The Edmond Sun

Opinion

October 18, 2013

Conscience gets lost in Obamacare maze

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Obamacare was billed as an affordable, easy system of obtaining health insurance, where Americans could simply pick health plans that best fit their family’s needs. But the resulting health care law, characterized by rising costs and onerous government mandates, is looking more and more like a maze that’s maddeningly difficult to traverse.

So complex is the system that few consumers may realize the law breaks a longstanding truce in the culture wars: That federal funds shouldn’t flow to abortion coverage.

For decades, Americans have agreed that — whatever one personally thinks about the controversial procedure — Congress shouldn’t entangle tax dollars in providing abortions. Policies prohibiting federal funding for elective abortion or abortion coverage have been enacted almost every year since the mid-1970s.

Polls show a majority of Americans consistently agrees with such policies. Yet, when a divided Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it failed to apply those longstanding prohibitions to the massive law, popularly known as Obamacare.

The Obamacare insurance exchanges that entwine tax dollars and private dollars in covering abortion rest on the law’s foundation of inescapable mandates. Under Obamacare, the government mandates what benefits insurance companies must offer, employers must provide and individuals must purchase.

Taxpayers now will foot the bill for federal subsidies for the purchase of health plans on the exchanges that went live online Oct. 1, and some of those plans could cover elective abortion.

This flood of new funding could significantly increase the number of abortions covered by taxpayer-subsidized plans. According to analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, more than 18,000 additional abortion procedures could be paid for each year.

That’s not all. One of the darker corners of the Obamacare maze is a hidden mandate that could force some Americans to pay directly for coverage of elective abortions.

Individuals enrolled in one of the federally subsidized exchange plans that cover abortion will be forced to pay a surcharge of at least $12 per year — and possibly much more — out of their own pockets.

Worse, many individuals and families who otherwise would object to paying for abortion coverage may not even be aware of the additional charge. Obamacare regulations only allow insurers to disclose the existence and amount of the abortion surcharge at the time of enrollment. That warning may be as little as a single sentence in a voluminous document.

And who is charged with helping Americans through the complex world of Obamacare insurance exchanges? Answer: Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The government is giving more than $600,000 to three Planned Parenthood affiliates to act as “navigators.” Along with other groups, they’re tasked with helping Americans sign up for insurance on the federally facilitated exchanges.

Many states are following suit. The District of Columbia, California and Vermont announced grants totaling more than $1 million to local Planned Parenthood affiliates for promoting insurance exchanges for those jurisdictions.

Families and individuals seeking to avoid plans that cover abortion will find little comfort in the guidance of an organization that performs more than 330,000 abortions a year — while reporting net assets topping $1 billion.

But we really shouldn’t be surprised at this bewildering system, where hidden premiums and restricted consumer choice are further muddled at the direction of special interest groups. Obamacare’s capacity to confuse stems from the law’s power to control.

Americans, told that their consciences are of no consequence, are left with few tools to scale the high walls of confusing regulations built by unelected bureaucrats in search of health care that meets their family’s needs and aligns with their values.

Congress should bulldoze this labyrinth and move forward with real health care reform. Americans deserve a health care system that increases access, decreases costs and allows individuals and families to choose health care without subsidizing life-ending procedures.

SARAH TORRE is a policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Readers may write to the author in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue N.E., Washington, D.C., 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org. Information about Heritage’s funding may be found at h http://www.heritage.org/about/reports.cfm.

1
Text Only
Opinion
  • Loosening constraints on campaign donations and spending doesn’t destroy democracy

    Campaign finance reformers are worried about the future. They contend that two Supreme Court rulings — the McCutcheon decision in March and the 2010 Citizens United decision — will magnify inequality in U.S. politics.
    In both cases, the court majority relaxed constraints on how money can be spent on or donated to political campaigns. By allowing more private money to flow to campaigns, the critics maintain, the court has allowed the rich an unfair advantage in shaping political outcomes and made “one dollar, one vote” (in one formulation) the measure of our corrupted democracy.
    This argument misses the mark for at least four reasons.

    April 23, 2014

  • The top 12 government programs ever

    Which federal programs and policies succeed in being cost-effective and targeting those who need them most? These two tests are obvious: After all, why would we spend taxpayers' money on a program that isn't worth what it costs or helps those who do not need help?

    April 23, 2014

  • Free trade on steroids: The threat of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Many supporters of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, trade agreement are arguing that its fate rests on President Obama’s bilateral talks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan this week. If Japan and the United States can sort out market access issues for agriculture and automobiles, the wisdom goes, this huge deal — in effect, a North American Free Trade Agreement on steroids — can at last be concluded.

    April 22, 2014

  • Can Hillary Clinton rock the cradle and the world?

    What's most interesting to contemplate is the effect becoming a grandmother will have on Hillary's ambition. It's one of life's unfairnesses that a woman's peak career years often coincide with her peak childbearing years.

    April 22, 2014

  • Chicago Tribune: If Walgreen Co. moves its HQ to Europe, blame Washington’s tax failure

    The Walgreen Co. drugstore chain got its start nearly a century ago in downstate Dixon, Ill., before moving its corporate headquarters to Chicago and eventually to north suburban Deerfield, Ill.
    Next stop? Could be Bern, Switzerland.
    A group of shareholders reportedly is pressuring the giant retail chain for a move to the land of cuckoo clocks. The reason: lower taxes. Much lower taxes.
    If Walgreen changes its legal domicile to Switzerland, where it recently acquired a stake in European drugstore chain Alliance Boots, the company could save big bucks on its corporate income-tax bill. The effective U.S. income-tax rate for Walgreen, according to analysts at Swiss Bank UBS: 37 percent. For Alliance Boots: about 20 percent.

    April 21, 2014

  • Sulphur a future major tourist destination?

    Greta Garbo says, “I want to be alone,” in the 1932 film “Grand Hotel.” That MGM film starred Garbo, John and Lionel Barrymore, Wallace Beery and a young actress from Lawton named Joan Crawford. It told the stories of several different people who were staying at an exclusive hotel of that name in Berlin Germany.
    It was critically well received and it inspired more recent films such as “Gosford Park” and television shows such as “Downton Abbey” in that it detailed the relationship between powerful and wealthy people and those who served them. The film opened amidst much fanfare and it received the Oscar for best picture in the year of its release.

    April 21, 2014

  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Why poverty across the world matters to Americans

    A child starving in South Sudan should matter to Americans. That was the message delivered last week by Nancy Lindborg, whose job at the U.S. Agency for International Development is to lead a federal bureau spreading democracy and humanitarian assistance across the world.
    That world has reached a critical danger zone, with three high-level crises combining military conflict with humanitarian catastrophes affecting millions of innocents in Syria, the South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
    But back to that child.

    April 18, 2014

  • Government leadership complicit in overfilling prisons

    One of the thorniest problems facing any society is the question of what to do with transgressors. Obviously, the more complicated a culture becomes, the more factors come into play in trying to figure out what to do with those who choose not to “play by the rules.”

    April 18, 2014

  • My best days are ones normal people take for granted

    It is a weekend for working around the house. My fiancee, Erin, and I have the baby’s room to paint and some IKEA furniture to assemble. I roll out of bed early — 10:30 — and get into my wheelchair. Erin is already making coffee in the kitchen.
    “I started the first wall,” she says. “I love that gray.” Erin never bugs me about sleeping late. For a few months after I was injured in the Boston Marathon bombings, I often slept 15 hours a day. The doctors said my body needed to heal. It must still be healing because I hardly ever see 8 a.m. anymore.

    April 18, 2014

  • Instead of mothballing Navy ships, give them to our allies

    A bitter debate has raged in the Pentagon for several months about the wisdom of taking the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington out of service to save money. The Washington, at 24 years old a relatively young vessel, is due for a costly refit, a routine procedure that all of the 11 large carriers in service undergo regularly.

    April 18, 2014

Poll

Do you agree with a state budget proposal that takes some funds away from road and bridge projects to ramp up education funding by $29.85 million per year until schools are receiving $600 million more a year than they are now? In years in which 1 percent revenue growth does not occur in the general fund, the transfer would not take place.

Agree
Disagree
Undecided
     View Results