Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduces Senate health care bill on Wednesday
Senator Harry Reid unveiled the Senate's new health care bill late Wednesday, despite speculation that the issue of health care might stall in the Senate. The Senate's version of the bill surpasses the House's in length, at a staggering 2074 pages verus 1990 pages. Some of the new statistics on the bill include 21 mentions of abortion versus 25 mentions in the House bill, 511 variations on the word tax versus the 214 in bill 3962, and 3607 uses of the word "shall," which by legal definition indicates a mandate, versus the 3425 uses of it in the House version.
The bill is estimated to cost 894 billion dollars, while offering coverage to only 94 percent of, or roughly 31 million, Americans. Was not the purpose of passing this health care to insure all Americans? Why then, do no versions of the health care bills do this so far? Why put America further into an already staggering national debt, if all Americans will not be covered, as liberals purportedly intended ensure? Who, then, will be left without this insurance? The Senate bill requires that most Americans must carry insurance, but how can this be enforced if all Americans are not covered anyway?
Despite the slightly fewer mentions of it, abortion is most decidedly covered in the Senate bill. According to CNSNews, a mandate for federally subsidized abortion appears on page 120 of the Senate bill under the heading, "Assured Availability of Varied Coverage Through Exchanges." The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required under this provision to ensure that at least one health insurance plan offered in government-regulated exchanges must provide coverage of abortion. The Secretary also must make certain that at least one plan available in the exchanges does not cover abortions. The House bill provided similiar language, but passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment prevented taxpayer funded and federally subsidized abortions.
The Senate bill goes much further in its funding of abortion, however, in that its language boldly allows funding of those types of abortions currently banned under the Hyde amendment. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for all abortions except those done in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life. The language used in the Senate health care bill regarding abortions mandates, therefore, that at least one plan in each exchange cover abortions with federal subsidies, in spite of the current prohibition from receiving federal funding under the Hyde Amendment. In other words, abortion upon demand. The Senate bill, rather than trying to skirt around the Hyde amendment's prohibitions, intends to ignore or simply remove the restrictions of the Hyde amendment.
According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, the Hyde amendment offers little to no protection against funding of abortions in the health care bill anyway, and that claims by public option supporters that the Hyde amendment will protect the consciences of abortion opposers and prevent federal funding of abortion are false. "This is a dodge," he stated. "The Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but merely a 'limitation amendment' that is patched on to the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services." The federal government is still and has always been able to subsidize and fund abortions through other means and channels.
The Senate bill simply provides abortion funding in a much more direct and honest manner with its clear intention to violate the Hyde amendment, than the House bill.
In addition to its clear support and funding of abortion, the Senate bill also includes a number of other unpleasant aspects. Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, sums it up, "Higher premiums, tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for more government. The American people know that is not reform." Indeed, the new Senate bill increases the Medicare payroll tax by half a percentage point to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals, $250,000 for couples. It also places a tax on high-value insurance policies with the intention of discouraging demand for expensive care. The House bill, in contrast, relies on an income tax surcharge on the wealthy to finance an expansion of coverage.
While employers will not be required to provide insurance for their employees under the Senate bill, medium and large sized companies will be penalized if the government must subsidize their employees' insurance.
The Senate may vote on the bill as early as Saturday. Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma demands that the bill be read in its entirety on the Senate floor, and intends to push for this measure. Americans must contact their representatives and voice their strong opposition to this Senate bill. As many suspected, the public option is not so dead in the Senate after all.
For more information, please visit:
Senate girds for historic debate on health bill
Reid Introduces Senate Health Bill That Mandates Federally Subsidized Abortion
Coburn Demands Reid Read The Bill
GOP's Coburn Plans to 'Read' Healthcare Bill
Hyde Amendment Not Sufficient to Stop Abortion Funding in Health Care Measures
You might also enjoy these:
Comments