NRL News
Page 1
February 2011
Volume 38
Issue 2

House Lays Groundwork for Repeal of Obama Healthcare Rationing

By Burke J. Balch, J.D.

It is no secret that repeal of the Obama Healthcare Law will require a different President and an increase in the number of pro–repeal U.S. senators. However, the pro–repeal majority in the U.S. House of Representatives has begun to lay the groundwork for its abolition, perhaps in 2013, which would be before the major elements of the law—and the worst rationing–come into effect.

On January 19, the House voted 245–189 to repeal the Obama Healthcare Law. On February 2, the Senate turned back a repeal attempt, with 47 affirmative to 51 negative votes. (See roll calls, pages 18-24.)

The House didn’t stop there. In a series of amendments to a bill funding the U.S. government considered over several days ending February 19, the House voted:

• 241–187 to prevent any funds appropriated by the bill from being used to implement the Obama Health Care Law;

• by similar votes to adopt largely duplicative amendments to prevent paying federal employees or contractors to implement the law;

• to prevent the use of funds to implement particular aspects of the law: 246–182, the individual mandate; 241–185, the medical loss ratio requirements (which limit what insurers can spend to administer health insurance policies); 241–184, the state insurance exchanges; by voice vote, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (see article p. XXX); and

• 239–183 to prevent the use of funds to pay for the salaries of federal bureaucrats who take any action to specify or define essential benefits as required in the Obama Health Care Law and 239–182 to prevent the use of funds to pay the salaries of federal bureaucrats who administer insurance provisions created in it.

These amendments represented efforts to find various ingenious ways to employ the power of the purse to defund Obamacare, and to improve the bargaining position of the House with the Senate and the Administration in negotiations over the government funding bill. Given the composition of the Senate and the veto power of President Obama, however, it is unlikely that many, if any, will actually make it into law this year.

Why is repeal of the Obama Healthcare Law a key pro–life issue? In addition to its promotion of abortion (see story, page XXX), the law threatens the lives of the vulnerable born, especially senior citizens and those with disabilities.

Rationing for Everyone. The Obama Healthcare Law requires an “Independent Payment Advisory Board” to make recommendations to limit what Americans are allowed to spend on their health care so that it cannot keep up with medical inflation. To enforce them, the federal government will impose “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers that restrict the treatment they can give all their patients. There will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats, specifying what treatment Americans can–and cannot–obtain. (See separate article on page 000).

Rationing for Senior Citizens. The Obama Healthcare Law empowers federal bureaucrats to limit—or even eliminate—the right of older Americans to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment in order to get health insurance less likely to deny or limit lifesaving medical treatment.

Rationing by the Exchanges. The Obama Healthcare Law authorizes bureaucrats running the state–based health insurance exchanges to limit the value of the insurance Americans may purchase–in a way that affects insurance inside or outside the exchange, so that all consumers will have trouble finding health insurance offering adequate and unrationed health care.

Persuading Patients They’re Better Off without Treatment. Under the “Shared Decisionmaking” program, the Obama Healthcare Law funds private entities to create “patient decision aids” and establish regional centers to train health care providers in using them. Groups who pushed for this program and are likely to be funded under it market themselves as reducing health care spending by convincing patients to forego expensive treatments.

There is evidence that most Americans realize the law threatens rationing, although they may not be familiar with the details. According to a September 2010 Logos Communications poll commissioned by the senior citizens’ advocacy group Sixty Plus, 56% of registered voters believe the new healthcare reform law will lead to “rationing” of care, compared to 26% who don’t. (Even among Obama voters, there is a tie in whether they believe it will lead to rationing: 36% to 36%.) By 82% to 7% registered voters agree, “As a matter of principle, the government should not ration care or deny treatment options based on what it calls ‘cost-effectiveness.’ I don’t trust the government to put a cost on human life.”

Nevertheless, the Administration is mounting a full-scale campaign to convince Americans the new law will be good for them; it is critical that pro–life supporters both inform ourselves of the documented evidence of rationing in the law and bend every effort to educate our friends and neighbors about it so that repeal can be achieved before it is too late.