Feature Story - September 2009
Health Care Reform Debate Heats Up
So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid or bring about a government takeover of health care. That's simply not true. This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
As the Obama administration urged lawmakers to tout the benefits of proposed health care reform legislation during the August recess, opponents questioned the scope of such changes, as well as the costs involved, in the midst of an economic downturn.
President Obama, in one of his weekly radio addresses, said that Congress must, and will, finalize a health care reform measure by year's end.
"There are still details to be hammered out. There are still differences to be reconciled. But we are moving toward a broad consensus on reform. Four committees in Congress have produced legislation–an unprecedented level of agreement on a difficult and complex challenge.
And while reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don't have health insurance, it will also provide more stability and security to the hundreds of millions who do.
In the end, the debate about health insurance reform boils down to a choice between two approaches. The first is almost guaranteed to double health costs over the next decade, make millions more Americans uninsured, leave those with insurance vulnerable to arbitrary denials of coverage, and bankrupt state and federal governments. That's the status quo. That's the health care system we have right now.
So we can either continue this approach, or we can choose another one–one that will protect people against unfair insurance practices; provide quality, affordable insurance to every American; and bring down rising costs that are swamping families, businesses and our budgets. That's the health care system we can bring about with reform," the President said.
What has emerged as a major point of contention in the debate over health care reform legislation is a provision that cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
As part of the government-funded public health insurance option, abortion would be covered, but without using federal funds, only money from beneficiary premiums. Also, private plans in the new so-called insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
The issue has resulted in a highly divisive response.
National Organization for Women President, Terry O'Neill, said, "Reproductive health care is a fundamental right. Any health care plan that does not cover the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, discriminates against women. Once again, our representatives are giving in to the right wing by trading away women's rights. Well, I have a message for them. Our reproductive rights are not theirs to give away."
Likewise, Planned Parenthood issued a statement, which, read in part, "Anti-choice groups are trying to hijack health care reform, jeopardizing women's health for their own political agenda. And this time, the misinformation they spread could result in taking away existing benefits from women and denying them access to the trusted providers of their choice.
The bottom line: women's reproductive health care must be a priority -- and that means, women must not be worse off under health care reform. Reproductive health care must be covered and women must be able to access that care through providers they trust."
Also, Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said, "RCRC's view is that abortion and contraception care should not be treated any differently than any other health care service. Coverage decisions should be left to a council of non-partisan health experts and should be grounded in science and based on the best interest of patients. We believe health care reform must expand coverage to provide the basic needs that every human being deserves; it should not deny essential services to half of the population and aggravate the already troubling disparities in healthcare among minorities and low-income individuals. Reproductive health care, including abortion services, is an essential component of women's health, and we must act now to make sure women get a fair shake in the final health care reform bill," Veazey said.
The compromise plan endorsed by the House panel was denounced by Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life Committee.
"It's a sham. It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan.
Abortion policy is emerging as a major issue on health care restructuring legislation, as the public is awakening to the Obama administration's attempt to smuggle into law, the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade," Johnson said.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of American Center for Law & Justice, said of the House proposal, "This amendment is being billed as an abortion compromise, but it is nothing of the sort. In fact, it causes more problems than it fixes. If enacted, it appears the amendment would help to preserve pro-life state laws, but that is where the good news ends.
Not only would abortion services still be permitted under the amendment, but they would actually be required in many cases. The amendment would mandate that the public health care plan include abortion, and that abortion coverage be available nationwide. This is the most overt inclusion of an abortion mandate yet, and would undoubtedly result in taxpayer-subsidizing abortion," Sekulow said.
National Association of Evangelicals president, Leith Anderson, said, "Members of the NAE believe that the Bible reveals God's calling and care for persons before they are born, which is why the NAE firmly opposes abortion generally. Also stemming from this belief is the NAE's continued interest in the conversation about how to find common ground in the effort to reduce the abortion rate in the United States. The NAE holds that federal subsidization of abortion would run counter to this aspiration. Indeed, the possibility that money taxed from earnings could be used to facilitate the intentional termination of prenatal lives is anathema to many members of the church congregations that the NAE represents."
The debate over health care reform, in general, has sparked other concerns by various organizations and the faith community.
Concerned Women for America president, Wendy Wright, stated, "Any government plan to change health care will not be limited to who pays for what health care. It will dramatically and intimately affect families. The current health care bill will take away from women the ability to make decisions and care for members of their family. It will harm families' ability to preserve the dignity and quality of life for children and the elderly. Americans with disabilities and other pre-existing conditions require quality care and not ‘treatment' that consists merely of prescription medication and a shove out the door."
The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, in its statement, noted, "The simple fact is that if passed, no one can say for certain how badly this will all play out in practice. However, what we can say with absolute certainty is that this legislation will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes, and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty."
Christian Medical & Dental Associations senior vice president, Dr. Gene Rudd, said, "I find it disingenuous when some claim the government will produce a system that has 1) coverage for all, 2) higher quality and 3) lower costs. The first two are reasonable and laudable goals, but I doubt there are sufficient savings to offset the costs required to provide quality care for all. Nevertheless, I am personally willing to pay more to see the first two goals achieved. Correcting our neglect of the poor will require sacrifice–something God-honoring people should be willing to do. The alternative to paying more is rationing. Some see this as a dirty word–to be resisted at all costs. But the reality is that we currently operate in a system controlled by economic rationing. The future will likely add more bureaucratic rationing–a system far removed from godly principles," Rudd said.
The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, said, "We are convinced that health care is not a privilege, reserved for those who can afford it, but a right that should be available, at high quality, to all.
There is another principle undergirding our approach to this crucial topic: namely, a special concern for society's most vulnerable members. Unless it gives priority attention to the poorest and the sickest, health care reform legislation will not be worthy of the name," Kinnamon said.
United Church of Christ, in a pastoral letter, called on churches "to actively work toward the creation of a national health care system and to affirm the moral and justice imperatives of equal access for all people."
The UCC stated that plan should include:
Coverage for all persons.
Access regardless of ability to pay.
A full set of benefits.
A choice of physicians and other providers.
Elimination of racial and ethnic and other health care disparities.
Waiver of pre-existing condition exclusions, without any age limits.
A publicly available, government-administered, insurance option.
A coalition of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders launched a national campaign for health care reform on August 11th, called, "40 Days for Health Reform."
Comprised of Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, PICO National Network, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the coalition planned to hold dozens of prayer vigils, rallies and meetings with politicians through Sept. 18th.
Sojourners president, Rev. Jim Wallis, was quoted by Religion News Service as saying, "We've come together across the spectrum, across party and political lines, to say that coverage with inclusive, acceptable, affordable health care for all God’s children is for us a moral imperative and a religious issue. All of God’s children need to be covered.”
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]
