posted
Catholic nuns break with bishops and urge passage of health care reform. In recent weeks, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been outspoken in its opposition to the Senate health care bill, saying that it doesn’t sufficiently restrict federal funds from being used for insurance coverage of abortions. However, in an “unusual public break,” a group of nuns — “60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns” — has sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to pass health care reform and ignore the “false claims” floating around about abortion. From the letter:
The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.
The bishops are increasingly alone in their position. Last week, both the Catholic Health Association and a group of 25 “pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders” also sent Congress letters supporting the Senate bill.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions
this seems to be a major sticking point.
nobody seems to agree on whether it does or does not prohibit federal money to be used on abortion:
here's what the bill actually says
subparagraph (B)(i).
From Section 1303(a)(1)(B) of the Senate bill:
(B) ABORTION SERVICES. --
(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED. -- The services described in this clause are abortions 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.
Bill requires states to ensure that "no ... Federal funds ... pay or defray the cost of" such coverage. The bill further specifies that states are required to "assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal fund, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i)."
From Section 1303(a)(1)(C) of the Senate bill:
(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION. --
[...]
(ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.-If a State requires, in addition to the essential health benefits required under section 1323(b)(3)(A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State's required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
Bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies "for the purposes of paying for" abortion services restricted by Hyde. The bill states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services" and must segregate funds for that purpose.
From Section 1303(a)(2) of the Senate bill:
(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. --
(A) IN GENERAL. -- If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS. -- In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph(A
posted
Nelson D Neb), the senior senator from his state, called for the Senate last week to adopt a measure that closely mirrors language in the House version of the bill, which bans federally subsidized health insurance plans from covering abortion, even if the procedures are paid for entirely with customers' premiums.
But the amendment, which was co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, fell flat when the Senate sidelined the measure in a 54-45 vote.
i'm thinking the Senate needs to get rid of the whole 60 vote issue in all aspects of it's procedural rules.
the only place the 60 vote rule even closely resembles Constitutional issue is in teh treaty ratification process.
the only reason for it there is that the President negotiates treaties and they become law after a 2/3 majority (not 60% but 66%).
those treaties then become LAW, without anything resembling a DEMOCRATIC 50/50 vote...
sure we live in a republic, but the two Senators from Wyoming represent 544,000 people, and the two senators from Ca represent 36 MILLION..
that's not democratic or even republican.
when the Founders set up the Senate? they decided that Senators wold be elected by their state legislators,
Article I Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
Section 4.
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Section 5.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
to give you an idea of what the population representation was in 1790?
Connecticut 237,946
Delaware 59,096
Georgia 82,548
Kentucky 73,677
Maine 96,540
Maryland 319,728
Massachusetts 378,787
New Hampshire 141,885
New Jersey 184,139
New York 340,120
North Carolina 393,751
Pennsylvania 434,373
Rhode Island 68,825
South Carolina 249,073
Tennessee 35,691
Vermont 85,425
Virginia 747,610
the highest ratio of Population V representation was about 20 to one then (Tenn V Va), now it's about 70 to one CA V WY...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peaser: These nuns have no clue what is in this bill.
As none of us do.
Fa'geda 'bout it. Juss pass it.
i don't even think the people who wrote it do...
what does this mean?
(B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS. -- In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph(A
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just about sounds like Obama can give taxpayer money to a cause at his own choosing as he deems fit even after his term is over? huh? Unless I am taking this out of context as I do not see what preceeds this. Sounds like a Power trip.
Who is the would be issuer?
Got Constitution?
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 10750 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
a purchaser of insurance that can't afford insurance will have some portion of the insurance subsidized by taxpayers. they have to buy the portion of insurance that covers abortion with their own money.
the argument is that if you subsidize one part of the purchasers insurance? then you are subsidizing all of their insurance.
not unreasonable, right?
the problem is that the bill requires people to get insurance, so if you are poor and cannot afford to pay for ALL of the insurance that you are required by the govt to purchase? you cannot get an abortion covered by insurance at all.
in essence? if you are poor and cannot afford to pay for all of your insurance? you must pay for an abortion out of pocket.
my understanding is that most insurance co's do not pay for either birth control or abortion anyway.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
