, which appears far more effective in cost control than forbidding lawsuits against malpractice.
With health insurance rate regulation, insurers would have good reason to push for better, more effective and less wasteful health care, said Consumer Watchdog, just as auto insurers in California have backed tough auto and driver safety measures and home safety measures, as well as curbing fraud. Without regulation, insurers have no need to become more efficient.
"Mandatory insurance, as proposed in all the major bills in Congress, will turn government into a massive customer delivery system on behalf of a private industry," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Regulation is no more than a balancing force to this great benefit for insurance companies. For the Senate to brush off regulation as too much 'intervention' will leave millions of consumers dangling at the mercy of corporate sharks."
In a recent news report, former California Lieutenant Gov. and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi pinpointed the lack of cost controls without rate regulation. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a key figure in developing the Senate's proposals on health reform, said of regulation:
"That would be a very substantial additional intervention in the marketplace. I just don't think the support would be there for that kind of a change."
(see the L.A. Times story at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-affordability2 -2009sep24,0,2139648,full.story )
Consumer Watchdog said rate regulation is a far lighter intervention than requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, and is a familiar presence in the U.S. marketplace.
"The mystery of today's debate is that tough rate regulation is not being seriously considered," said Dugan. "Forcing Americans to buy private insurance is radical, but rate regulation is the opposite of radical. It results in both lower rates and a healthier marketplace."
Here are some of the key points of the 2008 Consumer Federation study of Proposition 103, the 1998 voter initiative that regulates property and casualty insurance:
*An important adjunct to the regulatory framework established by Proposition 103 is its mechanism for public scrutiny and participation in the process of reviewing and approving rates. Proposition 103 grants consumers the right to challenge improper rates and practices before the Department of Insurance as well as the courts.
*A key factor in reducing insurer costs and consumer rates for automobile insurance is the strong financial incentives that the law provides consumers to drive more safely.
*California profits outpaced national insurer profits:
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AUTO INSURER PROFITS
1989 - 2005 Return on Net Worth
(First figure is California returns, second figure is national returns)
Personal Auto Liability 12.9% 7.5%
Personal Auto Physical Damage 15.8% 16.3%
Personal Auto Total 13.5% 9.9%
Homeowners 7.4% -1.2%
All Property/Casualty Lines 13.9% 6.5%
-- California is first among all states in holding down insurance
premiums, with a 12.9 percent increase compared to an average national
increase of 50 percent;
-- California is the fourth most competitive auto insurance market in the
nation; Completely unregulated Illinois ranks 44th.
Other regulations under Proposition 103 that would benefit consumers directly, if applied to health insurance, include:
-- Requirement that insurers be transparent about how rates are
developed;
-- Prohibition on pass-through of excessive costs including unjustifiable
expenses, fines, and excessive executive salaries;
-- Standards that test the assumptions insurers make in setting rates.
It is worth recalling, in response to Sen. Bingaman, that insurance companies warned in 1988 that insurance regulation would be "massive government intervention" and would sharply raise insurance rates.
The result, notes Consumer Watchdog, was the opposite. And regulation was good for the industry as well.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Today Is a Critical Day in Health Care Reform for Pro-Life America'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today is a critical day in the health care reform battle as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee considers several pro-life amendments filed by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch that would prevent government funding for abortion and assisted suicide, and preserve current conscience laws for health care workers and providers.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Family Research Council: Senator Baucus Undermines President Obama's Abortion Funding Claim
/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced a detailed summary of his "America's Health Future Act of 2009" that will be marked-up in the Senate Financial Services Committee next week.
The Baucus legislation explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions and moves well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. On Friday morning at the Values Voter Summit, this issue will be discussed in greater detail during a congressional panel discussion.
Responding, Tony Perkins said:
"Senator Baucus' new health care bill puts to rest the President's claim that 'abortion is not included' in the Senate health care bill. The Baucus plan includes abortion, pure and simple. Like the Capps abortion amendment in the House bill, the Baucus plan would subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions but with tax credits. The accounting used in the bill is a matter of smoke and mirrors, since elective abortion is authorized for health plans receiving government subsidies.
"The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent 'federal funding of abortion' as President Obama said last week. Moreover, the Baucus bill would spend $6 billion to establish health care co-ops and this funding could be used for elective abortion because it is not subject to the Hyde Amendment appropriations provision.
"If President Obama is serious about preventing funding for abortion in health care reform, he should immediately support adoption of Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to exclude abortion from all health care reform legislation. Democrat Senator Bob Casey voted for such an amendment in the Senate Health Committee.
"It's time for President Obama to stop the smoke and mirrors on abortion and health care and straightforwardly tell Congress to permanently exclude abortion coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Baucus legislation explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions and moves well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. On Friday morning at the Values Voter Summit, this issue will be discussed in greater detail during a congressional panel discussion.
Responding, Tony Perkins said:
"Senator Baucus' new health care bill puts to rest the President's claim that 'abortion is not included' in the Senate health care bill. The Baucus plan includes abortion, pure and simple. Like the Capps abortion amendment in the House bill, the Baucus plan would subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions but with tax credits. The accounting used in the bill is a matter of smoke and mirrors, since elective abortion is authorized for health plans receiving government subsidies.
"The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent 'federal funding of abortion' as President Obama said last week. Moreover, the Baucus bill would spend $6 billion to establish health care co-ops and this funding could be used for elective abortion because it is not subject to the Hyde Amendment appropriations provision.
"If President Obama is serious about preventing funding for abortion in health care reform, he should immediately support adoption of Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to exclude abortion from all health care reform legislation. Democrat Senator Bob Casey voted for such an amendment in the Senate Health Committee.
"It's time for President Obama to stop the smoke and mirrors on abortion and health care and straightforwardly tell Congress to permanently exclude abortion coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)