Obamacare funds subsidizing abortions, despite legislative guarantees [CWN]


#1

American taxpayers are subsidizing abortions through the new federal health policy, despite federal law that prohibits federal funding for abortion, a new study has found. The …

More…


#2

“The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a survey of insurance programs, found that only 1 out of 18 insurers was segregating funds for abortions, as required by the health-care reform legislation.”

“Segregating” funds? I don’t know what the term means in this context. Anyone care to chime in? If I read this correctly, it looks to me like 17 private companies are breaking the law.


#3

Think of it as two pools of money. The first pool of money comes from the Federal government while the second pool comes from payments by policyholders. The insurance companies are legally required to pay for services relating to abortion coverage from the second pool. What the GAO is saying is that insurance companies are breaking the law by combining money from both sources into a single pool.


#4

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (now a healthcare lobbyist) became the 60th vote for Obamacare after supposedly winning a compromise from his party on abortion coverage. Nelson explained it this way:
If you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds … for that abortion coverage.
The new GAO study shows that, instead, taxpayers are subsidizing abortions. Customers in five states have no abortion-free plans available to them, and in many states, customers can’t tell which plans cover abortion and which don’t.
In Washington State, for instance, the state’s exchange bills customers on behalf of insurers — and the exchange covers abortion with federal tax dollars. The GAO found: “The exchange’s billing system was not assessing any premium to individuals whose premiums are fully subsidized under the law if these individuals are enrolled in QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services.”
In other words, some customers with abortion coverage were nevertheless getting their entire premium covered by federal tax credits. No accounting gimmick can disguise that this is an abortion subsidy. State officials told the GAO this was a mistake they would remedy.
In fifteen other states, there’s not enough transparency to tell if this is going on. GAO wrote:
Fifteen issuers and the Washington Health Benefit Exchange … did not itemize the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion services coverage on enrollees’ bills nor indicate that they send a separate bill for that premium amount.
In a conference call with pro-life lawmakers Monday, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said this indicates that abortion coverage isn’t being assessed differently and is thus being subsidized through standard exchange subsidies.
Not only is Obamacare forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion coverage, it is also making it impossible for pro-lifers to avoid buying abortion insurance — thus forcing pro-life people to pay into a pool that pays for abortions.

washingtonexaminer.com/gao-report-shows-how-obamacare-subsidizes-abortion/article/2553429?custom_click=rss


#5

Why can’t they call the insurance company and ask?

Isn’t that what the insurance companies are supposed to do (collect a separate payment from the policyholder)?

No, what can’t be disguised is that insurance companies are breaking the law.


#6

Based on the article provided, it seems abundantly obvious that private healthcare companies are breaking the law. Why is this framed as problem with the Obamacare legislation? :confused:


#7

Personally, I don’t see how the government using our money to force US to fund abortion is any more ethical than the government using our money to fund abortion.


#8

Do you really think the federal government is going to do anything about that?


#9

The Obama administration has a long history of not enforcing laws they disagree with. This is just another example. Of course we all knew Obamacare was going to pay for abortions but it became very convenient for Catholic Democrats to ignore this fact in their never ending quest to rationalize their support of evil.


#10

Absolutely true.

And many of those same Democrat catholics will act surprised by this news, and say it was “unexpected”. Of course they will still ridicule pro-lifers who predicted this.


#11

As they did during the election. We were mocked for suggesting the ACA was going to fund abortions. The sad part is they will once again vote for the Democrat Party Candidate in 2016 using the same old tired excuses and rationalizations. The truth is abortion will remain legal in this country until Democrat Catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.


#12

How is this not surprising?

Remember the name “Bart Stupak”!

If you’re a Democrat, give it up. Your party’s not your party any more.


#13

Actually take a corporation to task for any of the wrongs that it does? Not as long as they don’t fudge their taxes. Corporations can and do literally commit crimes against humanity and nothing happens to them. Thats the price we all pay for living in a capitalist system in which the government thinks shareholders are more important than stakeholders.


#14

SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 By David Harsanyi
Last week, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that Susan B. Anthony List could challenge an Ohio law criminalizing certain “false” political speech on First Amendment grounds. The case goes back to 2010, when then-congressman Steve Driehaus tried to use the law to stop SBA-List from running billboard ads accusing him of voting for authorizing taxpayer funds for abortion through Obamacare.


There was a time, you’ll probably remember, when contending that Obamacare subsidies would cover elective abortions was considered a “myth”– pure fear mongering, cooked up by the fringiest crackpots of the right. (like Sarah Palin?)


Much like the administration, it seems the private sector is free to interpret the law in a way it feels comfortable. Certainly you can imagine the shrieking hysteria we’d have live through if a government accountability report found 18 insurance companies in 28 states had determined on their own to, say, stop providing mandated contraception coverage through ACA?

thefederalist.com/2014/09/17/dont-kid-yourself-were-all-subsidizing-the-abortion-industry/


#15

The Obama administration always intended for the ACA to pay for abortions . The only people who doubted this were Democrat Catholics trying to rationalize or support for his presidency. Stupak now admits he was lied to. Time for other Catholics to do the same.


#16

What’s the difference between a shareholder and a stakeholder?


#17

Shareholders are stakeholders but not all stakeholders are shareholders. The community in which a corporation operates is a stakeholder even if no one in that community owns shares.


#18

One can almost make the same case for Henry Hyde, no? His amendment is supposedly still in effect but appears to be violated. Point is that even if Stupak’s Amendment had not been stripped by the Senate, what would that have accomplished effectively? For that matter, had Obamacare not passed, would that have stopped planned abortion funding by the government? It seems that there was a push to expand Medicaid (and Medicare) one way or another.


#19

Because a lot of prejudiced people have an entrenched agenda of getting Obama no matter what he does. Not naming names (though we know who they are). Just sayin’.


#20

How is the community a stakeholder? Why should the government prioritize stakeholders over shareholders? Why shouldn’t the government be neutral in that regard?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.