President Barack Obama campaigned last
fall on promises of bipartisan outreach
and explicit repudiation of the act-now, ask-questions-later governing style
that he ascribed to President George W. Bush. Given that sales pitch, and
its
contrast with the breakneck pace at which Obama has pushed party-line
passage
of a health-care plan that even he admits he is not fully familiar with,
it's
no wonder many voters now feel buyer's remorse.
Public approval of Obama's leadership and his health-care plan has been
dwindling in recent weeks. Criticism of the plan's trillion-plus price tag
and
Obama's attempts to short-circuit debate on its merits is mounting among
congressional Democrats as well as Republicans. Meanwhile, a series of bleak
reports from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office have undercut
White
House claims that the plan's monstrous cost will be offset by savings down
the
road.
As troubling as the plan's fiscal note may be, Americans have more to fear
from
Obamacare than tax hikes and exploding deficits.
One concern is the plan's potential to promote taxpayer-funded abortion.
Several provisions in the 1,018-page House bill pave the way for federal
funding and mandating of abortion coverage. The only way to block such
federal
subsidies for abortion is to explicitly exclude abortion from
taxpayer-funded
health care or health insurance — something several lawmakers have tried and
failed to do in recent days.
Polls show that most Americans object to Uncle Sam using their tax dollars
to
subsidize abortion. That probably explains why the White House has dodged
questions on this issue and why Obama recently deflected a query by
cautioning
Americans to focus on the plan's cost savings and "not get distracted by the
abortion debate." Abortion-rights activists such as Frances Kissling hope
Americans take Obama's advice. As Kissling candidly admitted in a recent
Salon.com article, "The longer it takes to pass a plan, the more momentum
against including coverage for abortion — and possibly contraception — will
build."
Even if pro-life legislators succeed in barring abortion funding in the
plan,
there are plenty more reasons to fear its impact on the vulnerable and
voiceless. A major concern is the creation of a Health Benefits Advisory
Committee that would make medical coverage decisions for all
government-supported plans. This committee, to be stacked with the White
House's own hand-picked "experts," would have next to no public
accountability.
Physicians must answer to their patients; private insurers must answer to
the
market; members of Congress must answer to voters. But the members of this
unelected board would operate under no such checks or balances when deciding
which medical services to cover or mandate and which ones to ration or deny.
The rationing of health care, particularly to the disabled, demented and
elderly, is not a far-fetched scenario. It is a fact of life in nations such
as
Britain, where the government-run health system routinely denies British
citizens many crucial treatments and medications that are typically covered
in
the United States. Britain's rationing decisions are made by the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence board, which uses a
mathematical
formula to determine the value of the individual life in question. The
creation
of a similar board here in the United States, one emboldened by a
health-care
plan that also calls for regular end-of-life counseling for the elderly,
could
do a great deal of harm in a culture that already treats human life with too
little respect.
Obama recently told a group of liberal bloggers that when it comes to health
care, "The time for talk is through." Judging by public unease with the
president's plan, many Americans disagree. We want — and deserve — more time
to
consider the hidden costs of Obamacare, costs that are moral as well as
fiscal.
Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host and St.
Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is
www.colleen-campbell.com.