Amplify
Enjoy the conversation.
Amplify is a place to talk about what's going on.
It's as simple as that.
    

House Republicans Read The Bill

Section 213: A Monthly Abortion Premium

A monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan, as well those who select plans that have abortion coverage through the Exchange. The premium will be paid into an U.S. Treasury account and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

The Pelosi bill describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month

Amplify’d from www.opencongress.org
SEC. 213. INSURANCE RATING RULES.Read more at www.opencongress.org
(b) Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage-Read more at www.opencongress.org
(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).Read more at www.opencongress.org
(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate the Commissioner--Read more at www.opencongress.org
(A) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;Read more at www.opencongress.org
(B) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; andRead more at www.opencongress.org
(C) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.Read more at www.opencongress.org
 
Liked by  Michael Ehline  merriemarie

22 Comments

  1. Colin Gladden  Of course this is based on Laws that are in affect ass according to Sec.222.4.B….

    1. Lon Vetula  The only problem with this is they don’t make it law that everyone opposed to abortions is required to adopt a homeless child from America.

      1. Bill Smithfield  Re: http://amplify.com/u/t89 @GOPLeader mischaracterizes sec. 213 of Heath bill to claim it funds abortions when it really doesn’t!

        1. sandra casella  I would gladly donate $1 to abort any jailed child molester, murderer…but no let kill the infants that have never hurt anyone.

          1. Bill Smithfield  As it is, the jailed child molester is receiving free health care paid for by you and me, while the parents of the baby you’re concerned about are going bankrupt because insurance agencies in a number of states don’t cover prenatal, delivery or postnatal care.

            John Boehner supports a system where jailed child molesters get all the free, taxpayer funded heath care they need — while law-abiding Americans are being forced out of their houses and on to the street because they can’t afford to pay their medical bills.

            1. J Daily  Someone throw Boehner a dictionary, opened up to the page “Optional”.

              Also, this is talking about estimates of the price of coverage. Yeah…this is the kind of guy we want running the country…

              1. Scott Dent  Bill, I think you support an America where innocent infants are cut out of the womb without even a chance at living, and Americans rich and poor have to foot the bill for that- where the irresponsibility of the few has to be shouldered by the masses, paid for with money stolen from the paycheck of the working man, businessman, and business owner…..sounds like your idea of America parallels Aldous Huxley now doesn’t it? Brave New World indeed…. read a history book, or an economics book.

                1. Scott Bard  Oh my gosh! Boner is lying again, about non-existent abortion coverage this time, and Drudge is pushing it, again. Oh my gosh!

                  1. Corey Snow  Well there you go again… Republicans lying to advance their agenda! Boehner knows that section 213 has absolutely nothing to do with an “abortion premium”. He is posting that to get his minions fired up, and to brainwash his own party into believing things that are not true.

                    If you actually READ and COMPREHEND Section 213, there is no mention of federally funded abortions. It disgusts me that the Republican party’s modus operandi is to lie to their own people to advance their interests.

                    Ultimately, this fight against national healthcare is driven by greedy insurance companies who know their days of raping the American public are nearly over, and the politicians they support.

                    National Healthcare NOW! Stop the insanity. Stop giving profits to the healthcare monopolies. Stop believing money and power hungry Republican politicians.

                    1. Al Owen  Abortion is the most selfish act of murder there is. It can be forgiven, but it is never forgotten. And it is my experience that the most vehement adherents to abortion are the most haunted by its destruction. I want to say, go ahead and keep yelling, it drowns out the noise of the babies dying.

                      1. Bill Smithfield  Al and Scott — I agree with you about the abortion. But that’s not the point. The point is that Senator Boehner (trying) to prey on your feeling about abortion by linking it to a provision that has nothing to do with abortion. Show me a provision of the health care proposal that has anything to do with supporting abortion and I, and my two adopted children, will be among the first to fight it. But the provision as it is written — the health care bill as written — says nothing about supporting abortion.

                        In other words, Senator Boehner is trying to manipulate you. If you (and he) wants to dispute the health care bill and health care reform based on the fact, then I’m just fine with that. But that isn’t what’s going on here. Senator Boehner has received over a million dollars in campaign funding from health care lobbyists, and apparently that means he will say whatever it takes to support their cause.

                        You talk about innocent babies — but I go back to the fact that innocent babies deserve to live in homes that haven’t gone bankrupt because they couldn’t afford the prenatal costs, delivery costs, and postnatal costs. If there are any complications with the delivery of your child, many health insurance agencies will not cover them. You will go broke covering them yourself. You and your child will have to move into a shelter, or a terrible neighborhood, and your child will not receive all of the opportunities that they deserve…while, I might note, Senator Boehner’s grandchildren are living in nice houses and living in the best schools — all as a result of the fact that he blocked this legislation on behalf of his sponsors.

                        1. Braden Glett  Re: http://amplify.com/u/t89 @GOPLeader This removes all doubt about whether the Democratic Party is “pro-abortion” or merely “pro-choice.” They seem determined to do everything they can to increase the number of aborted innocent human beings. I wonder why that is?

                          1. Richard Pierson  Re: http://amplify.com/u/t89 @GOPLeader Not surprisingly, given that congress is trying to race this bill through before anyone (including themselves) actually read it, Section 213(b)(1) (reprinted above) provides a cross reference to Section 222 (d)(4) when there is no Section 222(d)(4). This is probably meant to be a cross reference to Section 222(e)(4) but it is indicative of the sloppiness that occurs when politicians are so busy trying to get things done quickly rather than taking the time to get things done correctly. So I ask you all — even assuming that health insurance overhaul is necessary or desirable, why does it have to be done in full within the next month or two? What’s the big rush? What is making this moment in time, as opposed to last year, or five years ago or two years from now, so crucial that this has to be rushed through this quickly and sloppily without even those who are voting on it, by their own admission, having read it? You all know the answer: for political reasons. To help the current crop of congressmen in their elections next year. Is that a good enough reason for you to have something so significant and costly rammed through at the expense of getting it right? If you look at it objectively, without giving in to your political bias, this question becomes rhetorical.

                            1. Justin Robillard  Can anyone explain to me how SEC. 213 has anything to do with abortion? I’m not against the possibility, but I certainly don’t see the connection.

                              1. Donny Shaw  It is related to abortion, but it’s actually part of a safeguard in the bill designed to ensure that no federal money is used for funding abortions. There are no “monthly abortion premiums” in that section or in the rest of the bill.

                                I’ve put up a post debunking Boehner’s claims here:

                                http://bit.ly/35u9H2

                                1. Corey Snow  Thank you Donny Shaw. Spread the word. This blatant manipulation of the American people is despicable.

                                  1. Colin Gladden  Re: http://amplify.com/u/t89 @GOPLeader RT @GOPLeader Section 213: A Monthly Abortion Premium http://amplify.com/u/t89 Sec.213 refers to Sec. 222 which states that no more federal money will go towards abortions over what is already approved by an existing law that is already in place. In other words, the section highlighted by Boehner is in fact referring us to a section where ti explains that this bill will NOT provide any additional funding for abortions. So yet again it is another scare tactic to rile people up. That or Boehner really does not read the bills. I DESPISE abortion. I do not approve of it in the least, but it is wrong to use it as a flag to achieve a goal of defeating health care. I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF OF THE BILL AND CROSS CHECK EVERYTHING BOEHNER SAYS. 9 TIMES OUT OF 10 HE CLEARLY MISQUOTES THE BILL OR REFERS YOU TO A SECTION THAT DOES NOT IN FACT SAY WHAT BOEHNER SAYS IT DOES. Politicians like Boehner and Cantor rely on the ignorance of people to achieve their agendas. WHAT IS VERY INFURIATING IS THAT THE GUY WHO IS MISQUOTING AND MISTAKING THE FACTS OF THE BILL, THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN MANY TIMES, IS THE SAME ONE WHO IS TRYING TO INTRODUCE A BILL THAT WILL REQUIRE BETTER TRANSPARENCY BY VIDEO TAPING ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND SUCH. OF COURSE HE DID NOT CALL FOR THIS DURING THE BUSH YEARS. SO BOEHNER LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT- THE DEMS NEED TO TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT, BUT YOU CAN MISQUOTE BILLS AS YOU LIKE? DEFEND YOUR STANCE NOW THAT YOUR STATEMENT HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. BE TRANSPARENT!!!!!!!!!

                                    1. John  John Boehner is using hysterical fabricated provisions to scare people. There are no monthly abortion premiums anywhere in the bill.

                                      1. Cliff Plumlee  “I will continue to oppose, and will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose, bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until there is satisfactory language to prevent public funding for abortion,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) 11/05/09

                                        1. Greg Jarmiolowski  The sad part is that if Boehner said they were going to spend 1 trillion dollars…crickets..but if he says that 1 dollar of that will go towards abortions..outrage. No one seems to care that their freedom is being eroded with every word Congress codifies into law.

                                          1. Lon Vetula  I just looked at Boehner picture and was like “Oh… that’s that guy that EVERY SINGLE TIME I see him on TV he is misquoting or lying about something…. Mr NO!

                                            1. Russell Gorman  According to Section 222 on page 110, starting on line 17… you can read about the “Abortion for which public funding is allowed”. According to this section and the paragraph above it, the difference between abortions which ARE publicly funded, and those that are NOT public funded will be determined by Congress. The decision is open for alteration by Congress, up to 6 months before the new plan year takes affect. In other words, each year Congress will get a chance to vote on what abortions will be publicly funded and which ones will not be publicly funded. This means that if this bill becomes law, Congress will have up to May 2011 to insert a new law which will allow for publicly funded abortions, because the OH SO URGENT Healthcare Reforms will not actually take effect until Jan of 2012. So urgent that we are going to put it off for 3 years!

                                              http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962ih.txt.pdf

                                              Read it for yourself… Lord knows your Representative didn’t!!



                                              5741
                                              See John Boehner's profile

                                              John Boehner's other Amplogs

                                              About this Amplify

                                              As House Republicans continue to battle Speaker Pelosi’s $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care, they’re using a new tool - Amplify.com - to engage the American people in a section-by-section dialogue scrutinizing all 1,990 pages of PelosiCare. Republicans hope the new site will provide the American people with an unfiltered online clearinghouse for emerging information about the Pelosi bill as Democrats attempt to bring the massive legislation to a vote. The idea is simple. As House Republicans pour pore through the Speaker’s health care monstrosity and uncover harmful provisions not being disclosed to the American people by the majority, Amplify allows House Republicans to clip specific portions and explain what they mean in plain English.

                                              John Boehner is following

                                              Gregg Harper

                                              What we're reading about