Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

[juliee]

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

Washington, DC -- It's official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/o...-in-obamacare/

[_Abyssinia]

Universal health care seems to inevitably lead to abortion being funded and we can see with ObamaCare. The entire health care law has to be repealed.

[_Abyssinia]

Jill Stanek:

I spent some time talking to friends in the House this morning to understand and explain this.

Insurance companies that want to participate in Obamacare’s exchange program must follow certain guidelines – the “rule” issued yesterday, which is actually a whole bunch of rules.

The attraction for insurance companies to participate in the exchange program is that under Obamacare the federal government will pay all or a part of someone’s insurance premium who makes up to 400% above the poverty level. But those people can only choose their insurance from an Obama-approved company in the “exchange.” This amounts to thousands or millions or prospective new insurees whose payments will be totally or mostly guaranteed.

Insurance companies participating in the exchange program do not have to provide elective abortions. In fact, some states have passed laws disallowing insurance companies in their states from offering elective abortions in the Obamacare exchange program.

But if an insurance company participating in the Obamacare exchange program does offer elective abortions, everyone who buys insurance from that company will have to pay a $1 separate surcharge every month to cover the cost of abortions. It doesn’t matter if you are pro-life. It doesn’t matter if you’re a 72-yr-old woman who will never abort. You have to pay the $1 surcharge.

If you pay for your insurance by check, you will have to write out two checks every month, one for the premium and one for $1. If you pay for your insurance by automatic bank withdrawal, you will see two withdrawals every month, one for the premium and one for $1. If you pay for your insurance by credit card, you will see two charges on your bill every month, one for the premium and one for $1.

This was the accounting gimmick added by supposedly pro-life Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson so the government could try to say it does not subsidize elective abortions. Nelson is now retiring, in small or large part due to this. Pro-lifers now abhor him.

But there’s more. The HHS rule issued yesterday will force insurance companies to go to great lengths to hide the reason for the $1 surcharge.

The rule states insurance companies will not be allowed to mention the surcharge in their advertising. They can only advertise the total premium amount.

The rule states insurance companies will not be allowed to itemize “abortion” on bank, credit card statements, or anywhere as the reason for the $1 monthly charge.

The only place the reason for the $1 monthly surcharge will be listed is in the 20 pages of fine print you get when you enroll in your insurance plan.

But people will ask. Abortion proponents know this and hate the separate surcharge. I’m hopeful Obamacare will never see the light of day, but if it does the $1 surcharge will only stigmatize abortion even more.

There is more to the rule that goes a bit into the weeds, but I’ll stop here.

http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/03/gu...ion-surcharge/

[juliee]

Americans Strongly Oppose Obama Mandate, New Poll Shows

Washington, DC -- New polling released by New York Times/CBS finds Americans strongly oppose the new HHS mandate and favor a broad exemption for religious groups and employers who do not want to pay for birth control drugs or drugs that may cause abortions.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/13/a...ew-poll-shows/

[losh14]

It blows my mind how much this bill seems to morph day by day. I expected some form of coverage for abortions - many plans do now cover it, where it is allowed. Our health plan is among those.

I'm also astonished that the federal government is suddenly subsidizing so much of the health plan premiums. I did not think that was on the table at all. To subsidize health insurance to some extent for families earning up to 400% of the poverty line, that covers a very large number of Americans who currently afford their health plans. Yeah, I'd love to be able to pay less, and I'm sure there are families who sacrifice more than mine does to afford a good health plan, but still that line seems set ludicrously high. According to this fact sheet:

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi...20for%20PE.pdf

That 400% level for a family of 4 in 2012 would be $7,450 per month, or just shy of $90k annually. I don't believe it's a good use of public funds, no matter how received, to subsidize health insurance for people making $90k annually.

So $1 separate premium as an accounting trick to avoid both allegations of using federal funds to subsidize abortions (which is illegal under U.S. Code), and to get around abortion coverage being mandatory. It's still going to cause a furor, and line-iteming it will not help. The separate nature of the charge will, no matter what, lead people who are opposed to abortions to ask whether they can just 'not pay' the separate fee. Some will likely not pay it (if paying by check), lose their insurance and grumble. I'm sure many will forget (would you really remember to pay that Dollar More portion of your gas bill every month if it meant writing out and sending a separate $1 check to the gas company?), and many will express grief over having to pay for something they disagree with in order to obtain health insurance - it's more immediate and more involving to explicitly write out a check that's for the purpose of paying for another person's abortion than if it's just included in the pool of funds from your insurance plan.

The fact is that no matter how legal abortion is in the United States, a very large number of Americans - voters and non-voters, insured and uninsured, employed and unemployed, religious and non-religious - are not comfortable with it and want no part of it. This is why the pro-choice mantra of "safe, legal and rare" gets hung up whenever numbers are brought into the picture - that 1 million babies are aborted each year including 90% of all Down's Syndrome babies. It's just astonishing because it comes across as so monstruous, and rightly so.

If you're reading my post and disagree with me you may very well say that pro-lifers won't be happy until there's no abortions in the United States. You're right, we won't. It's incredibly difficult to justify the taking of innocent life, especially when the vast majority of abortions are performed electively, ie without the terrible circumstance of rape or incest or where the tragedy of having to choose between the life of the child and the life of the mother is not an issue. I'd prefer the pro-choice mantra to what we have now.

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Jill Stanek:


http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/03/gu...ion-surcharge/

Does anyone know where this surcharge is in the newly released rule? The rule is 644 pages and I don't have time or the inclination to go through the entire document.

It is not specified in Jill Stanek's article or the Lifesite article.

Thanks.

Peace

Tim

[TheTrueCentrist]

Evidently LifeSiteNews believes that everyone who elects to get an insurance policy that covers abortions will get abortions at a rate of 1 abortion per month.

The math:
Titular claim: $1 / abortion
Claim in the text: $1/month/enrollee

The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered.

($1/month/enrollee) / ($1/abortion) = 1 abortion per month per enrollee

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Evidently LifeSiteNews believes that everyone who elects to get an insurance policy that covers abortions will get abortions at a rate of 1 abortion per month.

If we assume that 1/3rd of the women in the USA get a plan with abortion coverage, and that they all get 1 abortion per month, the abortion rate would increase by around 450x. Not percent, the abortion rate would be 450 time higher than it currently is.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...+in+the+USA%29
(the answer should be dimensionless, but adding the math to do so makes wolfram alpha time out)

Alternatively, if the abortion rate stays the same, 1/3rd of all women get abortion coverage, and all abortions are paid for by the $1 fee from health insurance, then there would be roughly $450 available to pay for each abortion.

[_Abyssinia]

Democrats trying to turn the HHS mandate into a women's rights issue is backfiring big time. People can see through it.

[losh14]

Thanks, TrueCentrist. It looks like we need some fact-checking to verify what's in the two articles cited. Granted, the LifeNews article cited an insider's take, which may be wrong or may simply not be reflected in the language of the law.

I've done a quick search through the (voluminous) text of the law and come to
Section 1303(a)(2)(C)(ii)(III):

"(III) may not estimate such a cost at less
than $1 per enrollee, per month."

Which is the actuarial value of a separate premium for providing abortion coverage for all enrolled persons under an insurance plan that covers abortion. This is under a section pertaining to the separation of funds so as to prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortions. It doesn't actually indicate a $1 premium but rather requires that accounting is done so that the cost of insuring against the provision of abortions does not infringe into protected monies. I think.

What's also interesting, and germane to much of the present debate is Section 1303(a)(3):

PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual
health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated
against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing
so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider
or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer
for abortions.

Note that this clause is about abortions, not contraception, so that I would expect this law to not be read to require Catholic organizations to fund abortions, although there is no express conscience protection for contraception.

[Schism hater]

Originally Posted by juliee

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

Washington, DC -- It's official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/o...-in-obamacare/

From your link:

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

Do all insurance plans include elective abortion coverage? No. The article, and your caption, is deceptive. This looks like "death panels" redux.

[juliee]

Obamacare $1 Abortion Payment Surcharge Upsets Pro-Lifers

Washington, DC -- Leading pro-life organizations are upset by the news that the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law allowing for a $1 abortion insurance payment surcharge.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/14/o...ts-pro-lifers/

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by juliee

Obamacare $1 Abortion Payment Surcharge Upsets Pro-Lifers

Washington, DC -- Leading pro-life organizations are upset by the news that the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law allowing for a $1 abortion insurance payment surcharge.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/14/o...ts-pro-lifers/

As I demonstrated with math, $1 per month is all that is required to pay for abortions. If 1/3rd of women get abortion coverage, and the abortion rate stays roughly the same, there will be $450 available per abortion. That is about the current average cost of an abortion.