Two reasons, really: 1) rationing, 2) taxpayer funding of abortion. The former doesn’t get enough attention, so it is worth considering this from the National Right to Life Committee, which explains why H.R. 3962 will lead to rationing:
The National Right to Life Committee has long warned that over-promising and under-funding is a recipe for future rationing. That is, if a bill passes providing subsidies for the uninsured without providing an adequate funding source for it, not only now but as health care spending rises in the future, the likely result will be cutting back on the treatments and tests available not only for the newly subsidized but also for those covered by other government health care programs, notably Medicare for senior citizens.
That is, from a pro-life angle, health care reform under the Barack Obama-Nancy Pelosi model is not only seriously problematic, but beyond correction. It goes way beyond funding abortion, which only the most odious part of a generally odious bill. The simple law of supply and demand will eventually mean bureaucrats making health care decisions in a world of finite resources: that means rationing.
Of course, funding abortion continues to be an important battle on the health care fight. It is worth remembering that the pro-aborts lie. As Jill Stanek notes:
Didn’t pro-aborts spend an inordinate amount of time claimingpublic funding of abortion wasn’t included in any of the healthcare bills before House pro-lifers added an amendment specifying there would be no public funding in its healthcare bill?
Yet the hornet’s nest that said abortion wasn’t in healthcare has been stirred into a frenzy because abortion has been aborted from healthcare.
Speaking of which, Senator Ben Nelson (D, Neb.) seems to have backtracked on his insistence that the Senate version of Obamacare have a Stupak-like amendment prohibiting direct or indirect funding of abortion. CNN reports:
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who last week insisted that the Senate health care bill include tight restrictions passed by the House on the use of federal money for abortion coverage, now says he would be satisfied with the less restrictive language approved by the Senate Finance Committee.