HOME • ARTICLES • BOOKS • THE TEFLON REPORT • REACTIONS • ABOUT DISCOBOLOS

Health Care Approaches

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Seeking a vote on historic health care reform legislation by Dec. 31, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) bit his tongue while his colleague Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) tossed another monkey wrench into the mix. Only last week Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) played spoiler, threatening to filibuster if Reid didn’t remove the Medicare-by-55 provision, now in the dustbin. “As it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient,” said Nelson, unwilling to vote for the bill’s current language. Pro-life groups have rallied hard to prevent federal tax dollars from paying for abortions, despite objections from liberals. Nelson couldn’t stomach provisions that allowed private groups to pay for abortions, regardless of the circumstance, like the health of the mother. Without abortion funding or a “government option,” liberals, like former Vermont. Gov. Howard Dean, want the bill dead.

Round-the-clock, back-and-forth, backdoor negotiations among liberals, moderates and conservatives have revolved around industry-wide profit, concerned that ending the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption and current ban on preexisting conditions would decimate Wall Street’s earnings. Despite all the worries about Nelson, Lieberman or whomever, Democrats’ health reform juggernaut continues along the inexorable track toward passage, most likely on President Barack Obama’s Christmas Eve deadline. Pulling out the big guns, former President Bill Clinton, whose own attempt at health care reform failed in 1993, urged Democrats to find common ground. “Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder, both politically for our party, and far more important, for the physical, fiscal and economic health of our country,” read Clinton’s prepared statement.

Attempts by so-called moderate Democrats to write abortion funding out of health care reform legislation puts doctors and patients at risk, making no sense medically. Most health plans cover abortions when doctors use alternative diagnoses to justify paying for controversial procedures. Getting the “language” right for pro-life Democrats is yet another exercise in futility to placate conservatives, who unanimously oppose the Obama-Reid-Pelsosi health care reform legislation Sen. Bob Kerry (D-Penn.) wrote the new language hoping to assuage Nelson, assuring that public funds would not be used to pay for abortion coverage, especially for low-income citizens most likely the recipients of government largesse. Nelson wants to keep private money away from paying for abortions on any health plan. He naively forgets how doctors get paid for various controversial procedures.

Pro-life groups, including the United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops, lobby hard to provide more funding for adoption. “We’re trying to get this right,” said Casey, in response to changing language to jump through pro-life hoops. “I’ve had ideas on the table for a while now. I’m still working through them and we’ll keep talking to anyone who wants to discuss it,” referring to the gyrations needed to placate last-ditch Democrats holdouts like Nelson. At stake is a $10,000 to $11,000 increase in adoption tax credits, designed to fund more alternatives to abortion, amounting to $350 million over 10 years. Nelson also wants a “conscience clause” allowing health care providers legal protections for refusing to perform abortions. He also wants stronger language that prevents either public or private premium dollars from paying for abortions.

Few expected the final skirmishes on national health care reform to be about abortion. Lieberman’s concern, that torpedoed expanding Medicare to 55-year-olds, had to do with fiscal concerns about the single-payer government health plan’s fiscal solvency and exploding federal budget deficits. Medicare currently funds abortions for disabled individuals choosing to terminate pregnancies. Worries that the new legislation “still allows federal subsidies for plans that cover abortion-on-demand which is entirely unacceptable” bothers pro-life groups, like Nebraska Right to Life, according to its executive director Julie Schmit-Albin. She doesn’t want the federal government paying for insurance policies that cover abortion-on-demand as health care treatment. Schmit-Albin makes exceptions when the health of the mother is at stake, or, in rare instances, for rape or incest.

National health care legislation is designed to make medical insurance more available to the uninsured and bring down the premium costs to employers and individuals unable to afford health insurance. Letting the abortion controversy derail important health care reform legislation turns the legislative process on its head. Health reform is not a political football to resolve age-old philosophical disputes: It’s about extending health coverage, preventing unfair insurance industry practices and making coverage more affordable to businesses and individuals. Bending the Senate’s language to fit the House’s version that bans federal subsidies to plans that cover abortion would satisfy holdouts like Nelson. Given that the Senate will adopt the House’s language by Christmas Eve, it’s growing more likely that Obama, Reid and Pelosi will get something from Santa Claus.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos

This site is hosted by