The Senate version of Obamacare is actually an already-passed House Bill, HR 3590. Why a House Bill? By gutting the passed bill and substituting the Obamacare plan, it could avoid a conference committee. If the bill passed, it would go back to the House, and if it passed without amendment, there would be no conference committee. It’s a potential fast track to passage.
Moreover, the Senate bill does not prohibit the “promotion” of assisted suicide in the end of life counseling like its House counterpart. Moreover, it seems to require coverage for assisted suicide/euthanasia by the public option plans in states where it is legal. Check out section 1323 of the bill creating the public option (p. 183), beginning at page 186:
(F) PROTECTING ACCESS TO END OF LIFE CARE.—A community health insurance option offered under this section shall be prohibited from limiting access to end of life care.
If assisted suicide, or even euthanasia, are legally considered forms of “end of life care” in a particular state–as it is now in Oregon, Washington, and Montana–it seems to me that the area’s community health insurance option would be required to provide “access” to it under this clause. How else can the provision be read? And because it would have been passed later in time, this clause could be construed to subsume existing federal law that prevents federal funds from being used in assisted suicide.
Tricky. Very tricky.
November 20th, 2009 | 7:15 am
In case there is any doubt left, what this means, then, is that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.
November 20th, 2009 | 10:02 am
The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off. They have a monopoly over the whole process and a well financed lobby team (including Lieberman’s wife) and representatives on both sides of the isle.
A friend of mine recently laid off just he and his spouse is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage. Anyone taking up the insurance industry’s cause doesn’t know what they are talking about.
If you think the insurance companies are going to voluntarily lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process – you are being disingenuous …Over 60% of all US bankruptcies are attributable to medical problems. Most victims are middle class, well educated and have health insurance – (The American Journal of Medicine)
The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our overall economy – a bunch of great Americans aren’t they?
90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I’m for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.
A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to “govern” a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
November 20th, 2009 | 10:47 am
Mr. Burke,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the “public option” – but the post here is about federal funding of assisted suicide (not to mention the other “life” issue – abortion). You may support the public option in healthcare, and you may have sound moral reasoning to do so…but if the public option includes funding of anti-life procedures and furthers the culture of death, you have a lot of explaining to do. Frankly, you did not address the issue that is clearly stated in the original post. Complaining about all those “rich” people who have more money than you doesn’t really focus on the issue at hand. Do you really want a public option to “stick it” to those rich people while forgetting about the deaths of innocents.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact