In it’s most recent publication, the public interest group, “West Virginians for Affordable Health Care” regurgitates many of the talking points from the White House in an attempt to debunk the, in the words of the President, “extraordinary lie[s]” of pro-life groups across the country opposed to the recent Health Care proposal.
In one section of it’s patronizingly titled, “Sense and Nonsense” article is the following “exchange”:
NONSENSE: Health reform will lead to rationing health care.
SENSE: “Rationing” occurs in health care and other goods and services whenever demand exceeds supply. Organs, for example, are precious commodities, and their donation is strictly regulated by national guidelines. Rationing is necessary and inevitable. Allocation of the swine flue vaccine this fall will provide a practical experience of rationing. If the demand for the vaccine exceeds the supply, we will have to decide who will receive the first million doses available.
Rationing might be better described as an appropriate allocation of resources. In an essay in the Washington Post [sic], an infectious disease specialist wrote, “the unspoken truth among doctors is that we objectively or subjectively ration care, and often don’t tell patients or their families.” Health reform would make such decisions an allocations more transparent and accountable.
Oh, I get it. It’s not rationing, its, “an appropriate allocation of resources.”
Holy political spin, Batman! In other words, if, say, the supply of chemotherapy outstripped the demand for it, doctors employed by the government would determine who gets the allocation of resources based upon……what exactly? Age? Severity of the condition? Chances of recovery?
Who controls the supply market? Moving the market from private to public puts the supply controls directly into the hands of bureaucrats who respond to the directions of the executive. That’s concerning for many, many reasons, not the least of which is how it affects end-of-life care – one of the many legitimate questions we have asked the President to forthrightly answer.
But, don’t worry. At least those decisions will be “more transparent and accountable.” For more (and better) “sense,” see the Family Research Council’s, “10 Reasons Rationing is in the Health Care Overhaul.”
Then, there is this beautiful exchange:
NONSENSE: Health Reform [sic] will mean that taxpayers have to pay for abortions.
SENSE: There is nothing in the bills before Congress that taxpayer-funded plans will pay for abortion. The Hyde Amendment, a law passed many years ago, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. The original House bill did not contain the word abortion. In the last of three committees to consider the reform package, Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA) successfully offered an amendment to ensure that federal funds would not be used to fund abortions. The amendment, considered by many to be a compromise measure, was supported by Catholics United, who opposed abortions, as well as NARAL, who supports choice. PolitiFact [sic] rated the claim that government funds would be used to fund abortion as False.
Not a whole lot needs to be said to refute this claim. But, we will point out that the Hyde Amendment is one that President Obama has said he is opposed (“. . . the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy . . .”).
But, perhaps the best way to refute this, to borrow from the President, “extraordinary lie,” is to quote from FactCheck.org, a left-leaning website:
The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new “public” insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that “reproductive services” would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the “public plan” would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions “fabrications.”
We call upon the West Virginians for Affordable Health Care to retract their misleading statements and correct the record.
About Jeremy Dys
Jeremy Dys is the FPCWV's President and General Counsel. In addition to his duties of providing strategic vision and leadership to the FPCWV, Dys is the chief lobbyist and spokesman. Dys is regularly featured in local, state, and national print, radio, and television outlets. He lives close to Charleston with his wife and growing family.