affordable health care act and section 1303

JCricket · #1 04-25-2012, 12:09 AM

I looked for a thread on this but couldn't find it. If I missed would someone please direct me to it.

Has anyone here tried to read the affordable health care act. I read about 20 pages or so.

Section 1303 is the section that requires all people who participate in the program to pay a portion to a fund, a minimum of $1, for abortions.

So any thoughts on this? Unconstitional or???

I put this in conspiracy theory because it seemed so blatantly obvious that I had to wondered if this was some sort of sabatoge from the get go for this bill.

Thoughts?

d-ray657 · #2 04-25-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

I looked for a thread on this but couldn't find it. If I missed would someone please direct me to it.

Has anyone here tried to read the affordable health care act. I read about 20 pages or so.

Section 1303 is the section that requires all people who participate in the program to pay a portion to a fund, a minimum of $1, for abortions.

So any thoughts on this? Unconstitional or???

I put this in conspiracy theory because it seemed so blatantly obvious that I had to wondered if this was some sort of sabatoge from the get go for this bill.

Thoughts?

That's not the way I read it. Under most circumstances, federal law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion. Some states require medical plans to cover abortion services. The program in section 1303 provides a means for segregating funds in those states that require abortion services to be provided so that the funds are available for such services without federal funds being used. The only $1 figure is the minimum actuarial value that must be placed on such services per participant for purpose of segregating funds that may legally be used for abortions. I don't see a conspiracy, but instead, a bow to federalism by accommodating state laws.

Regards,

D-Ray

JCricket · #3 04-25-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That's not the way I read it. Under most circumstances, federal law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion. Some states require medical plans to cover abortion services. The program in section 1303 provides a means for segregating funds in those states that require abortion services to be provided so that the funds are available for such services without federal funds being used. The only $1 figure is the minimum actuarial value that must be placed on such services per participant for purpose of segregating funds that may legally be used for abortions. I don't see a conspiracy, but instead, a bow to federalism by accommodating state laws.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray,
Had anyone else written this i would have siad they were nuts.
I went back and reread several more times the act. Yep, 1303 is about segregating funds.

BUT, I didn't see where it eliminated everybody paing into the fund for abortions wether you agreed with them or not. I think this is the point the religious right is making.

So, please set me straight, what gives?
TIA!

d-ray657 · #4 04-25-2012, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

D-Ray,
Had anyone else written this i would have siad they were nuts.
I went back and reread several more times the act. Yep, 1303 is about segregating funds.

BUT, I didn't see where it eliminated everybody paing into the fund for abortions wether you agreed with them or not. I think this is the point the religious right is making.

So, please set me straight, what gives?
TIA!

I think it is really a question of state law. Section 1303 only comes into play in those states where state law requires that medical coverage include coverage for abortions. In those states, the segregation is necessary in order to create a plan that complies with both state and federal law. The money can't come from the feds, so it has to come from somewhere - and that would be from the fund participants.

Regards,

D-Ray

JCricket · #5 04-25-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I think it is really a question of state law. Section 1303 only comes into play in those states where state law requires that medical coverage include coverage for abortions. In those states, the segregation is necessary in order to create a plan that complies with both state and federal law. The money can't come from the feds, so it has to come from somewhere - and that would be from the fund participants.

Regards,

D-Ray

That is how I read it too. But, how is it decided which fund participants have to pay and which don't? I think that is the question that is causing hte uproar. Am I missing something? Is this defined within the text of the act?

Mushy minds want to know.

Charles · #6 04-26-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket

That is how I read it too. But, how is it decided which fund participants have to pay and which don't? I think that is the question that is causing hte uproar. Am I missing something? Is this defined within the text of the act?

Mushy minds want to know.

Free advice is worth exactly what it costs.

Chas

BlueStreak · #7 04-25-2012, 10:19 AM

Only a lawyer could write a paragraph like that.

Can we have some laymans terms, counsellor?

Dave

d-ray657 · #8 04-25-2012, 10:54 AM

Try this.
The ACA provides financial assistance for health insurance coverage.

As a general rule, you can't use federal funds to pay for abortions. Therefore, the financial assistance provided under the ACA can't be used to purchase abortion coverage.

Some state laws require health insurance to cover abortions.

The ACA was written to not interfere with state regulation of abortion.

In order to comply with state rules that require health insurance funds to cover abortion and federal rules that prohibit funding of abortions, the administrator of the ACA must do some fancy accounting to segregate funds to cover abortions from federal funding for other health coverage.

The statute requires actuarial studies to determine the actual cost per participant for providing abortion coverage, and funding from other sources must be at least enough to cover abortions in those states that require health insurance to cover abortions. The minimum amount that must be segregated per participant is one dollar.

Put more simply, section 1303 outlines the gyrations that congress went through to make sure that no one who voted for the HCA had so say that he or she voted federal funds for abortions.

But - the section is also an example of including some federalism in the statute, because all of those gyrations are necessary to not override state regulation of abortion funding.

Regards,

D-Ray

P.S. Blue, it took more than one lawyer to write that monstrosity.