House Health Care bill puts pro-death provisions back in

The latest version of the Health Care reform bill in the House of Representatives would use taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions:

The Pelosi health-care bill. . .authorizes the public plan to cover all elective abortions — and it will certainly do so. Can anyone imagine the Obama administration’s HHS deciding otherwise? And people receiving federal subsidies would be able to use them to purchase private insurance plans covering abortion. Which is to say that federal funds will, in a break with longstanding policy, be entangled with abortion.

With the public option, there will not even be a chance to opt out of abortion coverage. As Time magazine has reported, all enrollees in the public option will be required, by law, to put at least $1 a month into a fund that will pay for abortions, and the legislation explicitly proclaims that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for” abortions.

Oh, yes, as the quotation indicates, the bill will also include the “public option”; that is, a government-run insurance company to compete with private companies.

Not only that, LifeNews reports that the bill will require end-of-life counseling and that patients provide advance directives if they are open to having the doctors let them die. It will also allow taxpayer money to pay for assisted suicide in states where that is legal (Oregon, Washington).

This is to say, every controversial element that had formerly been taken out so as not to alarm the masses has been put back in!

A vote may come as early as Saturday. (Then it will have to be reconciled with the Senate bill in back room negotiations.)

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Rose

    Also, the bipartisan amendment that banned rationing was removed from the House Bill.
    Now the federal Center for Comparative Effectiveness (set up in Stimulus Bill using QALY standards) will over-rule doctors’ treatment choices. The effect will be to reduce treatment that is expensive or for older patients with inadequate Quality Adjusted Life Years left. See http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/126988

  • Rose

    Also, the bipartisan amendment that banned rationing was removed from the House Bill.
    Now the federal Center for Comparative Effectiveness (set up in Stimulus Bill using QALY standards) will over-rule doctors’ treatment choices. The effect will be to reduce treatment that is expensive or for older patients with inadequate Quality Adjusted Life Years left. See http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/126988

  • ELB

    RE: End-of-life Counseling
    It may not be obvious, but the “need” for end-of-life counseling comes at the same time that pastors are routinely sidelined in the care of patients. With the advent of HIPA, the privacy act, some hospitals are literally hostile to pastors dealing with patients in relation to their sickness. While word and sacrament are at the heart of our service, we can’t separate our seel-sorge (soul-healing) from a negative prognosis, or a miscarriage, etc.

    In the name of HIPA, I have had patients die while the hospital would tell me nothing of the patient’s condition, even though the patient and the family demanded it. I have seen patient deprived of food and water by mouth while hospital staff get authorization from the family while avoiding my input, even though the patient has requested it.

    The role of the pastor in these end-of-life decisions has been eliminated and replaced by social workers who often talk the family into actions that violate their principles, but are not understood by the family.

    Why push the pastors out? We don’t even charge for our services :-)

  • ELB

    RE: End-of-life Counseling
    It may not be obvious, but the “need” for end-of-life counseling comes at the same time that pastors are routinely sidelined in the care of patients. With the advent of HIPA, the privacy act, some hospitals are literally hostile to pastors dealing with patients in relation to their sickness. While word and sacrament are at the heart of our service, we can’t separate our seel-sorge (soul-healing) from a negative prognosis, or a miscarriage, etc.

    In the name of HIPA, I have had patients die while the hospital would tell me nothing of the patient’s condition, even though the patient and the family demanded it. I have seen patient deprived of food and water by mouth while hospital staff get authorization from the family while avoiding my input, even though the patient has requested it.

    The role of the pastor in these end-of-life decisions has been eliminated and replaced by social workers who often talk the family into actions that violate their principles, but are not understood by the family.

    Why push the pastors out? We don’t even charge for our services :-)

  • Sam

    Well, as Reagan used to say, there you go again. This is propaganda to keep the simple in a fact-free rage against health care reform.

    For years the business powers on the right have shouted “abortion!” to get the religious out into the streets to oppose all attempts to rein in business greed. The irony is that many among the religious are dying for the very health care reform they’ve been made to fear.

    Keeping medical care from Americans who cannot afford it is the essence of “pro death.”

  • Sam

    Well, as Reagan used to say, there you go again. This is propaganda to keep the simple in a fact-free rage against health care reform.

    For years the business powers on the right have shouted “abortion!” to get the religious out into the streets to oppose all attempts to rein in business greed. The irony is that many among the religious are dying for the very health care reform they’ve been made to fear.

    Keeping medical care from Americans who cannot afford it is the essence of “pro death.”

  • DonS

    So, Sam, are you saying that the so-called “propaganda” is false? Or, that providing all Americans with health care who cannot otherwise afford it overrides any legitimate concern over the federal funded murder of babies?

    As a principled liberal, is it not your responsibility to lobby the politicians you support to amend their bill to delete the baby murdering portions? Then, maybe, responsible health care reform could be enacted.

  • DonS

    So, Sam, are you saying that the so-called “propaganda” is false? Or, that providing all Americans with health care who cannot otherwise afford it overrides any legitimate concern over the federal funded murder of babies?

    As a principled liberal, is it not your responsibility to lobby the politicians you support to amend their bill to delete the baby murdering portions? Then, maybe, responsible health care reform could be enacted.

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    Sam,I know you are pro-life. You don’t mind that your tax money will pay for abortion? Or do you think that the bill will NOT pay for abortion, that this is just propaganda? Also, I know you are anti-big business. The proposed plan will force people to buy insurance. Won’t that help the insurance companies? Why are they supporting the bill?

  • http://www.geneveith.com geneveith

    Sam,I know you are pro-life. You don’t mind that your tax money will pay for abortion? Or do you think that the bill will NOT pay for abortion, that this is just propaganda? Also, I know you are anti-big business. The proposed plan will force people to buy insurance. Won’t that help the insurance companies? Why are they supporting the bill?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    They should rename it: Obama’s Deathcare Reform Plan

    I’m encouraging my friends to get into the funeral industry. Sales are looking up up up!

  • Bryan Lindemood

    They should rename it: Obama’s Deathcare Reform Plan

    I’m encouraging my friends to get into the funeral industry. Sales are looking up up up!

  • dave

    The Hyde Amendment prevents Federal Funds from being used for abortions.

    Of course, Christians have an opportunity here:

    Right now, a woman facing the birth of a severely disabled child also faces the prospect of poverty and/or bankruptcy, which could harm the rest of her family (and other children).

    Christians could support legislation to make sure that women do not face such a choice.

    However, avowed conservative Christians have generally opposed things that make it easier once the child is born.

    I guess for some reason there is widespread belief that the woman must have the baby no matter what, but that it is somehow unChristian to guarantee that the child and her mother have their health and welfare looked out for.

    Priorities.

  • dave

    The Hyde Amendment prevents Federal Funds from being used for abortions.

    Of course, Christians have an opportunity here:

    Right now, a woman facing the birth of a severely disabled child also faces the prospect of poverty and/or bankruptcy, which could harm the rest of her family (and other children).

    Christians could support legislation to make sure that women do not face such a choice.

    However, avowed conservative Christians have generally opposed things that make it easier once the child is born.

    I guess for some reason there is widespread belief that the woman must have the baby no matter what, but that it is somehow unChristian to guarantee that the child and her mother have their health and welfare looked out for.

    Priorities.

  • DonS

    dave:

    This legislation would supersede the Hyde Amendment. Besides, as you know, the Hyde Amendment has to be renewed by Congress annually, and is in great danger already in this very liberal Congress.

    Christians do have an opportunity here. In fact, they have a mandate to help those, particularly women and children, who have needs. But merely supporting “legislation to make sure that women do not face such a choice” is a cop-out. We have a direct responsibility to help ourselves, not merely to demand, through political action, that others help. I know this is something near and dear to Joe’s heart, and he talks about this issue, and all that Christians are doing in the area of supporting unwed mothers and mothers of disabled babies, all the time when this topic comes up.

    So, two questions for you. 1) Is it your position that, since Christians won’t support legislative health and welfare “guarantees”, that women should therefore have a right to have the government pay for the murder of their children? 2) Do you really think that the government, with its myriad of existing health and welfare programs, doesn’t already have support in place for assisting in the care of disabled children?

  • DonS

    dave:

    This legislation would supersede the Hyde Amendment. Besides, as you know, the Hyde Amendment has to be renewed by Congress annually, and is in great danger already in this very liberal Congress.

    Christians do have an opportunity here. In fact, they have a mandate to help those, particularly women and children, who have needs. But merely supporting “legislation to make sure that women do not face such a choice” is a cop-out. We have a direct responsibility to help ourselves, not merely to demand, through political action, that others help. I know this is something near and dear to Joe’s heart, and he talks about this issue, and all that Christians are doing in the area of supporting unwed mothers and mothers of disabled babies, all the time when this topic comes up.

    So, two questions for you. 1) Is it your position that, since Christians won’t support legislative health and welfare “guarantees”, that women should therefore have a right to have the government pay for the murder of their children? 2) Do you really think that the government, with its myriad of existing health and welfare programs, doesn’t already have support in place for assisting in the care of disabled children?

  • dave

    dons:

    answers for you:

    1) no, i don’t support gov’t paying to murder children.

    2) existing government programs do not cover and/or support all disabled children. if you become destitute, you should get help, but my argument was that people face bankruptcy or financial ruin with disability in their families and i think there should be guarantees against that. heck, we guarantee banks, can’t we back up families with children? as for the market deciding these things, the market doesn’t give a sh*t about children or their mothers and would surely sell them for a profit if it would help the bottom line.

  • dave

    dons:

    answers for you:

    1) no, i don’t support gov’t paying to murder children.

    2) existing government programs do not cover and/or support all disabled children. if you become destitute, you should get help, but my argument was that people face bankruptcy or financial ruin with disability in their families and i think there should be guarantees against that. heck, we guarantee banks, can’t we back up families with children? as for the market deciding these things, the market doesn’t give a sh*t about children or their mothers and would surely sell them for a profit if it would help the bottom line.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X