Author Ed

Biofuels and Health Care

Ed

The manager’s amendment to H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act was released last night; click here to download a copy.

After a quick review, I have not seen any changes to the parts of H.R. 3962 that deal with abortion. Therefore, tax-payer funded abortions and all the other concerns I have highlighted remain in the bill (e.g. see “Is Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?“). No one knows for sure when the bill will be voted on, but now that the manager’s amendment has been introduced, the full vote can come as soon as Friday night (November 6).

But what I am really curious about is a new section added to H.R. 3962: “Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit” [Sec. 555]. This new section will amend the Internal Revenue Code so that it covers tax credits for producers of biofuels.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t a health care reform bill actually deal with health care reform? What in the world is a biofuel credit adjustment doing in something as important as this?

It’s not too late to contact your representative and tell them to stop the madness and work on real health insurance and tort reform. Click here to go to the National Right to Life website for more information on how to do this.

Health Plans Forced to Provide Assisted Suicide Counseling

Ed

Another little gem found in H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act involves the requirement for your health insurance plan to provide and pay for assisted suicide counseling.

Section 240 requires that all companies offering a qualified health benefits plan to “provide for the dissemination of information related to end-of-life planning to individuals seeking enrollment in Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered through the Exchange” [Sec. 240(a)(1)]. This section also explicitly states that the insurance company cannot promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing [Sec. 240(a)(3) and Sec. 240(d)(1)].

The problem is that this section does not “preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life decision-making” [Sec. 240(d)(3)]. Oregon, the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, does not consider their legislation to have allowed “suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” Instead, they consider their legislation to have allowed patients to make a choice to face “death with dignity.” In fact, it is called the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, as is the Washington version passed into law last year.

Thus, your health insurance plan will now be required to promote and pay for “death with dignity” consultations in those states that have passed such legislation. Why is it that this bill is interested in promoting life-ending programs rather than life-saving or life-extending programs?

For more information on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Oregon Department of Human Services . For more information on Washington’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Washington Department of Health.

H.R. 3962 is just plain wrong for America; it does not protect human life and our well-being at any age or any stage as it purports to do; instead it does exactly the opposite: it promotes death and the devaluation of human life.

It is imperative that you contact your senator or representative today via mail, phone calls, and emails. Go to the National Right to life for assistance with how to do this by clicking here.

[Corrected March 21, 2010]

Forced to Buy Health Insurance?

Ed

H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, includes this little gem:

Section 501 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer is not enrolled in a Health Insurance Exchange qualified health benefits plan at any time during the taxable year, then he will be charged “a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) [of the Internal Revenue Code] with respect to the taxpayer” [Sec. 501(a), amendment to Part VIII, subchapter A, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code]. To see what 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code is, click here .

Maybe it’s just me, but…it sounds dangerously “totalitarian” that my government thinks it has the right to tell me what I must buy – whether it’s a product or a service, like insurance, when it affects only me. According the US Census Bureau, 47 million Americans are uninsured; but many of those folks actually are eligible for health insurance but don’t know it through Medicaid or SCHIP and many of those folks actually choose not to have health insurance even though they can afford it. The American Spectator wrote that a Blue Cross Blue Shield study estimated that the actual number of uninsured Americans is really closer to 8.2 million; click here to see the article. More recently, the Wall Street Journal also publish an article questioning the number of uninsured Americans; click here to read the article.

Yes, we need to help those folks who truly can’t afford health insurance, but H.R. 3962 is not the answer since it includes legislation such as taxing people  (substitute the word “fine”) who don’t want to have health insurance for whatever reason; and taxing people who don’t to participate in a health plan that uses it’s conglomerate funds to pay for services that the person has moral or religious objections to.

HR 3962 – Tax Surcharge on High Income Earners

Ed

I spent most of the past four days reading and re-reading sections of H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act and have come across some surprising details. Click here to download a PDF version of the bill.

For example, Section 551 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer has a “modified adjusted gross income” that exceeds $1,000,000, he will be assessed a 5.4 percent surcharge on the amount over $1,000,000 [Sec. 551(a), amendment to Part VII, subchapter A, chapter 1, Internal Revenue Code]. And oh, by the way, this “shall not be treated as a change in a rate of tax” [Sec. 551(c)].

There is no stipulation in the bill that these funds would or would not be used for health insurance; that these funds would or would not be used to help pay for premiums to the public health insurance option for those who can’t afford it; or that these funds would or would not be used to help offset the start-up costs associated with the public option–set at $2 billion in H.R. 3962.

Maybe it’s just me, but…what in the world does this have to do with health care? And how does this help provide health insurance for those who are uninsured?

Contact your representatives today and tell them to stop HR 3962. Click here to go to the Susan B. Anthony List webpage to send a message to your elected officials.

Is Tax-Payer Funded Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?

Ed

On October 29, 2009, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act. This is the reconciled bill between the competing bills introduced in the House over the summer, including H.R. 3200. Supporters of H.R. 3962 claim that there is a provision that states tax-payer funded abortions will not be allowed according to the bill, so I thought I’d take a closer look to verify their claim. All references to sections are to H.R. 3962 unless otherwise noted.

Section 222 defines what the “Essential Benefits Package” is meant to include. All plans eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange need to meet these minimum services. Unlike H.R. 3200, there is no language H.R. 3962 regarding options for family planning.

Section 321 establishes a Public Health Insurance Option. The public health insurance option is prohibited from providing abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(A)]. However, the public option is allowed to provide abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(B)].

In an effort to defend their claim that there will be no tax-payer funded abortion provision in the bill, proponents of the bill state that the restrictions placed on abortion by the Hyde amendment would fall under this definition and thus prevent the public health insurance option from funding abortions. This defense is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the Hyde amendment only prevents tax-payer funded abortions specifically through Medicaid and appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. It does not address the other potential funding sources for the public health insurance option, such as income tax surcharges and employer penalties for not providing health insurance.

Secondly, the Hyde amendment needs to be renewed every year; so if it is not renewed, then during the next plan year, tax-payer funded abortions can be a part of the public health insurance option.

Finally, this prohibition in H.R. 3962 is placed only on the essential benefits package and does not apply to enhanced or premium benefits packages; thus the public health insurance option can, in fact, provide for tax-payer funding abortions.

For a detailed description of how the Hyde amendment may not apply in this situation, go to the Susan B. Anthony List’s special website called Stop Hyding. Please note that although their website refers to H.R. 3200, the logic and the law are applicable to H.R. 3962 as well.

Aside from the funding issues, as of the time of this writing the only abortion coverage prohibited to the Department of Health and Human Services is partial-birth abortion, which is banned by Federal law. However, if the law changes to allow partial-birth abortions, e.g. if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed as President Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, then tax-payer funded abortions through the public health insurance option would include even these types of abortions.

Do you think it’s right that your tax dollars go to ending human life in the womb? And what about your health insurance provider? Will they be forced to pay for abortions if they morally object to the practice? Will you end up paying for abortions because your premium payments into the health insurance are then used to pay for an abortion that someone else chooses?

H.R. 3962 includes a subsection entitled “Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package” [Sec. 222(e)]. This section prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner to mandate that abortion be covered in the essentials benefits package of a qualified health benefits plan [Sec. 222(e)(1)]. The caveat is that the abortion services are described in Sec. 222(e)(4)(A) and (B) which describe abortion coverage for the public health insurance option. As discussed above, the only type of abortion currently banned is partial-birth abortion and the only funding restriction is based on Medicaid payments.

Thus the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner can, in fact, mandate that your health insurance provider cover abortions in the essential benefits package.

If you don’t want to pay for abortions your tax dollars, it is imperative you contact your representative in Congress today! It is scheduled for a vote by the full House of Representatives later this week. For information on how to contact your representative, see the National Right to Life’s webpage by clicking here.