Factcheck.org: Tax money will pay for abortion in the health-care bill

posted at 9:00 am on August 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

We already knew this, thanks to Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Barack Obama himself, but it’s nice to get confirmation from those fine folks at Factcheck.org — an Annenberg project, no less.  After Obama tried to paint it as a lie, the National Right to Life Committee insisted that ObamaCare would use taxpayer money to fund abortions.  It turns out that they were right:

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new “public” insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that “reproductive services” would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the “public plan” would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions “fabrications.” …

Abortion foes quickly denounced Obama’s statement as untrue. The NRLC’s Johnson said “the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions.” And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct. Though we of course take no position on whether the legislation should allow or not allow coverage for abortions, the House bill does just that. …

As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a “public plan” and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.

Factcheck uses the same reference that Allahpundit did when responding to the President’s insistence that his opponents had fabricated the abortion coverage.  They also note that a campaign spokesperson confirmed at the time that “reproductive services” included abortion.  Of course, this was in 2007, when Obama was still running to the Left.  Later he would temper his language to make his position more ambiguous.

At any rate, Obama was right — someone’s lying about abortion and ObamaCare.  It turned out to be Obama, that’s all.

Update: Obama keeps insisting that this is a “myth,” even in today’s weekly address:

“I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country,” the president said.

He ticked through a series of issues, saying that the proposal will not call for health care for illegal immigrants, will not provide coverage for abortions, and does not include any provision for so-called “death panels.”

“These are phony claims meant to divide us,” the president said.

Well, someone’s making phony claims, and according to Annenberg and the facts, it’s the White House.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why else would Abortion, Inc. (aka Planned Parenthood) be supporting this atrocity — I’m referring to the bill, not Obama.

TXUS on August 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Quick note on the Obamacare bill.

The bill may not cover illegal aliens.

But it’s illegal to ask someones status.

Nuance, right?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

OBAMA Lied….and Babies DIED!!!!

PhreeMan on August 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Since I’m not a woman, I will probably be chastised for this.

I assume that having a wire hanger placed inside of you is pretty painful. Do we agree on that? Good. Then I would assume that whatever action required the wire hanger to be placed such, would be unattractive to persue. Therefore, a learned behavior would be not to get involved in such activity.

Oh, wait. That would mean women (and men) would have to forgo their animalistic urges for sexual gratification and *gasp* take responsibility for their actions.

Yeah that would NEVER work.

PappaMac on August 22, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Well, someone’s making phony claims, and according to Annenberg and the facts, it’s the White House.

Captain Renault award of the day

NoFanofLibs on August 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Bozo, is proven to be a lying sack once again

“the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions.”

Its on pages 777 and on…

Read the bill, Bozo!

dogsoldier on August 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Now he’s being contradicted by his own fact checking website. Hey Afrolib, what do you say we give that new job of yours to one of the illegals? That okay with you?

kingsjester on August 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM

PappaMac on August 22, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Or they MIGHT consider using one of a hundred methods of birth control, starting with a condom? Man, am I radical!

dogsoldier on August 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

There y’all go with that big word responsibility again. Next thing you know you’ll want our Politicians to exercise it, too.

kingsjester on August 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM

How is his administration to be made fearful of the people? What repercussions would make a difference to them?

Yoop on August 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Take back the house and senate, that ought to neuter him. Then start hearings on Ogabe and the shattered remnants of his incredably corrupt party. Let him slink out of DC with nothing but the clothes on his back.

1921 C DRUM on August 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Yes, poster with interesting name. The Congress is key. No matter what Barry’s polling numbers say, if we win back Congress, he’s largely but not entirely neutralized. Even if he wins re-election in 2012.

So, that means we have to focus on every district in the country that can be flipped. Every one. Send money. Write letters and emails and post to blogs, etc. identifying candidates and promoting them.

Dear Yoop: Making a lot of noise and having highly visible demonstrations can be useful, but it’s the darned, tiresome, and detailed grunt work of the upcoming campaigns that is essential.

Loxodonta on August 22, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Sure, let’s go back to the wire hanger days.

Do any of you really think that banned abortion will result in women raising their unwanted babies?

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Classic strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting banning abortions. They’ll still be legal after Obamacare (if it passes). And private charities (or your friends, family, baby-daddy, etc.) will still be able to help you pay, if you want an abortion and can’t afford to pay for it yourself. The issue here is: can other taxpayers be forced to pay for your abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs?

Try to keep up.

AZCoyote on August 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Since I’m not a woman, I will probably be chastised for this.

I assume that having a wire hanger placed inside of you is pretty painful. Do we agree on that? Good. Then I would assume that whatever action required the wire hanger to be placed such, would be unattractive to persue. Therefore, a learned behavior would be not to get involved in such activity.

Oh, wait. That would mean women (and men) would have to forgo their animalistic urges for sexual gratification and *gasp* take responsibility for their actions.

Yeah that would NEVER work.

PappaMac on August 22, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Excellent “teachable moment”

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Sure, let’s go back to the wire hanger days.

Do any of you really think that banned abortion will result in women raising their unwanted babies?

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I was raised, that there are always consequences to one’s actions. Taking the abortion path, is weak, and self serving. Wire hanger , or no….I pray for the woman, who seeks to take that path, but my empathy is for that innocent baby, who not only did not ask to be created.

It’s easy to abort, and hard to take responsiblity. That is why this country has come to this. Obama finds it easier to lie, than to be principled, and stand upright, and be honorable. Lying is easier.

capejasmine on August 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

IIRC, on a segment of The O’Reilly Factor, I think last week, Megyn Kelly explained that there was a Supreme Court ruling a few years ago that essentially ruled that by virtue of NOT including abortion specifically, nor excluding it specifically, but by merely not mentioning abortion at all in any context, it was to be presumed to be included by whatever health insurance or health care coverage in question.

So by specifically EXCLUDING any mention whatsoever of abortion in any ‘public option’ national health care program, the Democrats would be ensuring that abortion will, in fact, be covered.

I’m afraid I was ill at the time the segment aired and didn’t realize until days later how important this was. I don’t know how you can get that audio/video from Fox, but I’m sure HA has a means of doing so. That is a crucial ruling that the Supreme Court made, and it should be relatively routine to get that ruling data as well from lawyer friends specializing in Constitutional Law.

Plus, by making a big deal of appeasing the conservative members of their districts/constituency by saying that abortion is NOT included (I believe it was specifically excluded from mention in one version of the House bill), the Dems make themselves look to be the good guys in the controversy.

KendraWilder on August 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Why else would Abortion, Inc. (aka Planned Parenthood) be supporting this atrocity — I’m referring to the bill, not Obama.

TXUS on August 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

PP is also busy with that important jobs of covering up for a pedophile, and directing theb destruction of certain races.

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Sure, let’s go back to the wire hanger days.

Do any of you really think that banned abortion will result in women raising their unwanted babies?

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Fine with me … let’s go back to them.

Any woman who puts a wire hanger in her is an idiot.

It’s a strawman argument anyway – since banning tax funded abortions does nothing to stop abortions, nor does it overturn Roe V. Wade.

But good try on the strawman – very nice. Axlerod be proud.

HondaV65 on August 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

The bill may not cover illegal aliens.

But it’s illegal to ask someones status.

Nuance, right?

jhffmn on August 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

This is one of the reasons people are so angry. Every Democrat, including Obama, knows that this bill is going to be written so as to provide taxpayer-funded coverage for illegal aliens. Every version of the bill so far makes that clear. They’ve specifically prohibited healthcare providers from asking patients for any form of ID to prove their eligibility, and they’ve written the bill so that it will cover “all persons” living in the U.S. — not all U.S. citizens. This is no accident. It’s been done deliberately so that illegal aliens will be covered. Yet every Democrat politician out there, including Obama, will stand and look into a camera, or even into a voter’s face, and say that illegal aliens won’t be covered.

They know Obamacare won’t pass if they tell the truth about it, so they tell one bald-faced lie after the next. And then they wonder why voters are so angry and fed up.

AZCoyote on August 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Paul Shanklin nails Obama’s lies in his takeoff on Bye Bye Miss American Pie. One of his best. If you are on Rush’s 24/7, check it out.

Christian Conservative on August 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

They got around the Hyde amendment by saying premiums only will be used to pay for abortions.

AnninCA on August 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

The libs are in pure panic mode

Even the thought of them losing their ability to off the(ir) unborn is turning them bonkers.

I can see them now, Liberal boyfriend and girlfried at a table in Starbucks. They’re both sipping a sugary syruppy confection called a “cafe latte cotton-candy fizzle dizzle with 3 shots of cream” paid for with money from mom’s purse.

They lift their heads just long enough to stop sipping and ask a few questions:

“But what about the coat hangers? I know many people who will use coat hangers if the government doesn’t pay for abortions.”

“Abortion is in the Constitution, dude, I read it, but I didn’t read it in the health care bill.”

ConservativeTony on August 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Totally off topic but if you want to read something funny, go over to Newsbusters and check out the comments to go along with the picture of Obama at the Grand Canyon. Warning: This is a spew alert. Do not drink anything while reading the comments….

adamsmith on August 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM

They know Obamacare won’t pass if they tell the truth about it, so they tell one bald-faced lie after the next. And then they wonder why voters are so angry and fed up.

AZCoyote on August 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Read deeper into the bill, and you’ll discover that while non-US citizens (illegal aliens) are covered, they are not subject to the fines or taxes placed by the bill upon US citizens for not “choosing” the government plan.

In other words, illegal aliens will be provided health care absolutely for free.

BobMbx on August 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Read deeper into the bill, and you’ll discover that while non-US citizens (illegal aliens) are covered, they are not subject to the fines or taxes placed by the bill upon US citizens for not “choosing” the government plan.

Everything I’ve read says they aren’t covered. Of course, it wouldn’t be hard to produce a fake SSI number and purchase it.

AnninCA on August 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Sure, let’s go back to the wire hanger days.

Do any of you really think that banned abortion will result in women raising their unwanted babies?

Xolom on August 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Gosh, I hope not. I would argue that eliminating unfettered access to abortion as a form of birth control will cause some pre-coitus mental function and prevent the pregnancy to begin with.

Is there something wrong with that?

BobMbx on August 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Everything I’ve read says they aren’t covered. Of course, it wouldn’t be hard to produce a fake SSI number and purchase it.

AnninCA on August 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Read it again, Ms. Myopia. It uses the term “legal resident”of the US, not “US Citizen”. Issuance of the government health card provides all the legal residency they need. Why? Because mere possession of the card implies government permission to be here; ergo, legal resident.

BobMbx on August 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Typical hypocrisy from the Fox News crowd: your apparent outrage for taxpayer-funded abortions doesn’t prevent your families from abusing the medicare system. Said outrage is nothing more than manufactured fear brought on by theocrats over hypothetical abortions at some future date.

FactCheck.Org makes no claim that ALL abortions would be allowed…again that message was brought to you by a theocrat. FactCheck also debunked Palin’s “death panel” nonsense but I don’t remember any of you garlic-eaters discussing that one.

Good4Onan on August 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I think Palin needs to put on her bath robe and fuzzy slippers and get back on Facebook and torpedo Obamacare over the following issues:

1. His repeated lies that Obamacare won’t fund abortions. Shove the “bearing false witness” line down his throat.

2. Take up the Death Book used in the VA. Chris Wallace is featuring it on his Fox News Sunday program tomorrow. I think a lot of people will be outraged once that hits the echo chamber.

3. Address the issue of illegal immigration and health care. Treatment should require enough information necessary to send them home. If they want to stay and are responsibly insured, they should be reqired to enroll in some kind of visiting-worker visa program. They should be issued some kind of a tracking number, have prints and DNA taken, subject to withholding, and be required to pay for insurance covering anything extensive. Underneath a floor, they can pay out of pocket.

BuckeyeSam on August 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Said outrage is nothing more than manufactured fear brought on by theocrats over hypothetical abortions at some future date.

…I don’t remember any of you garlic-eaters discussing that one.

The only theocrats I know of in office are Obama and his worshipers who repeatedly demonstrate their elitist disdain for the majority of Americans.

Also, eating garlic is good for your health. It would be good for the rest of us too. It might cover up that smell of moonbat guano in your posts.

Loxodonta on August 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM

FactCheck also debunked Palin’s “death panel” nonsense but I don’t remember any of you garlic-eaters discussing that one.

Good4Onan on August 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Blah blah blah. Death panels was an effective label. And creating a financial incentive for doctors to address the issue is ghoulish. What could be addressed with ongoing public service announcements regarding the advisability of a discussion one should have with family, physician, and estate-planning lawyer DOES NOT require a financial incentive to doctors and it DOES NOT require the creation of a new bureaucracy of fat-@ss AFSCME employees to shuffle around paperwork (see the Clunkers program) required by the feds to get payment.

Keep whining.

BuckeyeSam on August 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

remember any of you garlic-eaters discussing that one.

Good4Onan on August 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I think most “garlic eaters” voted FOR Obama.

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM

They got around the Hyde amendment by saying premiums only will be used to pay for abortions.

AnninCA on August 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

What a crock. Whether the funds come from Uncle Sam’s right pocket or left pocket or from his front pockets or his back pockets or even from the smelling, wilted bills he keeps in his shoes, it’s financed by tax dollars.

BuckeyeSam on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The lies of lying liar. Keep singing Barry. America is finally on to you.

johnnybgood on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THIS:

Unless the final bill that ends up on Obama’s desk – should one reach it – EXPLICITLY states federal funds CANNOT be used to pay for abortions, the Dem’s can kiss another 25-30 votes goodbye ON THEIR OWN SIDE OF THE AISLE.

Even the reconciliation gambit wouldn’t save it.

The fact this language ruling out federal dollars for abortions HASN’T been inserted into the bills yet means they are either clueless or they are planning to stick it in at the last minute and don’t want to piss off their leftist Planned Parenthood lobby.

manofaiki on August 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Y’know, I’m really in the mood for a speech by the Won. Nothin’ makes me feel better than a 2-3 point slide in his ratings every day….

When the enemy is on the dying ground, he will be forced to fight. If he does not know he is on dying ground, he knows neither his opponent, nor himself. This will guarantee his defeat.
Sun Tzu

ted c on August 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

So, the Prez has been bearing false witness?

mobydutch on August 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Put this man under oath in front of a seasoned prosecutor and he would leave the room through a different door than the one through which he entered. Followed by a haircut and a new orange jumpsuit.

Not only is he a bald-face, serial liar; he’s not even very good at it.

Tell him to pull out the Lincoln Bible one more time, put his left hand on it, raise his right, and repeat after me…

I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…

You know the rest.

It would be like taking candy from a baby.

IndieDogg on August 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Actually, Ed, neither Factcheck nor Right to Life say that ObamaCare will use public funds to cover abortion (apart from that allowed under the Hyde Amendment). What they say is that is the Secretary could allow the funding of other abortions.

Jimbo3 on August 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM

And, Ed, even the National Right to Life is not claiming that tax funds will be used for elective abortions. It is premiums paid by individuals into the government (assuming the government plan is implemented) that will be used.

From their site: Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums. But these are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies. The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions — this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion.

Jimbo3 on August 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

People will figure it out if and when this thing passes. And if the abortions take place, and they will…what will Obama say then? Oops?

Terrye on August 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Isn’t it just better for us to en-force the immigration laws on the books, find and deport them immediately them to pay for affordable insurance rather than giving them free insurance? Why can’t conservatives liberals just get this simple logic?
Its like talking to a dining room table “Rictus” Pelosi.

Afrolib on August 22, 2009 at 9:25 AM

mrt721 on August 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Jimbo3 go read the bill. Pages 777 on. Abortion is covered under “Family Planning and reproductive services” to everyone with an active gray cell between their ears.

dogsoldier on August 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is challenging critics of his push to overhaul the health care system to stop making “phony claims” about proposals now the subject of intense coast-to-coast debate.

Will Obama stop making “phony claims”, call back his Union goons ordered to attack peaceful citizens? “Hit back twice as hard”.

Will Obama stop making “phony claims” 47 million AMERICAN CITIZENS?

You can keep your Doctor/plan.

Aside from Donna Smith/Larry Smith is there anyone in the USA that you personally know of suffering?

DSchoen on August 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM

“This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I’m glad that so many are engaged,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday.

BULL!

Then why did you want this passed without anyone including yourself from reading it!

DSchoen on August 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM

“But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are.”

willful misrepresentations?

The AARP backs my plan!
Planted children as questioners at STAGED town halls.
I’m not a doctor but I play one at town halls.

DSchoen on August 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM

No it doesn’t, dogsoldier. It says that states which provide family planning services as part of their requirements can’t benchmark against plans that don’t have those services included.

Here’s what Section 1937(a) of the Social Security Act says:

State Option of Providing Benchmark Benefits.—

(1) Authority.—

(A) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a State, at its option as a State plan amendment, may provide for medical assistance under this title to individuals within one or more groups of individuals specified by the State through enrollment in coverage that provides—

(i) benchmark coverage described in subsection (b)(1) or benchmark equivalent coverage described in subsection (b)(2);…

The section you cited on p.777 of the House bill describes how states may benchmark planning services. But notice the “mays” above–it doesn’t mandate coverage. All it says is that you can’t use the benchmarking unless family planning services are covered to the extent provided in Section 1905(a)(4)(c) of the Social Security Act.

Section 1905(a)(4)(C) says that family planning services are covered to the extent required by the state: “family planning services and supplies furnished (directly or under arrangements with others) to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies;

Jimbo3 on August 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Citizen Link had this news a week-and-a-half ago, so I’m confused why it’s just now coming to light.

madmonkphotog on August 22, 2009 at 8:12 PM

This is pretty bad. Considering the Orwellian-named Factcheck.org belongs to Annenberg, and has lied profusely in the past:

http://patterico.com/2008/09/23/unmitigated-garbage-from-factcheckorg-on-obamas-second-amendment-record/

It’s downright astounding that they’d go against him. This is akin to the Air America people calling Obamacare “a fascist nightmare.”

CPL 310 on August 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Sorry to chime in late here, but I couldn’t resist…

Now we have a troll that calls itself “Good For Onan?”

Unfortunately, Onan’s argument seems to have been lost on your father, kid.

warbaby on August 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

If you expect me to believe that
obama and the democrats who absolutly
LOVE the word abortion and enjoy it when
they hear how many babies they helped to kill.

If you expect me to believe that suddendly
the liberals are going to STOP abortions and funding it
you must be smoking crack..

Of course they will fund it..

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

veteranoutrage on August 22, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Didn’t Out dear junior senator from Minnesota write a book about this? “lying schmucks and the lying lies of lyington” or some such crap? shouldn’t Pres. O-bung-hole be in an addendum in this book? I think so.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on August 23, 2009 at 2:02 AM

I don’t know, if the government pays for abortion, doesn’t it lessen a woman’s human sacrifice gift to Satan?

Jeff from WI on August 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM

No, Satan doesn’t care how he gets their souls to hell, along with all of the politicians who put ink to the paper.

GrannyDee on August 23, 2009 at 3:10 AM

Clearly, the facts must be racist.

jukin on August 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Nice to see someone admit the truth on this. Now it is up to the Dems to stop lying about what they are trying to do.

Rob

rwblake on August 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Young, unwed, no money, surprise child. No question for us–we kept her and married. Same-day decision. Things were quite difficult, but I can’t imagine negating my child’s life.
If the father is trash or the resources just aren’t there, there’s this thing called adoption. If we decided we couldn’t handle parenthood, my daughter could have brightened someone else’s life.

Mephistefales on August 24, 2009 at 12:51 AM

They got around the Hyde amendment by saying premiums only will be used to pay for abortions.

AnninCA on August 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

What a crock. Whether the funds come from Uncle Sam’s right pocket or left pocket or from his front pockets or his back pockets or even from the smelling, wilted bills he keeps in his shoes, it’s financed by tax dollars.

BuckeyeSam on August 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

They attempt to nuance their way around this by clinging to their fantasy assertion that the “public” option will be a non-subsidized entity, one that ‘competes’ with existing plans without receiving any net government funds.

In their minds, that provides a firewall of sorts that they can use as the basis for the claim that the government is not funding abortions in violation of the Hyde amendment, and instead that it is the self-contained system of premiums for the “public option” which will fund these activities.

Now, sane individuals (and I’ll include the CBO in that category) recognize that this claim of non-subsidy and the public option “standing on its own” is a complete whole-cloth fabrication. It won’t happen.

The claim that the public option will have taxpayers subsidizing abortion is simply an artifact of not believing the President’s rhetoric about the self-sustaining, subsidy-free nature of the public plan.

Or, in medical terms, these claims are manifesting due to an acute Kool-Aid deficiency. I’m sure IMAC will recommend best practices to eliminate this obvious and tragic health-care crisis.

VekTor on August 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2