Health Care Debate

As we anticipate the proposed healthcare debate with the president and members of congress, we call on our ND congressional delegation to pursue a path of common sense reflective of the families in North Dakota.


As we have been advocating for months, the healthcare reform debate needs to address the real issues: the issues of portability, affordability, tax deductibility for individuals just as business, tort reform measures, allowing insurance plans to be sold across state lines, a health savings account program, and address waste in Medicaid and Medicare. While our primary concern with the current bill is: the publically funding of abortion, right of conscience protections, end of life counseling provisions, and rationing of care to our older citizens; we continue to have grave concerns with other parts of the bill which are contrary to the best interests of the family, and believe the real issues of healthcare reform must be addressed. And continue to call for the slate to be cleared, and start over.

NDFA welcomes any good-faith effort to start over on health care reform, but it appears the most recent version continues to be a government run mandate and has the effect of increasing taxes today, and for years to come for our children. It seems it contains many of the provisions of the senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. Instead of limiting the perks to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida—it provides them for all states, increasing the cost to a trillion dollars with the delayed implementation. If you factor out the delayed implementation, the true cost for the next decade is a at 2 Trillion dollars.

The proposed plan provides for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v Wade, with the greatest rewards going to Planned Parenthood. Instead of adopting the Stupak Amendment, the proposal prevents states from opting out of the publically funded abortion. It asks for $11 billion for ‘community health centers’ which may easily be directed toward Planned Parenthood facilities. By defining abortion as ‘preventative health services’, private insurers would be forced to cover them.

The February 23rd headlines at LifeNews validate how little has changed over the last few months:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Current Headlines

• Obama Unveils Health Care Plan, Violates Pledge by Keeping Abortion Funding
• Analysis: Obama Plan Increases Abortion Funding Via Community Health Centers
• White House Joins Pelosi, Reid in Supporting Reconciliation on Health Care Bill
• Pro-Life Groups Blast Obama for Funding Abortions in His Health Care Plan
• Health Care Rationing for Seniors is Another Problem in New Obama Plan


As we have shared over the past months, there is a life cycle of all legislation. Under optimum circumstances, a healthy debate will result in compromise producing legislation reflecting the true intent and purpose of the original need. Unfortunately this legislation has strayed away from the original purpose. It is at this juncture, the slate needs to be cleared, hence a fresh start.

Some believe a flawed piece of legislation can be compromised into acceptable law. That belief is flawed. Venturing down this path will produce flawed legislation. Some would say when you have reached a point that all ‘hate the legislation’, a proper compromise has been reached. “Bunk”. Some would say ‘when nobody got what they want’; a proper level of compromise has been reached. “Bunk”. That is precisely the time to wipe the slate clean, start over addressing the real issues.

We continue to ask these questions:


Will the current bill being debated enable public, tax payer funder abortion?

Will the number of abortions increase with the passage of this bill?

Will this current bill being debated cut or lower healthcare costs for the family?

Will this bill cut Medicare benefits?
.
Will the passage of this bill increase the tax burden on the family, both present and future generations?

Can we be assured the current bill guarantee on the issues of right of conscience, end of life counseling, and potential rationing?

Will the provision for over 100 new bureaucratic government agencies streamline the delivery of quality care for your family?

Will this current bill provide for better healthcare for the family?


Let us hope the ND congressional delegation will see the merit of responding to the best interests of the family.