Well, now we know what the biggest obstacle to House BarryCare is.  And Crazy Nancy’s stereotypically dishonest attempt to swindle her way around it went over like a fart in church: Eighth District U.S. Representative Brad Ellsworth, D-IN, might …

The problem with allowing the abortion clauses is they will then be used to attack any physician who refuses to do abortions.

davod on November 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Unthinkable.

Instead, Ellsworth proposed language to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hire a contractor who would collect “premiums” from citizens and make payments to abortionists. Ellsworth’s staff actually argued that this money-laundering scheme would mean that the federal government was not funding abortions — a truly absurd argument. Medicare already uses contractors to process claims and payments — so Medicare is not federal funding of medical services?

–So why is this an absurd argument, Doug? If payments for insurance premiums come in from individuals, how does they become “federal funds” simply because they are in the hands of a contractor? Medicare may use contractors to process claims and payments–most companies do–but the issue of who handles the processing is different from the issue of whose money is being used. I’m missing your point.

alwaysfiredup on November 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM

I imagine if there’s a lot of demand for abortion coverage then insurance companies will offer a rider for such coverage that may be paid for out-of-pocket. At least, as long as ObamaCare allows markets to work like this.

Don’t write it as prohibiting federal funds from being used to make any payments to any plan that provides abortion coverage and say that all you’re doing is prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions. You’re being dishonest IMHO.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Nope, not being dishonest. That’s exactly what I mean. Anyone who gets federal assistance to pay for their health insurance must buy a plan that does not cover abortions, period.

Why? Funds can be segregated.
Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I’m glad you ‘-’ your comments yourself. Makes it so much easier.

The answer is no, they really can’t be segregated.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM

–So if I send my mortgage payments to a lockbox, those funds can’t be segregated from other funds in the bank? You’ll make a bunch of secured creditors nervous if that’s the case. (And thank someone yesterday for telling me about the “quote” button. I wouldn’t have thought of it and it’s pretty easy to use. Just highlight and hit the button).

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

This is why the government should not fund any organization that provides abortions either. If you choose to donate to an organization that performs abortions so be it, that is your choice. Why am I being forced to provide tax dollars for any organization that performs a service I consider to be murder? You can tell me my tax dollars go to ketchup research, but it doesn’t matter. And, federal dollars are still helping organizations who perform abortions even if it is not “designated” for abortions. I am not stupid. My tax dollars going to these organizations keep them in the abortion business no matter how you want to spin it and tell me that is not how it works. The government needs to stay out of stuff like this!

The language on page 110 of H.R. 3962 explicitly says that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for” all abortions. Of course, the “public health insurance option” (the “public plan”) is a nationwide health plan that will be run directly by the federal government. The Obama Administration will surely use this authority and will pay for elective abortions (when running for President, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his public plan would pay for abortions.) When the public plan pays for elective abortions, it will pay for them with federal funds, because that is the only kind of funds that a federal agency can spend. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has confirmed in its October 9 memo (confirming what we pointed out much earlier here), ALL of the funds that the “public plan” spends will be FEDERAL FUNDS. This will be direct federal funding of abortion.

And all of this will occur even while the Hyde Amendment remains in effect with respect to the separate, existing Medicaid program. If renewal of the Hyde Amendment is blocked in a future year, the authorization for the public plan to cover elective abortion becomes a mandate to cover elective abortion.

The authorizing language on page 110 uses the powerful formula “nothing in this Act” precisely to remove any possibility that any other language in the 1990-page bill could ever be construed to limit it. The Ellsworth Amendment did nothing to disturb this language. Instead, Ellsworth proposed language to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hire a contractor who would collect “premiums” from citizens and make payments to abortionists. Ellsworth’s staff actually argued that this money-laundering scheme would mean that the federal government was not funding abortions — a truly absurd argument. Medicare already uses contractors to process claims and payments — so Medicare is not federal funding of medical services?

I must underscore that this problem with the public option is entirely separate and distinct from the affordability credits issue. The question of whether the “public plan” can pay for abortions would be equally important if the bill contained no affordability credit program at all.

The problems with the bill and with the Ellsworth Amendment are explained in detail in letters sent by NRLC to House members, and in press releases, posted here: http://www.nrlc.org

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
202-626-8820
legfederal // at // aol-dot-com

We must all remember that ann thinks mao was a great person, so the idea of murdering babies doesn’t bother her at all. After all, mao murdered 60 MILLION of his own people. Ann, like mao, is a monster devoid of all humanity.

–My point is that if the principle established is that no federal funds can be paid to an entity that provides services or facilities that could offend someone, even if those funds aren’t used for that purpose, you’ll end up hurting religious and other organizations. People could then say that no Medicare funds should be provided to Baptist or Catholic hospitals because a very small portion of their general funds are used for prayer rooms/pastors. Similarly, no governmental funds can be used to subsidize the meals of poor children who attend religious schools, or provide assistance to Catholic or other charities, even if they’re not used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Fairly weak slippery slope argument, Jimbo.

You’re wrong on the economics of money segregation. Let’s say Joe’s Abortion Service has only two expenditures per month – $50 for electricity, and $50 to pay abortionists.

The government then gives Joe $50 and say, “You can’t use this to pay for abortions; you must segregate the money and account for it.”

The following month, Joe shows us his receipts. He paid the $50 electricity bill using the government money, but doubled his abortion output and paid $100 to abortionists. He’s met the government requirements, but because money is fungible, it’s a shell game. Bottom line, if we give economic support to someone who provides abortion, we support abortion.

However, you are correct on the point of logical consistency. Support for a Catholic hospitals (even nicely segregated) necessarily frees up Catholic funds for other purposes. It’s an accounting fiction, but folks live with it because religious hospitals provide a great public benefit.

If you want to try to convince Congress to stop support for religious hospitals because it may aid religion, go for it :) It’s been tried, and failed. (Though I don’t think you’re suggesting that.)

Abortion’s a different beast. Many people view the abortion industry as as morally repugnant as the slave trade. By contrast, not many folks care that they may be indirectly aiding a religious institution in carrying out religious practices.

It’s a very important practical distinction, but you are correct about the underlying economics.

–It’s not accounting; it’s legal and finance. Your payments to Discovery probably go to a general account, not one dedicated for use only to make payments to one merchant. In a lockbox situation, the funds that go into that account are segregated for use to creditors or specific creditors. A secured lender may have a lien (mortgage) over that account and the right to have all those amounts paid to it if you default. You need the segregation to have a valid lien (mortage) under the law.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I’m confused…

Is this anything like the Social Security “lockbox” what went into effect with the original Dem law… and then removed when the Dems changed the law… and then was looted to pay for bribe earmarks… and now they LIE about it still being in a lockbox?

Is that what it will be like?

I have much more respect for straight, unapologetic pro-choice democrats.

but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Ann wants the government out of her bedroom so they can get into your checkbook and to pay for what goes on in her bedroom.

Makes perfect sense.

Until the Hyde Amendment is allowed to expire. At which point paragraph (4)(A) becomes void.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Good Point I reminded my rep of that yesterday!

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Let me add my kudos!

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I don’t give a damn whether you choose to flush your baby down the toilet (God will determine your fate), just don’t make me pay for it.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Also say I give someone money and say, here you can have this money, but you can’t use it for McDonald’s. How in the world would I know if they used it for that or not? They can show me all the receipts that they want to try and “prove” that they didn’t, but I don’t know which purchases were made with their money and which were made with my money.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM

–See my note above on the Ellsworth amendment.

You’re right. Of course, we then can’t provide any funds of any type to religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, churches, among others) for education, medical care, after school activities, subsidized food, etc. because those funds could be used for religious purposes.
Jimbo3: what on earth is your point??

chai on November 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

–My point is that if the principle established is that no federal funds can be paid to an entity that provides services or facilities that could offend someone, even if those funds aren’t used for that purpose, you’ll end up hurting religious and other organizations. People could then say that no Medicare funds should be provided to Baptist or Catholic hospitals because a very small portion of their general funds are used for prayer rooms/pastors. Similarly, no governmental funds can be used to subsidize the meals of poor children who attend religious schools, or provide assistance to Catholic or other charities, even if they’re not used for religious purposes.

The Ellsworth dodge fails to fool pro-life ObamaCare critics
…

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Also say I give someone money and say, here you can have this money, but you can’t use it for McDonald’s. How in the world would I know if they used it for that or not? They can show me all the receipts that they want to try and “prove” that they didn’t, but I don’t know which purchases were made with their money and which were made with my money.

It clearly illustrates what their priorities are, and it has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s all about control, power and death.

Niere on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

That’s it.

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Wow you’re an idiot. Large finance is not the same a personal finance.