Repealing Obamacare is at the top of the priority list for Republicans who now have full control of Congress.
However, repealing and replacing a monstrous and complex law like the Affordable Care Act isn’t an easy task. There are several replacement plans and several hurdles that need to be overcome.
According to one healthcare professional, the replacement plan could potentially have some things inside it that conservatives won’t like.
An experienced healthcare policy researcher observes that the Obamacare “replacement” plan put forward by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) not only would allow for taxpayer funding of abortion, but would actually expand its funding over that provided in the original Obamacare law.
Writing at The Federalist, Christopher Jacobs, founder and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Juniper Research Group, says the Patient Freedom Act (PFA) sends a “strikingly different message” from that demonstrated in House Republicans’ recent approval of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.
A former senior policy analyst in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, and a senior policy analyst with the Joint Economic Committee’s Senate Republican staff, Jacobs writes the PFA, “would go further than Obamacare in funding abortion coverage.”
“Whereas Obamacare provides federal funding for insurance plans that cover abortion, the Patient Freedom Act would allow for direct federal funding of abortion procedures themselves,” he adds.
Because the PFA itself includes no restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, it’s critical to examine the source of funding for the new state-based allotments. While the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion, it does so only for appropriations provided through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ spending bill. Other agencies covered through other spending bills must explicitly prohibit funding of abortion coverage, otherwise federal funding of abortion would be permitted—and potentially required by courts as a necessary medical service.
— Advertisement —
The article goes into more detail about an issue that is definitely a complicated web of legalese but if the conclusion of this healthcare professional is true then Republicans have a real mess on their hands.