Health Care ABCD: Abort Babies, Control Cost, Deny Care

Current discussions on health care reform appear to be focused on the strategy of why paying for abortion with our tax dollars is fundamental to the bill’s passage by way of the reconciliation process. No, I am not kidding. I am dead serious.

In an effort to gain support, not from Republicans per se, but from wavering Democrats who still believe that “bipartisan” myth that hangs around the White House, we learn,

In a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday, Obama said he would consider four ideas floated by Republican lawmakers: sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid; expanding pilot programs to bring more predictability to medical malpractice lawsuits; increasing payments to Medicaid providers; and expanding the use of health savings accounts.

“I said throughout this process that I’d continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties, and I’m open to these proposals in that spirit,” Obama wrote.

What Obama did not say is that he would assure all members of Congress that not a single abortion would be subsidized. He could not say that, of course, because he believes in abortion, supports it as a right and intends to increase its availability, regardless of what Americans are being fed by the White House press office. It’s an old Saul Alinsky practice: Overwhelm the folks with crisis after crisis and then push on with the real agenda.

Obviously joining Obama in this masquerade is the ever-scandalous Catholic House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has discussed several compromises between what the House wants in health care reform and what is in the Senate bill. But as National Public Radio reports,

[A]s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Tuesday, those compromises probably won’t include a change in abortion language. “In order to be in part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget. That’s the rule. And it’s a very strict rule,” she said.

Which means anti-abortion House Democrats who originally voted for the House health bill will likely face this choice: Vote for a Senate bill that’s more lenient on abortion or vote against [this] health overhaul. And it will make it that much harder for House leaders to get the majority they need to pass the bill.

This, of course, is not a problem for the Speaker whose Catholicism has become part of her media personality, due to the fact that not a single Catholic bishop will explain to her that until she repents of her support for the killing of the preborn, she may not receive the body of Christ in Holy Eucharist. That is—in case you wonder—a shame on the bishops, not on Pelosi. It is not her fault that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is literally permitting her to get away with murder.

But I digress.

The USCCB has publicly stated that it won’t support health care reform that contains abortion. In the most recent action alert, they repeat,

Passage of a health care reform bill is uncertain, but the need for reform remains a national priority and moral imperative. Health care is a basic human right. Yet, there are nearly 50 million Americans who do not have access to health care. “Now is not the time to abandon this task, but rather to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform.”

On January 26, the USCCB sent a letter to members of Congress in which they stipulate that conscience protections must be in the bill and that the political status quo on abortion funding must be maintained as well, which means no federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. It should further be noted that the USCCB is lobbying not only for conscience protection for health care workers and abortion funding restrictions but for “accessible health care for everyone,” meaning health care coverage for all immigrants, including those who are undocumented, as long as they use their own funds to access the services available to all Americans.

USCCB spokesman Richard Doerflinger spoke with LifeSiteNews.com after Pelosi apparently told the press that she had talked with the bishops about what was going on:

“We do not know how anyone who has spoken to the bishops could conclude that the Senate health care bill does not fund abortions,” said Doerflinger.

“As the bishops have said in their letters to Congress, abortion problems in the Senate bill are so serious that, despite our strong support for expanding access to health care, we will have to oppose the bill unless they are resolved.”

And here is the frosting on the cake: According to a National Right to Life Committee memorandum, the Senate bill—which is what the House is proposing to reconcile with—contains new language directly appropriating funds to Community Health Centers (CHCs). And as the memo makes perfectly clear:

There is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, “as an integrated part of primary health care.” For evidence, see “Frequently Asked Questions About Integrating Abortion into Community Health Centers, Potential Obstacles and Possible Solutions” at http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm.

Now let’s step back and ask ourselves a couple of questions.

If health care reform passes by way of reconciliation, and it contains abortion funding in whatever form the final version provides, what will the Catholic hospitals of this nation have to do to conform to the new law? Will they have to shut down if they do not agree to referral, at the very least, for abortion? Will they be forced to provide assurances that they will participate in health care rationing, which by all accounts, will mean euthanasia?

Yes, according to substantiated reports, the Senate version of health care reform—which concurs with the Obama proposal—imposes premium price controls on all insurance plans, not just those for Medicare-eligible senior citizens. This sort of power residing in the hands of the federal government cannot only advance the “reproductive health” agendas of the culture of death, but at the other end of the spectrum of life, it can fundamentally require denial of care.

Michael Tanner provided an astute analysis of this problem in the New York Post. The scenario plays out this way: If insurance providers are unable to charge more money for an increasingly higher priced treatment, they will have to cut their losses with this either/or choice:

• They can drop their most expensive customers—in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care. Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health care system. In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this.

• They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians. But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss. If payments fall below their costs, they’ll simply stop taking patients. One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works.

Tanner continues,

Medicare already reimburses at roughly 80 cents on every dollar of actual costs. Medicaid pays even less. As a result, more than a third of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid patients; 12 percent no longer accept Medicare patients.

If private insurers begin similarly to cut back their reimbursements, some hospitals may go out of business, and some doctors may close their practices. Retirement in Florida may begin to look a lot better than another snowy New York winter. Others will stop accepting insurance or set up “concierge” practices in which they see only a small number of privately paying patients.

Thus, price controls on insurers will ultimately lead to rationing—the lack of available health care goods and services.

Tanner’s observations are based on his study of the various health care reform proposals. He accurately sets forth a very logical assessment of the situation:

In 301 AD, the Roman emperor Diocletian imposed price controls on most commodities and professions in the empire. The penalty for raising prices was death. Yet the controls failed utterly, leading to shortages, more inflation and the near collapse of the imperial economy.

Now, nearly two millennia later, President Obama seems determined to demonstrate how little we’ve learned.

Clearly there is an enormous problem facing this nation and her people. The vultures are circling and they are dedicated to sending a message of assurance with the right wing while slapping down the costly and the unwanted among us with the left wing.

What’s the cure? Stop the madness and get back to doing what the government was designed to do: defend and protect the citizens.

Why? Because health care reform that is fundamentally dedicated to abortion and euthanasia is health care reform with which we cannot live.

Contact your members of Congress today: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Pray for the decision makers, that they be guided by wisdom and respect for life instead of Obamanomics.

Inform others in your sphere of influence.

And remember: Obamanomics is totally unacceptable as government policy!

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Joe DeVet

    And remind your bishop to oppose the move to socialized medicine hammer and tongs.

    This evil initiative is wrong on many counts, and the confusing lobbying of the bishops has helped bring it to this very dangerous point. They would support the bill if it excluded abortion funding and included conscience rights.

    What they don’t seem to realize is that this measure would entail a huge life issue that will run away on them before they have a chance to effectively oppose it–euthanasia, both direct and passive. And by the way, whatever the bill might say now, if the bill passes abortions will be federally funded withing 5 years or less. That’s what happens with pacts with the devil.

MENU